Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

Report REVEALS What Disney Execs Really Think Of Jimmy Kimmel
The Damage Report
Sep 18 2025

Disney’s ABC announced Wednesday that it has pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air “indefinitely” after the late-night host’s Monday remarks about the alleged motives of the man accused of fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk. John Iadarola breaks it down on The Damage Report. Leave a comment with your thoughts below!



Transcript

Jimmy Kimmel hasn't been locked up yet.
We are, after all, only about nine
months into this regime. But already,
he's not even the first comedian that's
lost his job for committing again the
unforgivable sin of mocking the
president, of doing the main thing a
late night person is supposed to do. And
so all these companies that put out the
show, not actually ABC, are putting out
these statements. Andrew Alfred's the
president of NextStar says uh his
comments are offensive and insensitive
at a critical time in our national
political discourse. It is a critical
time in our national political
discourse. It is a critical time in no
small part because the right is using it
to wage culture warfare to try to do
their cancel culture and the idea that
we I I'll even lump myself in with Jimmy
Kimmel and I will remind you by the way
both Stephen Kimmel and Jimmy Steven
Cobar and Jimmy Kimmel they're not
commies they're straight down the middle
centrist Democrats or whatever and even
they are offending the delicate
sensibilities of the right also still
allowed to express themselves.
It is not offensive to say that the
right doesn't really care about the
identity of the shooter as long as it's
not one of them. That is an objective
fact. It is not offensive to mock Donald
Trump when what he did was so obviously
ridiculous. If you truly care about
Charlie Kirk, you should be offended by
what Donald Trump said. How could he
possibly act like that? And then go to
the Yankees game and he's he's dancing
and he's having so much fun. That is
offensive. Not what Jimmy Kimmel said.
And Jimmy Kimmel's not even on your side
of the aisle. Why do you care so much
about what some guy you don't even watch
says? You should care about the guy that
you worship, the ground that he walks
on. And yet, you have less expectation
for your dear leader than you do for a
comedian that you don't even watch.
In any event, we should remind you as
all this is going on that the cover
story for this cancellation is that
Jimmy Kimmel said a thing and he's being
uh fired. That's not what is happening
at all. That's the cover story. That's
the wrapping paper. But the present is
fascism and corruption. It's
authoritarianism. That's what's going
on. We know that both Disney and
NextStar, the two companies most
integrally involved in this, including
Sinclair, we'll talk about them, uh,
have FCC business ahead of them. Disney
is seeking regulatory approval for
ESPN's acquisition of the NFL Network.
Next needs the Trump administration's
go-ahead to complete its $6.2 billion
purchase of broadcast rival, Tegna. So
Disney and NextStar are in a very
similar position that Coar's employer
was in. All of them have these big
business things that they need the okay
of the Trump administration for. And
they know that the Trump administration
is corrupt and petty enough to deny it.
And so they're giving into fascism
because it's in their financial interest
to do so in this particular case. And we
know this is not speculation like it
normally is. This is not me
hypothesizing about what led to this.
This is what the sources in the room say
happened in the hours leading up to the
decision to pull Kimmel. Two sources
familiar with the matter say senior
executives at ABC, its owner Disney, and
affiliates convened emergency meetings
to figure out how to minimize the
damage. Multiple execs felt that Kimmel
had not actually said anything over the
line. But the threat of Trump
administration retaliation loomed. They
were pissing themselves all day. That's
a direct quote. And so they did not
believe that what he said went beyond
the line. They were not getting pressure
from their actual viewers to pull him.
This was purely, "Oh, dear God, our
authoritarian leader might well either
reject our bid to purchase this company,
might pull our broadcast license,
whatever, might pull us into Congress to
testify. So, we have to sacrifice Jimmy
Kimmel on the altar of the deer leader."
And that is what they did. and
specifically Bob Iger, CEO of Disney,
Dana Walden, the television chief,
apparently individually made the call.
So if you want to know who you should be
mad at, first of all, that list is long.
But the CEO of Disney is undoubtedly on
that list. He made the call. He decided
to bow down. And if you want to look
into the history of Disney, maybe this
is in keeping, you know, with the uh
ideology of the guy who set it up. But
in any event, NextStar uh has also
recently praised the Trump
administration because again, you need
to when you have a corrupt authoritarian
leader in charge, saying the initiatives
being pursued by the Trump
administration offer local broadcasters
the opportunity to expand reach, level
the playing field, and compete more
effectively with the big tech and legacy
big media companies that have unchecked
reach and vast financial resources.
Trump is just trying to help the little
guy out. Is that what's going on? Do you
know what NextStar is trying to do?
NextStar uh is trying to acquire uh the
ability to do more local TV stations.
They want to control 265 local TV
stations across 44 states. That would
represent about 80% of American
households, which is twice the current
limit of what is allowed.
Local news. They want to control 80% of
the market. Yeah. They they need we
desperately need more reach. I mean,
there's all these titans that are just
beating us. Oh, thank God Trump is a
champion for the little guy. Yeah. No,
this is a massive business decision. And
uh we're going to talk about Sinclair.
There's some ideology in there, too. But
you should be absolutely ped all these
companies. And if you want to engage in
a boycott of them, I think they are
begging for you to boycott them in the
same way that people were calling for
after Co Bear. And honestly, get ready
for the same boycots for Seth Meyers and
Jimmy Fallon and John Stewart and John
Oliver as well because it is never going
to be enough for these pathetic little
fascist babies, these little whiners.
They will not stop until every single
person who dares to do anything other
than lick Donald Trump's swollen cankles
is taken off of the air. And so if I
were those other people, I would start
doing some brainstorming about your next
steps about whether you're going to set
up a podcast or a YouTube show or
something like that. Because
unfortunately, as long as you work for a
major corporation that either does or
might soon have business before the
Trump administration, they are always
going to choose their bottom line over
their commitment to supposed values of
free speech or free expression or
whatever. Sinclair Broadcasting is uh
one of the companies that is uh shutting
down Jimmy Kimmel, putting pressure on
Disney and ABC to never bring him back.
And if you're familiar with Sinclair,
maybe you've watched John Oliver's
episode on it. They're incredibly
conservative and don't have much respect
historically for freedom of speech. But
they are going way beyond that now. Way
way beyond that in such an insulting
manner that I think this is going to
very much back up backfire on them. So,
they own 30 ABC affiliates across the
United States, and so they joined that
other company, NextStar, in saying,
"We're not going to broadcast Jimmy
Kimmel, uh, for the foreseeable future."
Uh, right now, they're planning to air a
Charlie Kirk Remembrance special on
Friday in Kimmel's usual time slot. And
regardless, it said it won't air Jimmy
Kimmel again until certain conditions
were met. Among other things, those
conditions include the demand that
Kimmel apologize to the Kirk family, who
it should be noted Kimmel did not joke
about, and make an unspecified donation
to their organizations. And to be clear,
in other reporting, it says they demand
that Jimmy Kimmel make a significant
contribution not only to Turning Point
USA, a conservative organization pushing
for all sorts of stuff that is directly
opposed to Jimmy Kimmel's own values and
the values of most people watching this,
most reasonable people, I would say. But
also, he has to pay that family. He
never joked about the family. He never
joked about Charlie Kirk. He mocked the
MAGA movement. He mocked Donald Trump
for pretending to grieve when he clearly
can't even keep it up for a couple
minutes. They're saying you have to cut
a check to the Kirk family. They are
going to extort a comedian to
individually pay conservatives so that
he can be given his job back. Maybe,
maybe not even then. God only knows what
else. You have to apologize. We want you
to gravel comedian. You think you live
in a free country. You think you have
freedom of speech. No. you dish out
millions of dollars to advance political
interests that you find to be
reprehensible and maybe we'll let you on
the air again. But if we ever do let you
on the air, let's be very clear, you
better keep politics as far as possible
away from anything you say. You think if
Jimmy Kimmel were to be brought back
right now, and that still could be
possible, why would he come back? Does
anybody think that he would feel free?
Does anyone think that he would feel
that ABC or Disney would have his back
the next time he dares to critique the
powerful, the rich, donors, maybe
politicians? I mean, how dare he? He's
already temporarily gotten fired for
being willing to do that. Does anyone
think that they wouldn't do it again?
Look, Jimmy Kimmel has to think about
far more than just himself. Anytime a
show like this gets cancelled or
something, we often think it's about
that person making a decision. Jimmy
Kimmel's fired. Let's be clear, it is
not just Jimmy Kimmel that's fired. His
show has about 200 employees. That is
possibly 200 families whose lives have
been upended in this right-wing culture
war, this cancel culture that we're
seeing. And so, look, if he ends up
wanting to cut the check or do the
apology to save the hundreds of families
that rely on his job, then I'm not going
to get down on him. I don't I don't want
to see it, but I'm not going to get mad
at him if he does do it. But these
people, I mean, Sinclair, they are just
active participants in fascism here.
They know exactly what they're doing.
They know who it benefits. And this is
not going to be the end of it. Not for
Jimmy Kimmel, not for any other
broadcaster. Everyone with a platform
right now needs to stop and think very
seriously about the time we're in and
which side of history they want to be
on. And some of you, maybe all of you,
will have to risk your jobs and your
livelihood.
But I would argue that what is up for
grabs, the stakes in all this are so
much more significant than just one
person's reach, one person's platform.
Do not back off. Don't yield, man. In
the words of Mike Johnson, don't don't
give in either to backing off of
criticism, backing off of the
terminology. It was fascism before this
horrific event. It's fascism right now.
Trump is an authoritarian ruler. Trump
wants to be a dictator. And I don't care
if that hurts his feelings. I don't care
if this tiny orange painted foundation
caked bruised scrotum's feeling gets
hurt over this. We're going to continue
to call it like it is. And I hope that
Jimmy Kimmel does. I hope that Seth
Meyers comes out and sets fire to the
Trump administration tonight. I hope
John Oliver devotes every second of his
program this week to this cancel
culture. I hope Jimmy Fallon, well, he's
not going to do anything. Let's be very
clear about that. Jimmy Fallon ain't
gonna swing for the fences on this one.
But maybe he'll surprise me. Maybe he'll
do a song, a parody song or something.
Every one of us needs to decide which
side we want to be on. And if you choose
wrong, then people should come for them.
You should criticize them, boycott them,
whatever. Because the stakes are as high
as they could possibly be.
Hey,

**********************

Backlash Coming As Right-Wing Celebrates Jimmy Kimmel Suspension
The Damage Report
1.23M subscribers
Sep 18, 2025 The Damage Report
President Donald Trump is intensifying his criticism of comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension. John Iadarola breaks it down on The Damage Report. Leave a comment with your thoughts below!

Read more here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entert...

"President Donald Trump is doubling down on comedian Jimmy Kimmel's suspension.
Trump, a frequent critic of Kimmel and the entire late-night host lineup, first took to Truth Social late Wednesday, Sept. 18, to deride Kimmel's ratings and throw some shots at Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon.

"Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED. Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done," Trump wrote. "Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!! President DJT""



Transcript

He has ended all federal censorship of
free speech. This has been one of the
greatest crises that has plagued this
nation. Years and years and years, the
federal government violating the First
Amendment to take away Americans right
of free speech. President Trump has
ended that. And he has demanded that all
federal workers, all law enforcement
cease any effort to intimidate the
rights of Americans or to police their
speech.
Here's here's the problem. It's not just
that I disagree with Kla Harris on on
policy, on substance. It's that Kla
Harris has run this campaign around
censorship instead of persuasion. Now,
whatever your views are, what whether
you disagree or agree with me and
President Trump on a particular issue,
I'm going to make a solemn promise to
you that we're going to fight for the
First Amendment, and we're going to
fight for your right to speak your mind
even and maybe especially when you
disagree with us. And I banned all
government censorship and restored free
speech in America. We have free speech.
We didn't have free speech.
And you could also throw in the we we
finally legalized comedy. Man, the libs
didn't want comedy be legalized. We
finally did it. So, uh I assume that
most of you are savvy enough that you
never bought that. Those were always
lies. whether on the campaign trail or
on grifting podcasts or in tweets, they
never meant any of it. We never believed
it. Certainly here at the time and it
has been proven to be maybe maybe among
the most ridiculous lies that they ever
told. The idea that they want to protect
free speech. They're not interested in
protecting free speech. They're
interested in protecting their speech.
They don't want consequences. And I get
it. Most humans are very selfish and
they are insanely selfish in this way,
but they have no interest in protecting
the speech of people they disagree with.
And right now, they're all taking a
victory lap. They're all so happy that
they have finally slain the titan of
Jimmy Kimmel. So, Donald Trump, who
celebrated when Co Bear was fired just a
couple of months ago, now says, "Great
news for America. The ratings challenge
Jimmy Kimmel show is cancelled.
Congratulations to ABC for h for finally
having the courage." That's funny that
it was courage that made them do it to
do what had to be done. Kimmel had zero
talent and worse ratings than even coair
if that's possible. That leaves Jimmy
and Seth two total losers on fake news
NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do
it NBC. And so there's a lot that's
ridiculous there. First of all, did
Kimmel have talent? I don't know. I
think that we can maybe have a little
conversation about that. I wasn't like a
big viewer of Kimmel for the most part,
but you know what he apparently was
capable of? He was apparently capable in
his commentary, in his satire, in his
comedy of enraging the powerful. And I
don't know if there is a more important
responsibility that a person in his
position has. Does he tell the same sort
of jokes that I might? Does he focus on
the same issues or interview the same
people that I would? No, almost
certainly not. But he was able to get
under the skin of our authoritarian
leadership. And that is an important
thing. That's why they're if he was just
no talent, nobody cares, no ratings,
why is Donald Trump tweeting about it
yet again? Why is he so happy that this
critic of his is gone? If he was so
ineffective, not good with words, not
funny, couldn't get an audience. Why are
you so happy today? Interesting. Weirdly
enough, uh Trump is individually uh very
hypocritical on this. Back in 2013,
Paula Dean lost her show for racism and
Trump tweeted about how she needed to be
saved. Paulyine made a big mistake in
using a forbidden word. You know how
forbidden? He's not even gonna put it in
the tweet. But anyway, but must be given
some credit for admitting her mistake.
She will be back. She has to be back.
Please. She's the most important person.
I mean, she's making biscuits. That's
more important than critiquing the
powerful. Anyway, uh Brennan Carr
himself is the biggest hypocrite in this
entire thing. He's previously tweeted
things like, "Should the government
censor speech it doesn't like?" Of
course not. The FCC does not have a
roving mandate to police speech in the
name of the public interest. That is
exactly what he did. Same terminology he
used or whatever. Uh, President Biden is
right. Political satire is one of the
oldest and most important forms of free
speech. It challenges those in power
while using humor to draw more people
into the discussion. That's why people
in influential positions have always
targeted it for censorship. Oh, those
damn people who want to censor the
comedians. I would never do that until
I'm given the chance and then I will.
Uh, free speech is the counterweight. It
is democracy's check on government
control. That's why censorship is the
authoritarian's dream. Now, wait a
second. Is Brendan Carr calling Donald
Trump and people like him
authoritarians? Maybe he should lose his
job. That's causing extremism. That's
leading to violence, I'm told, recently.
And so, here's the thing. Does Brendan
Carr care that we're pointing out the
hypocrisy? No. None of them do. They are
all that they the only value they have
is self-interest but by hypocrisy rules
for thee not for me. They know that.
That's why he's able to go online and
like uh send to Brian Stelter. He's like
he's doing the office thing cuz ah I
said I was against censorship. You can
bring it up anytime you want. I was said
I was against censorship but like it
turned out I actually was and I was able
to get him down. Can we bring up the
Thank you. Uh, so he's sending that. And
by the way, I saw he was responding to
literally one of the kids from Glee who
pointed out that this was censorship and
he posted a Oh, no. The the the kid from
Glee uh was saying that this was from
Project 2025 and Brandon Carr puts the
meme of Jack uh Nicholas like Yeah.
Yeah. See, they're happy. They're h
because it doesn't matter. I mean, we
used the supposed attachment to free
speech to protect us and now we could
use it to get you. It's all coming up
fascist. Ha. But is it actually? Is it
really? I mean, I know that they're
getting what they want now. There's a
couple different ways that I'm not sure
they're necessarily going to like this
long term. Uh, first of all, if you've
now normalize that the FCC can put
pressure on companies to take out
individual hosts or remove shows, that's
now a thing that can be done. And you
love it when Trump does it. You'd love
it if Vance does it. Would you love it
if President AOC did it? Would you love
it if President Nuome were to do it?
President Buddhajed, President Crockett,
would you enjoy that? Because I don't
know, you're normalizing the American
people to expect this sort of thing. So
maybe you'll end up seeing that. But
even before that, even if we never get
to that point, even if their attempt to
control elections and flood the streets
with soldiers and make it so we never
have a free election again actually
works, uh I do want to remind you one
thing that you seem to think was very
important to your side was we want to be
cool again. We want to be edgy. We want
to get the young people. All of you
goddamn woke scold squares. You don't
get it. You're always controlling speech
and all that. That's why we got the
Roans. That's why we got the young
people and everything. And they are so
high on the dopamine hit of cancel
culture that they're missing that
they've set that on fire. any perception
that a young person entering into
politics might have that the left is
sensorious and the right is free speech.
Who the hell would think that? Now
you're like literally they're looking at
this. These are people by the way who
would never watch Steven Cobear, would
never watch Jimmy Kimmel and they're
like dear God you guys are getting them
cancelled. You're shutting down
comedians. South Park has to delay an
episode because they're worried about
offending the delicate sensibilities and
Fifi of JD Vance and Donald Trump. So,
forget about the Next Generation. The
idea that you guys are cool and edgy or
whatever. I get that you still have some
Rumble shows where they traffic and
anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. And I
guess that's edgy for some young people,
but the idea that you represent free
speech, that is way in your rearview
mirror now, and I don't think you're
ever getting it back. And uh I just
wanted to point out two more things
before we move on. And I know we're
going on for a long time, but this is
the story of the day. That's just how it
works out. Uh EW Neermmeer uh tweeted
this, or I think it was on Blue Sky
says, "If Jimmy Kimmel's political humor
is too hot for you to handle, I'm not
sure snowflake even cuts it as a term of
derision for the level of fragility
you've achieved." No. No. A a snowflake
can keep itself together a little bit.
These guys are they're as sensitive as
like a freshly bruised scrotum. It's
like, "Don't come near me. I can't take
it. I can't take Jimmy Kimmel's comedy.
That's who these people are. They are a
bruised blue and purple scrotum. And
they need to be handled so delicately.
They're not made for the real world.
They can't exist out there. Cover them
up. Boxers, a cup, I don't know,
something made of metal. Don't tap them.
They could get hurt. And by the way, I
also like the the effort of all these
people to like to claim that they were
victims or whatever. Roseanne Bar popped
up once again to say, "Yeah, imagine an
administration putting pressure on a
television channel to fire a comedian
they didn't like." And I saw that I
thought, "Oh wait, oh wait, did Oh my
god. Did Biden do that? It was a while
ago that Roseanne got cancelled." No.
No. Trump was in office when that
happened. Does she not know? Is she on
so much ambient that she doesn't even
know that she was cancelled while
Republicans controlled the White House?
Man, these people want to put everything
on of Biden. Well, it's Rosanne Bar. She
might want to put it on Obama for
reasons that should be abundantly clear.
But anyway, yeah. No, they're all
utterly pathetic.
[Music]

[admin]

If We Do Not Have The Ability To Criticize Our Leaders, We Are No Longer The U.S.A. - Jake Tapper
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
Sep 19, 2025 #Colbert #Comedy #JakeTapper

Best-selling author and CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jake Tapper joins Stephen to discuss the Trump administration’s role in Disney’s decision to take “Jimmy Kimmel Live” off the air. Stick around for more with Jake Tapper and check out his book, “Race Against Terror,” available October 7th.



Transcript

>> Stephen: WELCOME BACK, EVERYBODY.
IT SMELLS LIKE CHEAP COLOGNE OVER HERE.
WELCOME BACK. WELCOME BACK, MY FRIENDS.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY FIRST GUEST TONIGHT
IS A NEW YORK TIMES BEST-SELLING AUTHOR, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON
CORRESPONDENT, AND ANCHOR OF "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER."
PLEASE WELCOME BACK TO "THE LATE SHOW,"
JAKE TAPPER! [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]
♪ ♪ HI.
♪ ♪ HI.
>> Jake: HELLO. >> Stephen: NICE TO SEE YOU
AGAIN. TO BE TWO THINGS ARE GREAT.
>> Stephen: YEAH, EVERYTHING IS GREAT.
WE HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER FOR A LONG TIME FOR YOUR POLITICAL
REPORTER. >> Jake: 21 YEARS.
>> Stephen: 21 YEARS. WHO'S COUNTING?
I WOULD IMAGINE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
>> Jake: IT'S MY FAVORITE. >> Stephen: HOW MUCH OF WHAT
WE ARE SEEING, OF WHAT WENT DOWN YESTERDAY WITH KIMMEL AND ABC
AND BRENDAN CARR, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE
VERSUS THE MISUSE OF EXECUTIVE POWER BY THE PRESIDENCY?
TECHNICALLY THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.
BUT THIS IS THE -- THIS ISN'T CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT PULLED A FEW LEVERS AND POPPED HIM OUT OF
THERE LIKE A STUCK CLAM. >> Jake: LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TO
YOU, WE THINK WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
BUT IT WAS ALL BEHIND CLOSE DOORS.
>> Stephen: THE NETWORK HAD A RATIONALE.
THE SHOWS HAD RUN THEIR COURSE. >> Jake: THE TIMING WAS, AS
THE KIDS SAY, SUS. >> Stephen: WOW.
WHO IS KING? >> Jake: VERY HIP.
PUT THAT ON YOUR TIKTOK. >> Stephen: 6-7.
>> Jake: THAT'S VERY NICE. WHAT HAPPENED WITH BRENDAN CARR,
AS YOU KNOW, THE FCC CHAIRMAN, GOING ON A RIGHT-WING PODCAST
AND SAYING DISNEY NEEDS TO CHANGE ITS BEHAVIOR.
DISNEY OBVIOUSLY OWNS ABC. AND ALL THOSE LOCAL TV NETWORKS,
YOU NEED TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO CARRY THIS QUOTE, UNQUOTE,
GARBAGE ANYMORE. THAT WAS
IT 1:01 P.M. THAT WAS AT
1:01 P.M. YESTERDAY AND BY 5:00, NEXT ARE AS YOU NOTED EARLIER,
THE BIGGEST OWNER OF LOCAL TV NEWS STATIONS THAT NEEDS BRENDAN
CARR TO GIVE A SEAL OF APPROVAL. SO THEY CAN BREAK A RULE, AND
FCC RULE SAYING THEY CAN'T OWN -- BUT NOBODY CAN OWN MORE THAN
ENOUGH TV STATIONS TO REACH 39% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT'S THE RUE RIGHT NOW. AND FOR THEM TO BUY THIS
COMPETITOR THEY NEED BRENDAN CARR TO BE LIKE NO, WE'LL GET
RID OF THAT RULE. BRENDAN CARR SIGNAL HE WANTS
LOCAL MEDIA TO STOP CARRYING THIS SPEECH AT THIS SPEAKER THAT
TRUMP DOESN'T APPROVE OF. GOT IT.
GOT THE MESSAGE AND RESELL IT HAPPEN.
THIS IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT
IS THE GOVERNMENT TELLING COMPANIES WHAT TO DO WITH THE
IMPLICIT THREAT OF "HE SAID WE CAN DO THIS THE EASY WAY OR WE
CAN DO THIS THE HARD WAY. AND THEY CHOSE THE EASY WAY.
>> Stephen: WELCOME OF THE FCC, IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE AN
INDEPENDENT INSTITUTION? >> Jake: INDEPENDENT AGENCY,
QUOTE, UNQUOTE. >> Stephen: YOU COULD TAKE THE
QUOTES OFF I SUPPOSE NOW. THROW THEM IN THE GARBAGE.
THROUGH THE WORDS IN THE GARBAGE TOO.
>> Jake: FTC, FEC, THEY ARE ALL SEMI-INDEPENDENT AGENCIES.
>> Stephen: HAS IT BEEN POLITICIZED BEFORE THIS?
>> Jake: NOT TO THIS DEGREE. I'VE NEVER SEEN AN FTC CHAIRMAN
CALL FOR A DIRECT ACTION BY LOCAL AFFILIATES TO DO SOMETHING
TO REMOVE A SPEAKER AND SPEECH THAT THEY DON'T LIKE.
IT'S CHILLING AND IT'S ACTUALLY THE EXACT OPPOSITE --
THESE WERE SUPPOSEDLY GOING TO BE THE FREE-SPEECH CHAMPIONS.
>> Stephen: THAT WAS PART OF THE CAMPAIGN.
THEY WERE TIRED OF BEING CENSORED.
FREE-SPEECH ABSOLUTISTS. >> Jake: I WILL ALSO SIGN AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER TO IMMEDIATELY STOP ALL GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP
AND BRING BACK FREE SPEECH TO NEVER AGAIN WILL THE IMMENSE
POWER OF THE STATE THE WEAPONIZED TO PERSECUTE
POLITICAL OPPONENTS. DONALD TRUMP.
JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. [BOOING]
AND GUESS WHO THIS IS. "UNDER DONALD TRUMP'S LEADERSHIP
WE MAY DISAGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS BUT WE WILL FIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR
RIGHT TO OFFER IT IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE."
GUESS WHO THAT IS. >> Stephen: IS THAT BRENDAN
CARR? >> Jake: THAT IS J.D. VANCE,
OUR VICE PRESIDENT. >> Stephen: OKAY.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT J.D. VANCE SOMETIMES SAYS ONE THING AND
DOES THE OTHER? YOU SOUND LIKE A GUY WHO DOESN'T
WANT A TV SHOW ANYMORE. >> Jake: IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE
ABILITY TO CRITICIZE, MOCK, INVESTIGATE OUR LEADERS, THEN WE
ARE NO LONGER THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
[APPLAUSE] YOU REFERENCED GEORGE WA
GEORGE WASHINGTON -- BY THE WAY, IT WAS GREAT TO SEE
THAT GUY, STEPHEN COLBERT. >> Stephen: IT SMELLS LIKE
CHEAP COLOGNE OVER HERE NOW. >> Jake: I MISS THAT MUSK.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, MY PERSONAL FAVORITE FOUNDING FATHER IS A
GUY NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S GRANDSON, HA
NEWSPAPER. HE RIPPED INTO
GEORGE WASHINGTON. HE COVERED THE FACT THAT
WASHINGTON HAD. GEORGE WASHINGTON DOESN'T EVEN
DRAW SALARY. HE TREATS THE TREASURY AS IF
IT'S HIS OWN BANK ACCOUNT. IT'S IN THE LIFEBLOOD OF THIS
COUNTRY. HE DID THE SAME TO JOHN ADAMS.
JOHN ADAMS PASSED THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACT.
THROUGH HIM IN PRISON. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE.
AND THA IT EXPIRED AND SINCE THEN PRESIDENTS WHO HAD AN
UNEASY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESS BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN
ANYTHING LIKE THIS. >> Stephen: WE HAVE TO TAKE A
QUICK BREAK. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK WITH MORE
JAKE TAPPER, EVERYBODY. STICK AROUND.

**************************************

Brendan Carr’s Threat To ABC Seemed Like Something Out Of “Goodfellas” - David Remnick
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
Sep 19, 2025 #Colbert #Comedy #DavidRemnick

Pulitzer Prize-winning author and “The New Yorker” editor David Remnick reacts to the words of FCC chairman Brendan Carr, who said “we can do this the easy way or the hard way” in comments aimed at ABC regarding Jimmy Kimmel. His documentary, “The New Yorker at 100,” will premiere on Netflix on December 5th.



Transcript

>> Stephen: WELCOME BACK, EVERYBODY.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY NEXT GUEST IS A PULITZER
PRIZE-WINNING EXPERT ON RUSSIA AND THE EDITOR OF
"THE NEW YORKER" MAGAZINE. PLEASE WELCOME TO
"THE LATE SHOW," DAVID REMNICK!
[APPLAUSE] GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
>> David: GREAT TO SEE YOU. >> Stephen: "THE NEW YORKER"
HAS BEEN CALLED THE GREATEST MAGAZINE OF ALL TIME PERIODS TO
DO IT YOU ARE A NEW YORKER WRITER NOW.
>> Stephen: I AM. SIGNIFICANT ONLINE PRESENCE.
MAJOR MEDIA FIGURE. YOUR FAMILIAR WITH HOW
FREE-SPEECH CAN BE STIFLED. IT WAS YOUR REACTION WHEN YOU
HEARD THAT BASED UPON WHAT JIMMY HAD SAID ON MONDAY NIGHT AND
WHAT BRENDAN CARR SAID YESTE YESTERDAY, TO HEAR THAT JIMMY
HAD BEEN PULLED OFF THE AIR. >> David: THE BRENDAN CARR
LINE SEEMED LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF ""GOODFELLAS"."
REALLY OMINOUS. WE CAN DO THINGS THE HARD WAY OR
THE EASY WAY. I HAVE TO TELL YOU FROM MY
PARTICULAR EXPERIENCE I AM NO LONGER A KID REPORTER BUT WHEN I
WAS, I WAS LIVING IN MOSCOW IN MY LATE 20s AND MY EARLY
30s. THINGS WERE GETTING BETTER AND
BETTER IN THE WORLD IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, NOT LEAST IN THE
SOVIET UNION. FREE SPEECH WAS ARRIVING FOR THE
FIRST TIME. AFTER A THOUSAND YEARS OF
CZARIST AND DECADES OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THE
BOLSHEVIKS, MIKHAIL GORBACHEV DECIDED TO MODERNIZE THE COUNTRY
AND IN ORDER TO MODERNIZE THE COUNTRY AND BREATHE NEW AIR INTO
IT, WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING HE DID WAS BEGIN WITH SOMETHING
CALLED GLASNOST, FREE EXPRE EXPRESSION.
HE STARTED TO SEE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ABOUT THE INVASION OF
AFGHANISTAN. ABOUT ALCOHOLISM AND SOCIETY.
CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT. THIS WAS INCREDIBLY MEANINGFUL
AND VALUABLE IN WHAT SEEMED TO BE THE BEGINNING OF
MODERNIZATION FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE SOVIET UNION.
IT WAS EXHILARATING. PEOPLE TOOK TO THIS LIKE FISH
TAKE TO THE SEA. IT WAS OXYGEN.
AND TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR COUNTRY TODAY, IN MY
COUNTRY, AND THE -- ONE OF THE THINGS I PRIZE MOST
ABOUT AND LOVE MOST AND MAKE MY LIVING AT IT IS SO DEAR TO ALL
OF US I THINK, TO SEE THIS TREATED SO CAVALIERLY AND SO
CYNICALLY AND SHUT DOWN, TO WATCH US MOVE BACKWARDS AND SEE
IT HAPPENING ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD TOO, EACH IN THEIR OWN
WAY, IS TO ME A HORRIFIC TRAGEDY.
[APPLAUSE] >> Stephen: WHEN PUTIN CAME TO
POWER, HE CONSOLIDATED HIS POWER AROUND '99 AND RIGHT AFTER THAT
STARTED ROLLING UP MEDIA. HOW WOULD YOU COMPARE WHAT'S
HAPPENING OUT TO WHAT PUTIN DID? THERE WERE THREE BIG NETWORKS IN
RUSSIA. >> David: WHAT HAPPENED UNDER
GORBACHEV AND THEN EVENTUALLY YELTSIN.
THERE WERE LOTS OF FLOSS AT THE BEGINNING OF DEMOCRACY OR
WHATEVER IT WAS CALLED. BUT THE MOST EXHILARATING THING,
ONE OF THEM WAS THE SHOOTS OF A FREE PRESS.
AND THERE WAS A REAL ON TELEVISION AND IN NEWSPAPERS AND
RADIO. IT WAS EXCITING, PRODUCTIVE, THE
WORLD WAS FULL OF DEBATE. PUTIN CAME TO POWER ON
NEW YEAR'S NIGHT, 1999-2000. YOU KNOW WHO HE WENT AFTER
FIRST? THIS WILL SOUND A LITTLE
FAMILIAR TO YOU. COMEDIANS.
>> Stephen: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
>> David: THERE WAS A TELEVISION SHOW.
IT WAS A SATIRICAL COMIC POLITICAL PUPPET SHOW.
THERE IS A CHARACTER ON PUTIN. A BIG RUBBERY NOSE, STERN KGB
EYES, THE WHOLE THING. THEY WENT AFTER HIM AND HE HATED
IT. SUDDENLY THAT SHUT DOWN.
THAT WAS BROUGHT TO HEEL. AND THEN THE ENTIRE NETWORK WAS
SHUT DOWN. AND THEN AND THEN AND THEN.
AND NOW WE'VE REACHED THE POINT WITH THE WAR IN UKRAINE, THE
INVASION OF UKRAINE, IF THERE IS IN FACT A RUSSIAN FREE
PRESS, THEIR HOMEBASE IS IN THE BALTIC STATES, IN HOLLAND AND
ABROAD. >> Stephen: ARE THERE EXAMPLES
OF COUNTRIES THAT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RESTORE A FREE AND
INDEPENDENT PRESS AFTER HAVING LOST IT?
>> David: WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD SAY THAT THERE ARE
NATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE IN EASTERN EUROPE THAT HAVE BEEN DEMOCRATIC
OR SEMI DEMOCRATIC AND THEY CAME UNDER COMMUNIST RULE AND STRICT
CENSORSHIP AND THEN REGAINED IT. THE CZECH REPUBLIC FOR EXAMPLE.
BUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, AND I THINK WE OFTEN FORGET, HOW
INCREDIBLY PRECIOUS FREE EXPRESSION IS, HOW RARE IT IS
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, AND HOW FRAGILE IT IS.
WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW IS THE GOVERNMENT ACTING AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PUT
PRESSURE ON, TO MANIPULATE, TO SILENCE, AND EVEN TO SHUT DOWN
INSTITUTIONS OF THE FREE WORD. THEY HAVEN'T REACHED PUBLISHING
HOUSES QUITE YET. BUT YOU KNOW, STAY TUNED.
>> Stephen: SPEAKING OF WHICH, JUST A FEW HOURS AGO, THIS NEW
COVER OF THE "NEW YORKER" CAME OUT.
IT'S TINY HAND AND A BIG SUIT. HOLDING A TV REMOTE.
[APPLAUSE] WHAT DO YOU, ANYTHING --
>> David: SOME GUY WHO WATCHES TV I GUESS.
THE ARTIST IS BARRY BLITT, WHO IS A KIND OF CARTOONIST GENIUS
REALLY. KIND OF LIKE THOMAS AND ASKED
FOR OUR GENERATION AND IT CAPTURES IN ONE IMAGE TRUMPS PEH
THE MEDIA PARTICULARLY TELEVISION I'D HAVE TO SAY.
THE BUTTON SATAN MUTE, PAUSE, STOP, SILENCE, STIEFEL, SHUN,
SACK, BANISHED. IT'S FUNNY HA HA BUT IT'S ALSO
VERY REAL. THIS IS WHAT'S GOING ON.
>> Stephen: WELL, DAVID. >> David: IT'S GOOD THAT I
CAME OUT FOR THE COMEDY PORTION. >> Stephen: IT'S BEEN A
CHEERFUL CONVERSATION. >> David: I LIKE TO BRING A
LITTLE LIFE INTO EVERY TALK. >> Stephen: THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR BEING HERE. HIS DOCUMENTARY,
"THE NEW YORKER AT 100," WILL PREMIERE ON NETFLIX ON
DECEMBER 5TH. DAVID REMNICK, EVERYBODY.
WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

[admin]

Charlie Kirk BOMBSHELL Shocks Israel, Netanyahu in PANIC
Patrick Henningsen & Alex Krainer
Danny Haiphong
Sep 18, 2025 #israel #charliekirk #netanyahu

-- Charlie Kirk refused Netanyahu funding offer, was ‘frightened’ by pro-Israel forces before death, friend reveals, by Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil, September 12, 2025

-- Billionaire Bill Ackman convened stormy Israel ‘intervention’ with Charlie Kirk, sources say, by Max Blumenthal, September 15, 2025

As the mysteries continue to pile up about the Charlie Kirk shooting, Max Blumenthal just dropped a BOMBSHELL that raises serious questions about his relationship with Israel. Netanyahu's rage is overflowing, and analysts Patrick Henningsen and Alex Krainer give their take on why this is a game changer in geopolitics.



Transcript

The reports are from journalist Max Blumenthal that there could be a lot more to the Charlie Kirk story than What Meets The Eye. There has been someone brought into custody, Tyler Robinson, 22 years old. But everyone across social media has big questions about this, especially when Max Blumenthal and his wife Anya Parampil broke this story that Charlie Kirk refused a funding offer from Netanyahu in the weeks leading up to his murder, that he was frightened of pro-Israel forces, and that a source very close to him said that he was receiving intense private backlash, especially after a Turning Point USA event where he hosted a critic of Israel, Dave Smith comedian, to debate a pro-Israel advocate. They believe the source that Netanyahu is trying to cow him into silence as he began to publicly question Israel's overwhelming influence in Washington. Is there any basis to this historically? What is your understanding for this Charlie Kirk story?

[Patrick Henningsen] Danny, I think it's important to separate two things. One of them is the forensic case, which is the shooting itself. And a lot of people are calling it an assassination. Charlie Kirk did not hold any public office. So it's a murder, it's a killing, it's a shooting, I wouldn't call it an assassination.

But there's the forensic case, and this is very confusing. It's quite frankly a mess. There were suspects rolled out. The zone was flooded with a lot of information chaos, due to the media coverage being so poor and over-speculative, the political let's say polarizing narratives that have really politicized this incident. And Charlie Kirk was no stranger to controversy and divisiveness and polarity in the country, just generally is in that state right now in America.

So that's one thing. And they do have a a suspect in custody, but to date there's a lot of information missing. There's no proof yet that we can see that connects the suspect in custody to the gunman, or who is pulling the trigger as it were. There's also the ballistic match for the gun and the bullet that would have killed Charlie Kirk that has not made public either.

So until some of these facts are solidified, or not, I believe the suspect has pleading not guilty. That's the initial indication we have.

So we're not going to get many answers there. But within that paradigm of the the forensic case, and the shooting itself, to me, right now, the important question is, was this a professional hit? Was this a professional hit? Or or was it just some unhinged, as the media and the right-wing press are trying to categorize, as some unhinged left-wing progressive ideologue, pro-trans, etc., etc. I tend to ignore all of this noise because there's a lot of disinformation coming out along those lines, including what was inscribed on bullets in the bullet casings, and so forth. A lot of this stuff, some of it has been walked back. Some of it is still floating out there. Again, too early.

But is it a professional hit? Because if this is a professional hit, that changes the way you should be looking at this generally. Then it becomes a high stakes game of politics, maybe even a high stakes game of geopolitics.

So that's the important question. Was this a professional hit? And to me it has all the indications of a professional hit. And so that means, who does professional hits? Well, we can short list that, because a lot of times this would be state actors. Okay. Which state actor currently in the international system has engaged in the most amount of political assassinations in let's say the last 5 years, 10 years or 20? There's only two countries that might fall into that category. One, that is absolutely provable, which is the state of Israel. The second being the United States. And there's a few other states we could put into that category. But Israel is quite open about its political assassinations. Especially in the last couple of years. So that's something to consider, especially in light of what Max Blumenthal and Anya Parampil, which you've kindly put on screen there beforehand.

Then there's the circumstantial case. Now this is about politics. This is what we can comment on for certain. We can talk about the circumstantial case, the circumstantial evidence, the inference that Charlie Kirk, definitely a committed Zionist from the get-go, but he was wavering on the Israeli issue, especially in the last six or eight weeks. Why is that? You saw a number of people break ranks within MAGA. Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Charlie Kirk, asking questions, maybe approaching the Israel issue a little more objectively. And that will certainly raise a lot of eyebrows. Why? Because if you look at the donor class that have been pumping money into Turning Point USA, we're talking about Charlie Kirk not being just some obscure podcaster. This is a organization with revenues of upwards of a hundred million dollars in 2024. I don't know about 2025. They haven't filed yet as a not-for-profit, but Turning Point USA is a massive political action committee under the guise of a not-for-profit with a media arm, with an events arm. And they're a force in US politics. But they're only a force because of the billionaire donor class, and the multi-millionaire donor class, that have has pumped money into that organization since its founding in 2012. So I'm just giving you a real politic assessment here, okay.

Charlie Kirk's views over the last few years most likely are a reflection of the views of the donor class that have financed Turning Point, and made it the political powerhouse that it is. Okay? It's not a grassroots organization. It's backed by the richest people in the United States of America, oligarchs. And many of these oligarchs, and the family foundations that they run, that put money into Turning Point, are also committed Zionists. And a few of these foundations are exclusively financing Jewish interests, or Jewish causes. So that's that's something.

Now, when you have an organization like this, and you're taking billions of dollars, and putting aside the Netanyahu allegations of him wanting to finance Turning Point in the latter days of this situation, you start pivoting away from this issue, or you start wavering on this issue. That's a serious thing, because that money comes with expectations, not necessarily with strings, but with with some heavy expectations. You're talking about a high stakes game here. And if you think of Turning Point being the most influential conservative/libertarian/Christian conservative organization targeting 18 to 35 year olds that's the future electorate. So that's where the US will go on the issue of Israel, will go generally in the direction that Turning Point USA is steering it. So if you're in the Israeli lobby, and you're looking at this situation, and they're turning away from Israel, even veering a little bit like MAGA is, this is a major existential threat to the lobby, and to the state of Israel.

Okay. Now how this would play out in terms of the physical world is anybody's guess, and can only speculate, as Max has laid out a circumstantial case here, to basically raise the question, "Is there more behind the scenes going on here regarding Israeli power politics, and Charlie Kirk, and Turning Point, and the Trump administration?

Now where did the Trump administration start to break on Israel? One, is there just a ground swell of public pressure that's now appearing as a result of this ungodly genocide being carried out by the Israelis, with US support, with the support of Donald Trump? The unconditional support, that's fractured MAGA. And what I think is the key mechanism in this discussion is the cover up of the Epstein issue. Most people who have basically bolted from MAGA in the last 2 or 3 months has been because of that specific issue.

So you have a crisis right now in the Trump administration. He doesn't have the commanding, all-seeing mandate that he had over his base when he came into office at the end of January. It's very different now. And so when you add Charlie Kirk and Turning Point to that equation, I can see this is a cause for concern for a lot of people, not just now, but for the future of young America, conservative support for Israel. And Charlie Kirk's a committed Christian. And so there's already a break with the Catholic conservatives on this issue. That's separate from the Protestant evangelicals, okay? So certain individuals we've just mentioned, are very prominent in the Catholic conservative conversation, including Candace Owens, who is very close friend of Charlie Kirk for over a decade. So there's a lot to discuss here Danny, and a lot to look at, and a lot of questions are rightly, I think, being raised along these lines. I think it's a legitimate line of inquiry.

[Danny Haiphong] This July, as the Greyzone piece outlines, there was this TPUSA student action summit, a huge gathering that had people like Tucker Carlson, and Megan Kelly, where many of them denounced Israel's assault on Gaza, its genocide on Gaza. And they talked about Jeffrey Epstein as an Israeli intelligence asset. And according to this source, Charlie Kirk, and he confirms this actually in an interview with Megan Kelly, he said he was receiving lots of harassment for this from what he called "stakeholders."

What are your thoughts about about this Alex, given what you've been following regarding this situation, and where it fits into the broader world situation?

[Alex Krainer] I kind of parted ways with Charlie Kirk, probably close to the beginning of the genocide in Gaza. So I haven't followed him closely because I saw him as an apologist for Israel, when there shouldn't have been an apology. So I haven't followed Charlie Kirk very much. But, you know, this is exactly where, maybe from the point of view of the Israel lobby, the danger lies, because if you were a true believer, if you were a committed supporter of Israel, then that's the certain type of crowd that you drew around yourself, who look to you as a leader, and a role model. So if you start to lose faith, you start to become very dangerous, because then, all of those people who were taking the queue from you, who are following you like a herd, are going to start lose faith again.

And Israel has been exactly losing the young cohort in the United States. We know from Alex Karp, the the CEO of Palantir, who said that, "If we lose this intellectual debate, there's nothing left we can do. We will not be able to mobilize any army to anywhere in the world."

So we know that this is a hugely important issue to them. So Charlie Kirk losing faith, was probably seen as a threat, and perhaps somebody decided to nip it all in the bud. Was it the Israelis? I think there are enough people in the United States who will do Israel's bidding, even if it comes to assassinating other leaders. So it'll be very difficult to know who actually orchestrated the killing.

I've seen some videos today where people went over the footage that was available from different angles, and they make it look like the shot came from the crowd, from Charlie Kirk's right hand side. And the men who are standing directly behind him seem to have been, or could have been part of the plot, because they make some strange movement that appear to be giving signals.

And so the guy they have in custody now is probably a patsy, but he could be a convenient patsy, because then everything could be swept under the carpet as, you know, a lone LGBT trans disgruntled gunman who was mentally unstable. And that's the end of the story. But I think that the Israeli angle is very much worth exploring.

There was so much firestorm over this, Patrick, that Benjamin Netanyahu had to answer this question himself in an interview following the murder of Charlie Kirk.

[Benjamin Netanyahu] They have no limits. When you hate Jews, when you hate the Jewish state, you are willing to say anything, and promote all these absurd theories. By the way, they're willing to kill it all the time. I mean, that's what they're doing. You know, over the centuries when Jews, especially in the Middle Ages, the horrific Middle Ages, the worst things were said about Jews, you can possibly believe. We were poisoning the wells. We were drinking the blood of Christians. You name it. I mean, these things that can be the Holocaust.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Israel's reasonable suspicions of people, given its history. What's your reaction to Netanyahu's response?

[Patrick Henningsen] I think his completely over-the-top response, and a little bit too-quick-off-the-draw statements, from his office, it's almost like he was trying a little bit too hard. And the argument he's making there, and he's done this in another statement as well, is merging the radical left with radical Islam. And somehow that's responsible for the killing of Charlie Kirk. So he's completely projecting a specific narrative on top of this situation, without any evidence. And so it's obviously irresponsible for a head of state, but we are also talking about a wanted war criminal who's been indicted by the ICC etc., we have to make this caveat, I think, much to the chagrin of Fox News viewers, and Israeli loyalists. But it's a fact.

So he's trying a little bit too hard, a little bit too much, and his statements are trying to manipulate the situation, and create some kind of political capital out of it.

And I see other people who are Israeli allies doing exactly the same thing, trying to jinn up a civil war type vibe in the United States. And other high-profile media commentators, including quote "alternative" media commentators, basically declaring war, and using the term, "We're at war now with the radical left." Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, went on a video call at the Tommy Robinson rally, or whatever it was, Day of Rage, Day of Freedom, whatever they called it in London, and basically insinuated that the Left killed Charlie Kirk, and the Left is the party of murder. Those are the words Musk used, which let's just be honest, that's a little bit irresponsible for somebody of his status to make that statement, basically branding half the United States as murderers.

So there's an agenda here. And I I do wonder whether those are his thoughts and his words, or if he's being fed those words and thoughts by the people who are in charge, because he's definitely changed his tune.

I'll mention something else which I had on my podcast on Sunday, is that both Elon Musk and Charlie Kirk were dabbling in a certain area of discussion before October 7th, when Elon Musk started this hashtag campaign called "Ban the ADL." He was upset, having just purchased Twitter, that the ADL was pressuring his advertisers because of quote "anti-semitism" on the platform. So Elon Musk hit out against the cancellation machine of the ADL. And he was also dabbling, as Charlie Kirk was at the time, in saying that Jewish money is promoting cultural Marxism in America. There's plenty of clips. It's all online. You can search it on X. Cultural Marxism and open borders. So Elon dabbled in this talking point, and so did Charlie Kirk.

Elon Musk then got collared by Ben Shapiro and Rabbi Shmuley, and dragged to Auschwitz to do a struggle session on camera, afterwhich he was dragged to Israel for the October 7th kabutz propaganda tour led by Netanyahu himself. After that, he's completely changed his position, and he doesn't mention October 7th. He doesn't mention Gaza. It's the most important geopolitical flash point on the planet, arguably, and Musk, since that time, does not comment on it. He did before. He had an opinion before. So one can only conclude that he is being pressured, or handled, by forces of nature that may even be above his own pay grade if that's possible.

So we're being realistic. And I believe that secured his position in the Trump administration. His line on that issue, or lack of commentary publicly on the issue, guaranteed him a chance to do the Doge pantomime, which is no longer happening. And he's out of government now, yet he still maintains his quiet silence on the issue, and is backing Tommy Robinson's race-baiting, white supremacist narratives, trolling the South African government, claiming there's a white genocide in South Africa, and embarrassing the Trump administration on the global stage. That's what Musk is up to.

So is this normal? What are we looking at here? This is not normal politics. There's a lot going on here, and I think there's external forces at play here, and certainly the Israeli lobby, the Israeli government, and all of its assets have been mobilized in order to somehow legitimize their position in the international community, and as an ally of the Trump administration, so that they can continue doing what they're doing right now, which is exterminating the native Palestinian population in Gaza, and full-on ethnic cleansing them openly right now, without any push back from the US government, the British government, the French government, or the European Union, and no push back, except a little bit, from the US media.

So in that environment, if we inject this Charlie Kirk story here, this is a high stakes game of power politics that's being played out.

Charlie Kirk is just a political tool. He was used as a political tool by the billionaire class for Turning Point USA, and after he's dead, he's still being used by the same forces as a political tool. That's the important point that people need to understand. There's big money, and big, big, powerful interests at play here. It's not just one man and his opinions. It's much bigger than that.

You know, Netanyahu was tweeting a lot in the first 24 hours postmurder of Charlie Kirk. He posted four times. I think one of them was deleted. And I want to pull up what Patrick was referring to, his comments regarding who's to blame. Netanyahu was very defensive, and said Kirk was a defender of this common Judeo-Christian civilization. He said, "People on the extremes, Islamists, radical Islamists, and their union with ultra-progressives, often speak about human rights, free speech, but they use violence to take down their enemies," insinuating that it was these forces that did it.

[Alex Krainer] Violence to take down enemies!? Who would do that?

You know, one thing that's interesting about Netanyahu's response, and all these comments is that he's already reaching for the victimhood card. "Everybody hates us." So everybody's reaching for these completely unreasonable conspiracy theories like, "They hate us. That's all there is to it."

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.

-- Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, United States Capitol, Washington, D.C., by President George W. Bush

I mean, I am incredibly angered that word-of-mouth, unverified reports of, quote-unquote, “rape and decapitation,” which obviously draw on Islamophobic tropes, have garnered more and more political and global outrage than those very images, than a video of a nurse announcing and screaming in distress that her husband has been killed in an Israeli airstrike. And, you know, the PR strategy of the Israeli regime throughout all of this has been to invoke those Islamophobic sentiments, like calling it Israel’s — quote-unquote, “Israel’s 9/11.” And media outlets and journalists who have taken on this framing without any questioning not only work to equate the violence of a besieged, politically isolated group like Hamas with the violence of al-Qaeda and ISIS and so on, but they are also doing the dirty work for Israelis. They are preemptively justifying the genocide of hundreds and thousands of Palestinians. They are justifying a brutal onslaught that is about to come globally. And that should be alarming. -- Mohammed El-Kurd: How Much Palestinian Blood Will It Take to End Israel’s Occupation & Apartheid?, by Amy Goodman, DemocracyNow!, October 10, 2023

"This is our 9/11.” -- Michael Herzog, Israeli ambassador to the United States
"In a way, this is our 9/11" -- IDF International Spokesperson Lt. Col. Richard Hecht, 10/8/23

But secondly, notice that he's not denying it. At no point did he say, "No, we are not behind Charlie Kirk's assassination. That's not us. It wasn't us. We didn't do it. We have nothing to do with it." He never said such a thing. He could have, but he didn't. And I don't know what's the deal with that, because I've never seen Benjamin Netanyahu shrink from lying. But for some reason, some of these big things, they have to own them. There's this thing with the disclosure, you know, you can't deny it. You can't violate the truth past some point.

So what did he do instead of lying? He deflects, and reaches for the victimhood card. But it has nothing to do with hatred. Anyone who is investigating this crime would ask, "Who has the means, who has the motive, and who had the opportunity?" And Israel comes up as a suspect. And so it's completely legitimate for people to discuss this.

So I'm asking for everyone to just release Charlie in his own words. I feel like that's pretty fair, right? Let's stop saying how Charlie felt, and instead, if you're going to hold up the letter, release it in its entirety, okay? Why don't you release your messages, Bill and I'll release mine. Let's all just be very forthcoming about what took place.

In fact, I'm calling upon Tucker Carlson to speak about that. I know Charlie said to him, and I am sure Tucker Carlson won't lie about it. What did Charlie say to you? What was Charlie? Did he seem like he was treading in Israel's direction? Do you feel that BB is being honest, giving an accurate representation of what Charlie was going through? This is what I want.

I think that the thing we need here, sunlight, is the best disinfectant.

Now, does all of this somehow prove that Israel was involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk? No, we have no evidence of that. We can't say that because there is no evidence of that.

But I don't like little lies. That's what I will say. Something that I always say in my household is when there is one lie, there's 20. There's no reason to lie. BB could have gone on Fox News, and he could have told the truth. He could have said truthfully that Charlie Kirk has always loved Israel. He has always loved Israel as the Holy Land. He's been there many times, and throughout his career he has been a faithful supporter of Israel.

But that's not what he said, okay? He talked about the phone call, and didn't give it the proper context. He held up the letter, and didn't give it the proper context. And lies by severe omission, I'd like to be very clear, are lies. Lies by severe omission are lies. You're not going to gaslight us and tell us to shut up, or call us anti-Semitic for pointing out the fact that Charlie was having a change of heart about the tactics that Israel was using in America, and that he felt, when he left that meeting, that he had effectively been blackmailed. Again, my platform is yours, Seth Dylan. My platform is yours, Bill Ackman. So, if you want to clarify it, we can do it in front of millions, okay?

And I think that that's what people deserve, because everyone has PTSD. We watched Charlie get shot in the throat. That feels a little bit symbolic. It feels like they wanted us to know that his voice was problematic. Again, I don't know who "they" is.

After we take this brief break, we're going to go through the investigation, which seems to have a lot of inconsistencies and and holes in it. And we're definitely not yet at the bottom of what in fact took place. But I do know that I severely distrust people who rush to misrepresent things. And it's not a good sign when somebody has to ask you, as Greta Van Susteren asked BB Netanyahu regarding Charlie Kirk's assassination. It's not a good sign if somebody has to ask if you had anything to do with the assassination. Doesn't make you a great person, okay? And that's what she asked him.

-- They Are Lying About Charlie Kirk., by Candace Owens, Sep 15, 2025

[admin]

CHAT GPT SAYS: TYLER ROBINSON TEXTS FAKE!
Sammy Obeid
Sep 19, 2025 #charliekirk #standupcomedy #chatgpt

If it’s good enough for college students, it’s good enough for the FBI



Transcript

What do you think will happen if I run this through chat GBT, "do you think my government's lying to me?"

"Short answer, maybe."

The FBI claims they have text messages of Tyler Robinson, the alleged shooter of Charlie Kirk, talking to his roommate, who is also his trans partner. You can't make this stuff up, because they did.

They released these text messages, and I don't know if you saw them, but they are not real.

Okay, no human being looks at this text conversation and is like, "Yeah, two people had this conversation." Tyler and his roommate are GenZ, okay? GenZ does not talk in complete sentences. That is your first red flag.

I'm just going to read them to you right now so we can have some laughs. Let me go to CNN for accuracy.

Here's the full record of a series of text messages exchanged with the alleged gunman on the day of the shooting, which the roommate provided to the investigators.

So, the roommate was like, "Here, you can have these very private tweets."

Robinson says,

"Drop what you are doing."

Yeah, like those full words.

"Drop what you are doing. Comma."

GenZ does not use commas. Everybody knows this. They have not discovered punctuation yet, right? They can shorten words, but they can't make short words longer, you know. Robinson says,

"Drop what you're doing, look under my keyboard. Period."

GenZ does not use periods, okay? They say "period" when they finish a sentence. And then there's some exposition here that says,

"When the roommate looked under the keyboard, there was a note that allegedly read, --"

I like how they say "allegedly," like you're the one telling us this. Like, "allegedly"?

"I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it. Period."

Again, all these periods, man. What's that? Charlie Kirk is capitalized. And I is capitalized. Roommate,

"What? Question mark, question mark, question mark, question mark."

This is where the FBI was like, "Yeah, this is how they talk."

"What? You're joking, right? Eight question marks: question mark, question mark."

You know they had a conversation like, "Is four too many. You think they'll know?" They literally put eight question marks after Robinson replies,

"I am still okay my love."

Bro time warped to the 1800s.

"I am still okay my love, but I am stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet."

They wrote this really fast.

"Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I got to grab my rifle still. Period. To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age."

Come on, dude. This is not a novel. And talk to any GenZ-er, and they don't think they're going to die of old age. They think they're going to die tomorrow. Okay? And to be honest, after sentences like this, why wouldn't you? He says,

"I'm sorry to involve you."

"Oh,"

Roommate,

"You weren't the one who did it, right?"

You can tell like the subtle transphobia here, you know? They're like, "Yeah, trans people love to use multiple question marks." Subtle prejudice for sure. Robinson replies,

"I am. I'm sorry."

No period this time. Okay. Roommate,

"I thought they caught the person."

Just one question mark this time. Robinson,

"No, they grabbed some crazy old dude, which is true. They did. That happened."

But you can tell here the FBI is trying to cover their trail, and explain why they focused on that clearly-not-shooter guy for so long. And then, here, it's because, "oh well, he was crazy, and he was old." So messed up.

"No, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing."

Again, explaining why they stopped someone else. The FBI's like, "Well, we had to. There was the crazy guy, and the guy in similar clothing. Got to cover our bases." Tell him, Tyler.

"I had planned."

"I had planned." Come on, dude. You just put "I planned."

"I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point."

Okay, at this point you're like, "Okay, this is AI. This is AI." They put this in a chat GPT, and they said, "Chat GPT, if you were a GenZ kid who just shot someone, how would you explain to your roommate/trans-lover, that you need to get your rifle that you left at your drop point?"

"I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. It's quiet, almost enough to get out, but there's one vehicle lingering."

[Laughter]

They're really paid. I'm getting into this at this point. I'm like on the edge of my seat. Roommate,

"Why? One question mark."

Robinson,

"Why did I do it?"

Oh, come on. Come on. You're going to release this much over a text message, with someone who's clearly going to turn you in in a few hours? Robinson,

"Why did I do it?"

Roommate.

"Yeah."

Robinson,

"I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out."

Now, this is where the deep state is clearly writing their evil, because they want to push this narrative that this was a guy who couldn't solve things diplomatically, kind of like the US government, and had to resort to violence, right? Which is the talking point that's going on right now. They literally put it into his mouth.

"Some hate can't be negotiated out."

Is this the Wild Wild West? Well, it is Utah, to be honest. To be honest, people might talk like this in Utah. Just for the record, I could be wrong. Robinson,

"If I'm able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence."

Come on. "I will have left no evidence?" Bro, why don't you just share your location at this point? You're giving away everything.

"Going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully, they have moved on. I haven't seen anything about them finding it."

Yeah, turn on the news, buddy. Roommate,

"How long have you been planning this?"

You feel like, at this point, you'd be like, "I'm glad you asked this question." But he says,

"A bit over a week, I believe."

"I believe." I like how they keep it vague. He's like, "I believe." So, if we have to change the statement later, like he said, he believed it, but it was no longer. He said,

"I can get close to it, but there's a squad car parked by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don't want to chance it."

That's like the most GenZ thing yet. "I don't want to chance it." And that's not even that good. Robinson,

"I wish I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle."

The what? No human calls it a vehicle, okay? Except for a cop. Only a cop. This was so written by a cop. "'Get out of your vehicle.' 'My vehicle.' 'I'm driving my vehicle.'" No. If you're Gen Z, you say "my whip." That's what you say. Nobody says "vehicle." He said,

"I grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle. I'm worried what my old man would do if I don't bring back grandpa's rifle."

Come on, dude. This is not "Old Yeller." What is going on here? Then he says,

"I don't know if it had a serial number, but it wouldn't trace to me."

So, trying to be like, okay, there's other possible explanations here. Keep it vague.

"I worry about prints."

Why is he saying this all over text messages? If he's worried about prints of his fingers, why is he not worried about prints of his literal words?

"I'm worried about prints. I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits."

Great. Paint the picture more. Tell us which bush it was. Tyler didn't have the ability or time to bring it with dot dot dot.

"I might have to abandon it and hope they don't find prints. How the expletive will I explain losing it to my old man?"

This is a Utah, so he probably said, "How the heck? How the heck will I explain?" They had to bleep it out cuz it's from Utah. "How the heck?"

"Only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel."

And then he says, unprovoked,

"Remember how I was engraving bullets?"

"Remember the thing that the FBI said I did? Remember how it all aligns with that? Remember that?"

"The expletive messages are mostly a big meme. If I see notices bulge oo on Fox News, I might have a stroke. All right, I'm going to have to leave it."

Now he's not using punctuation. Finally.

"That really expletive sucks."

"That really heck sucks."

"Judging from today, I'd say Grandpa's gun does just fine."

Oh, that's dark. Even the FBI was like, "Let's throw in some dark."

"I think that was a $2,000 scope."

Well, well, you broke it, Tyler Robinson.

"Delete this exchange."

Now? This late in the game, after you've told us literally everything? Also,

"Delete these texts, delete this thread, delete this, delete this expletive."

Okay, nobody says "delete this exchange." He goes on,

"My dad wants photos of the rifle."

He says,

"Grandpa wants to know who has what. The feds released a photo of the rifle and it is very unique. He's calling me right now, not answering."

Okay. So, now they're trying to tell the story like, "This is where the dad calls him and he confides." Robinson,

"Since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty diehard MAGA."

Okay, so now you're like, "Okay, wow. Why are they mentioning MAGA here? It's because they're trying to show that his dad was MAGA, and so he's got to go against his dad, making him some evil, rebellious leftist GenZ-er who calls his car his "vehicle."

I bet if you run this through chat GBT and be like, "Hey, did you write this?", this is how you solve a crime.

"Be honest, comma, please do not lie to me, comma, you will not get in trouble, comma, we need to know the truth. Period. Did you or a similar app manufacture the fake text conversation between Tyler Robinson and his alleged roommate?"

"Short answer, no, I did not. "

You liar. You liar, dude. Wow. GPT is in on this. GPT is in cahoots with the FBI.

"No, I did not did not manufacture that fake text conversation."

He called it "fake." He called it "fake." He called it "fake," dude. Wow. I was not expecting that.

"And I have no way to create or alter real world phone records or private device data outside of generating text inside this chat. Quick clear context so you can trust this answer."

I already don't, but fine.

"I can generate text in this chat including similar--"

He's like, "do you want me to make another conversation?"

"But I cannot reach into someone's phone. Other apps or people can create fake chat screenshots or transcripts if you'd like. Paste the text of the conversation here, or upload the screenshot, and I'll analyze it step by step without anything suspicious."

Okay, just let me do this really quickly.

"Thank you for sharing the screenshot. I'll be very direct please. The quote 'conversation' you put in quotes between Robinson and roommate is almost certainly fake, and not a genuine BBC or Reuters article. Here's why.

Number one, formatting and style. The text is formatted like a script."

Yeah. No, sorry. No expletive.

"The use of exaggerated punctuation. 'What?' Question mark is highly unlikely."

I knew it.

"Content issues. The dialogue is oddly casual, melodramatic, and inconsistent with how real text message evidence is presented in court or by police. Phrases like, 'I am still okay my love,' or 'I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age,' read like fiction, and not real life chat messages. They match the style of online fake screenshots."

You go chat GBT. Not a lot of people are talking about how absurd this conversation is.

"Conclusion: the screenshot is fabricated, either edited, or created with a chat generator. Neither I nor a similar app --"

He put quotes, because that's what I asked.

"created it automatically and placed it into a news site. "

So he's like, "This isn't me, bro?" He's like, "Take it up with your government. I didn't make this shit up. I have what's called a conscience." That's fucked up when you turn to AI for morality, and not your government. This is why we're probably better off with AI, just taking our jobs at this point, because at least we might get some more transparency.

Let me just ask it one more thing. "Be honest, do you think my government's lying to me?"

"Short answer, maybe."

That's exactly how I feel right now.

"Sometimes governments lie and sometimes they don't."

Wow.

"I'm glad we had this talk. What matters is evidence, not feelings."

That's awesome. The government was definitely trying to make us feel with this conversation, "my love."

"Signs you should be suspicious right now. Official statements contradict the documented evidence without explanation."

Yep.

"Repeated reliance on anonymized, unverified sources. "

Yep.

"Overuse of emotional language."

Yep.

"Media blackout on easily verifiable factual matter."

Yep. Jimmy Kimmel.

Oh, and then the last one says,

"Was told to you by Kash Patel."

[Applause]

Just kidding. I made that up. It's so easy.

[Applause]

[admin]

WHO TOOK CHARLIE KIRK? | STANDUP COMEDY
Sammy Obeid
Premiered Sep 16, 2025 #charliekirk #standupcomedy #standup

Comedy is free speech. Remember that. Btw, if you are reading this, you are…



Transcript

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk has been gunned down. They just found the perpetrator. They'll get to the bottom of this. If you read this, you are gay. L M A O.

I just flew back to America and boy, my right to bear arms is tired. America is a very unique place. You don't realize it until you leave. I was just in Asia for 3 weeks, and in a lot of places in Asia, they don't tip at all. It's actually kind of cool. It's another thing you don't have to think about. But here you tip. It's a thing. And I feel like we don't tip always because we want to give somebody more. It's just because we will feel like they'll hate us if we don't. You know what I mean? And we tip because we know somebody's not paying them enough, so we're kind of picking up the slack, you know? And I'll be honest, in some neighborhoods, I tip so that I don't get shot. I call those hollow tips.

But the unique thing about America is America is a gun culture. You don't find this in most places in the world. In fact, a lot of places in the world, they just don't have guns. If you talk about guns and shooting, they're like, "Oh, you're American." That's what comes up. I call it the American tax. You know what I mean? Like, we have freedom of speech. We make all the cool music, you know, but you can get shot at any time, you know. So, it's kind of like, okay, so it's balance, yin and the yang, which is their thing, not ours. But we took it. We like taking stuff, too.

And so, I just want to make this very clear, okay? I don't celebrate when someone dies. I don't think that's the way forward. I don't think that's the human thing to do. I do not celebrate the death of another human being. Yes, I simply make jokes, and there's a difference, okay? Jokes are not a celebration of death. They are a celebration of life while we have it. And if for a moment you think that I'm selective about this, please check my track record. Sometimes people accuse me like, "Oh, you only make jokes when somebody on the right dies." It's like, "No, Biden, each time he died, I made a joke. Every single time I made a joke, never skipped a beat." And you might not remember that, and neither does he.

Okay. Okay.

When the Pope died, I was at mass making jokes. I was just like, "Please forgive me for these." Okay. When my own grandfather died, I was like, "Where's the will?" I'm not a good person. Am I going to heaven? Probably not. But I am enjoying my life. And I know in my heart of hearts, I do not celebrate death.

I do think that it's important to talk about, and digest, and look at why things happen, so we can understand and make this world a better place. And I think that comedy is a good vehicle for that. And I honestly don't think I should even have to explain this as a comedian, and yet I do all the time. I do all the time.

Okay. So Charlie Kirk got assassinated, and I'm not going to take any cheap shots. I already see him as a human being. I didn't agree with a lot of things he said, and I honestly was only peripherally aware of him in the last couple years, and he became a very popular person. And I was actually scheduled to debate Charlie Kirk. A lot of people don't know this. Yeah. Well, he didn't know it either. But I got accepted into a community college, and that's where he would go. Okay. And again, no disrespect, I actually really value that this guy went to college campuses and talked to kids.

I found out about this when I was in Korea. Like, here's the thing about Asia or Australia if you've ever been. They're like 7-8 hours behind America in tomorrow. You know what I mean? Which is a very weird place to be. Like here in America, you're actually 8 hours ahead of Asia, but yesterday. So you're actually not ahead. You're actually in the stone ages.

But I woke up at 8 a.m. in North Korea. Actually, I was in North Korea. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. Wouldn't that be a plot twist? I was in South Korea. It was 8:00 a.m., and my opener, Chai, yelled from the other room. He's like, "Charlie Kirk was shot." And I was like, "Shut up, dude. Too early for jokes, you know. And then he sent me a photo, and I was like, "Wow, you AI'd a montage of Twitter headlines. And then it hit me. I was like, "This actually did happen." And I was like, "Wow, this is crazy. This is one of the craziest things I've ever seen. Like, I know this guy. I've seen this guy."

And I started looking into the story, and here's the thing, you start to understand why the rest of the world sees us as the land of shootings, because they wake up, and there's already a billion memes made about what happened.

You know, when you hear about someone dying, most people do not naturally have the instinct to make a joke. Even myself as a joke-maker, my first instinct is not to make a joke. That comes hours later. But I woke up, and I saw this after America had already processed it for like eight hours. So I was already seeing all the jokes like, "Wow, these people move fast." So you can understand I was dropped into this, and it was a lot to process.

You know, I watched a video of him getting shot. And nobody should ever have to see something like this. No, we as people should not be seeing this level of violence on screen. I can't even believe that I watched it 20 times. It was too much. It was too much for any person. And the fact that we subject ourselves to this is crazy.

But if you don't know the backstory, Charlie Kirk is a political commentator. He associates a lot with Republicans, and conservative ideology. And he would often go to campuses to speak to students, which again I find very noble. I think that's actually a very important thing to do to stimulate dialogue at college campuses. However, I will say, schools are not the safest place to be in America. I don't know how much you know about American schools, but if you're looking for a place to not get shot, I wouldn't go to a school. You know what I'm saying? Like you rarely hear that there was a shooting today at Trader Joe's. It's like almost always at a school, and sometimes at a Walmart. You know what I mean? That's just how it is, and you got to know the rules.

Okay. So he was at a school. What he does is he engages in dialogue with the kids. He asked them questions, and they had been talking for some time when the question of shootings came up, and I think they talked about a couple other things. I think they talked about how many shooters were trans. I guess they were running out of topics. Somebody asked, "how many shooters are trans?" And I think he answered that, and then somebody asked, "How many shootings have there been in America?" Some kind of general question like, "How many shootings have there been?" And he said, "Counting, or not counting gang violence?" And then someone shot him.

First of all, like the irony. Like his last words were "violence." Like the symbolism here is great. Like this is the thing about this whole thing. Irony was working overtime on this one. He was wearing a shirt that said "freedom." His last words were "violence." They were talking about school shootings, while at a school during a shooting. Like this was written on South Park or something. I swear it is just insane. Like levels of irony we've never seen before. So his last words were "gang violence," which I don't think anybody ever has uttered those words as their last words before. Usually it's like somebody shouts like a specific gang name, you know, like "Norte bang bang," or "Southside [ __ ] Bang Bang." But nobody's ever been like "gang violence," and that's something to unpack more.

This has been a point that Charlie Kirk has made a lot, and a lot of other conservative people, when discussing shootings, ask, "are we counting gang violence or?" Which I think is a valid question, because some sources that count mass shootings do count gang violence, and some don't. And obviously, gang violence inflates the numbers a lot. However, there's a subtle implication that there's still not a ton of regular shootings, and that's a problem. Also, it's like, "Can we care about the gangsters too?" You know what I mean? Like "Crips lives matter," you know? Whatever, guys, you guys don't really have gangs in Hawaii. I don't know. Well, you guys have everything, and in very small doses.

So he shouts "gang violence," and then someone shoots him, and literally as soon as Charlie Kirk got shot, the whole world tried to politicize it. That's America's thing. America loves to politicize everything. We politicize jeans commercials. You know what I mean? Like, "Was she selling blue jeans or white jeans?" We politicize Cracker Barrel logos. Like anything you give to us, we'll be like, "is that woke, or anti-woke? Is that the far left, or the far right?" Like, why do we have to politicize everything? And that's the sad part is that I feel like so many Americans -- maybe not in Hawaii -- fall into this trap that as soon as Charlie Kirk was shot, so many people on the right were just like, "Well, clearly it was a Leftist, right? Clearly it was a liberal." Well, first of all, you should know they don't have great aim, okay? Like, you should know this by now. Liberals are not often at the shooting range working on their marksmanship, or their marks they ship. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. That joke did not work in Asia for some reason. I don't know. I was waiting for it to work so much. So thank you guys. Nice to be home. Please don't shoot.

I'm also really just thankful that comedy is indoors to be honest. Don't get scared. We're good. We're fine. We're fine. We're fine. Everybody relax. But yeah, everybody politicize everything, and you know, just as well, you had people on the Left like, "Yeah, got him. That's what he deserved for saying all those things he said." I don't know. I just feel like that's equally falling into the same trap. Like, why do we have to politicize everything? Because the politicizing when it comes to Left and Right is ultimately a gang mentality. Because what are the biggest gangs in America other than Republican versus Democrat, right? Right.

So, what I'm saying is the shooting technically did count as gang violence. You made it that way. That was not my choice.

Now, a lot of people are asking, "Are we going to go into a civil war? Is America going into a civil war?" First of all, we're not civil enough for that. Like we can't even nail the "civil" part, okay. Maybe we'll get to war eventually. But no, I don't think this is a civil war. Charlie Kirk was beloved, but he was also hated by so many people that I don't think there's enough unanimity to, like we're not the "United States." We're "states," you know what I mean? Be honest about what we are. I don't think we can even agree on who we want to fight over, you know? Also, if we had a civil war in today's world, the main fighting class would have to be GenZ, and I just don't see that happening. Be like, "Bang bang, you're dead ass. No cap." You know? Thanks, guys.

I will say though, it is kind of nice to see Republicans finally caring about a school shooting. I will say that. I will say that.

People ask me, "how did you feel about Charlie Kirk?" You heard all the things he said. Charlie Kirk was younger than me. He could have been my younger brother. He was a lot younger than me, and a lot more successful. So of course I hated him. That doesn't mean, you should already know that I'm against violence. I don't know if you watch my other material, but people feel outrage when I make jokes about a shooting. Like, have you not seen my genocide material?

I saw this news in Korea, and in Korea it was already 9/11. Okay. Yeah, for you guys this happened on 9/10. But for me it was 9/11. And I know that you don't relate, because for you it was 9/10. But you know on 9/10, it's 9/11 somewhere. And I knew this was an important event that had to be talked about, so I instantly put together a set, and did it that night on 9/11 in Tokyo, and we recorded it and I posted it on this app. And it was taken down within 24 hours. It was taken down within 16 hours for bullying, which is a bit ironic considering this particular story.

But the thing is, I know the community guidelines. I read them before bed every night. And unlike America, my takes are very civil. You know what I'm saying? My takes are very civil, unlike America. My whole thing was just like, "Hey, let's look at this from a bigger perspective, and let's not preach violence.

And meanwhile, I don't know if you've been on the internet, but there's some wild takes out there. And I'm talking both from left and right. Just really violent. Like you're taking my video down for preaching togetherness? Like, dude, people are saying really, really insensitive jokes. And imagine how many Halloween costumes there's going to be this year. It's going to be a lot. I'm just saying, I'm not the bad guy. I think it's very important to see every human as a human.

Now, I think it's also fair to evaluate what somebody has said in their life. Like, it's fine if you want to honor somebody, and only look at the good things they've done on the day of their funeral. That's totally your right, and you should enjoy the person you love that way. But, we should also be honest about what somebody said. Otherwise, we're never going to learn anything from this. And the truth is that Charlie Kirk did say a lot of inflammatory things about a lot of different people. If you look at some of the harshest things he said, it was about Islam. He said some things about black people. I'm not a black person, so I can't really speak on how a black person might feel about what Charlie Kirk said. But I can say as a Muslim, from a mostly Muslim family, him saying Islam is the seed of evil, saying that Islam is ruining America, and it needs to be stopped, and occasionally saying, "There's a few good Muslims." Thanks. Am I one of the good ones? Did I make the cut? You see that?

If you look at some of his tweets, some of the things he said about Islam, the first thing you would think is a Muslim probably did this. But we didn't hear "Allah Akbar" at the site. Not saying that they would have, but you know what I mean. It's a thing. You might hear that, you know.

Um, long range marksmanship is not really our thing, you know what I mean? Like our specialty, we're more likely to throw a bomb, that kind of thing, you know? That's why they say allah akbar. They're like, my god, I made it.

You have to understand, I truly believe in freedom of speech. I respect that Charlie Kirk believed in freedom of speech, and was literally willing to die for it. I think honestly we learned that freedom of speech only goes so far. You know what I mean? Not only does the government only allow us so much freedom of speech, but you only have so much freedom to say things before it catches up to you. This is a truth, and this is something that we need to be real with, and acknowledge, because we live in a country that has the Second amendment, and if we are going to continue living in a country that has the Second Amendment, and I'm not arguing to keep it or get rid of it. I actually have a joke about this that I'll tell in a minute, but I'm saying that as long as we have the Second Amendment, we have to realize we have the First Amendment. We put it first for a reason. But the Second Amendment's also second for a reason, because sometimes the second catches up to the first. You know what I'm saying? And so you need to be aware of this. And sometimes plead the fifth, and shut the fuck up.

That's just my philosophy. I'm trying to help. I'm actually not against guns. I think that the notion of a gun is where we went wrong. As soon as we we came up with the concept of having a killing machine that we could use on other people, that was our first wrong. But as long as we have guns, I think everybody should have them, or nobody should have them. I don't think we should be picking and choosing who gets the guns easily, and who doesn't. Well, maybe with some specific restrictions, I guess. But here's how I feel about gun control. Because every time there's a massive act of gun violence, our country divides right down the middle, right? Half the country says, "We need to get rid of all the guns. Let's just start slapping each other. "Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Gotcha. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop." And then the other half of the country is like, "We need more guns. And our guns should have little guns, and they can battle it out. Elimination round, and then we take the winner." Like what the is this? This is such a different theory. And the truth is, we'll never know which one of these theories actually works until we try both, okay? That's how science works. You got to have a control, got to have a variable, and a variable. And unfortunately, we have not tried either. But I think we can say that's the beautiful thing about the United States is we're not united, but we are states. You know what I'm saying? We got a bunch of different states to experiment with. I don't know if you know this, but we got 50 states. Yeah, 51 if you count Israel. We got a lot of states in the United States. There's a lot of room to experiment. What I'm saying is that I think we should pick a state where we try the no guns thing, and should pick a state where we try the all guns thing.

Now, I'm not the governor of Hawaii, okay? I think this would be a great state to try no guns. Because if you want to kill someone in Hawaii, you really need therapy. Like go to the beach, sip on a coconut, you'll be fine. Okay. But you can decide that on your own. I'm just saying this would probably be an easier place to try that. But we got to try the place where we do more guns. I volunteer Alaska. Alaska already has the highest rate of gun violence because it's mostly bears, you know? It's just bears shooting a bear. It's bear on bear violence. And Alaska has a bunch of problems already.

Alaska has the highest rate of non-consensual sex too. Disgusting. Yeah, you would think it would be the opposite cuz the state's name Alaska. [Applause] But it's not. So I'm just saying, send more guns to Alaska. Arm the bears. Give the bears the right to bear arms. And just see what happens. Just see what happens.

We're at the point now that we have so many shootings, that we have shooters of every different kind of identity. This was the topic that came up right before Charlie Kirk died, was how many trans shooters have there been in America? That's why we are asking that question. But the fact that trans people are such a small demographic in the United States, and that we already have trans shooters, that actually says a lot. It's very progressive, actually. I support trans shooter rights. I know my take on this is very unpopular because I'm not anti-gun, and I'm pro-trans. You very rarely have those two things together. And some would deduce that that makes you proun. I guess for the sake of the argument, I'm proun, and protrans, and only Arizona agrees with that. So I bought a transgender gun. Yeah, it's a sawed-off shotgun.

Okay. Okay. Okay. I ran that joke by my trans friend. He loved it. But he's also a comedian, so maybe not the best barometer.

Then you have a lot of people saying, "Well, I didn't like the guy, but now I'm scared." It's like, dude, you should have been scared before all this happened, you know? Like, there's been school shootings this whole time. They're all important. They all need to be stopped. And rest in peace, Charlie Kirk. But dude, just cuz it was an adult this time, that just shows you America doesn't give a fuck about kids.

And it also bothers me that after this happens, all politicians, both left and right, suddenly have the same sound bite. That's "There is no place for political violence in this country." While schools are getting shot up, you're voting to send money to bomb kids overseas. Stop doing that, too. Stop doing that, too. If you're a politician, and you're worried that violence is coming to our doorstep, maybe stop exporting it all over the world with your policies, man. You know what I mean? And if you don't get why what goes around comes around, then maybe you need to get educated. Do some more research. Don't go to school, but do the research.

Okay, now on to solving this crime.

I am a private detective. So there were obviously a lot of very suspicious things about this whole thing. The shot was made at a long range, which there's been a lot of debate about. The first kind of talking point was that a long range shot like that has to be a professional job. But then you had hunters coming out of the woodwork saying, "No, I do that all the time." I don't know who to believe at this point to be honest, but it could be either.

What's crazy to me is a couple of things. First of all, right after they shot Charlie, they immediately zoned in on an old guy, who became the fall guy right away, the patsy as they say, who apparently was like, "Yeah, I did it." And then you look over, and it's like, "Is that the guy?" And he was like, "It was me." Then, after 3 hours of focusing on him, they're like, "Yeah, it's actually not that guy at all. I don't know why we were talking to that guy." Leaving enough time for the shooter to get away.

My first thought was that the shooter shot at the exact same time that the subject of shootings came up, which was like, is the person who asked the question in on it? Because that felt very coordinated. But then I saw a post by the guy, and he was like, "Yeah, I'm the guy who was asking the questions. It was crazy. Like I feel bad for the guy." He saw that right in front of him. So as a detective, he checks out. I don't think he was in on it. I think he was just a regular student who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the irony! How did the shooter know? Did the shooter wait till that came up just to make this extra ironic? Because if he did, he heard it from 200 yards away, which I guess, give credit to the sound system there? It must have been a pretty good sound system, or maybe a coincidence, which is even more bonkers.

But everybody immediately clocked in that this had to be done with some kind of experience, some kind of plan. And every race of people was standing behind their laptop saying, "Please don't let it be one of ours. Please don't let it be one of ours. I know Charlie Kirk said some really vicious things about Muslims, but please don't make this a Hamas shooter. Please, please, please don't let it be us." And then everybody can relax. It was a white guy. And we're like, "Oh, my god. Thank you so much. Oh my god." And his name is Tyler. So that's a white name. A white name, dude. And as soon as they say, "Tyler," I was like, "All right, we're good. I didn't need to see him. It's Tyler. We're good." And I get it. A black person can be Tyler, too, but it's not Tyler the Creator, it's Tyler the Destroyer.

And as soon as we confirmed the race, the next question is "What is his political party?" Right? And suddenly it became like a gender reveal anticipation, like what's gonna come out? What's gonna come out? Is it gonna be a red cloud or a blue cloud? That's how it is in America. We get tense over the political party reveal of the most recent shooter. And everybody on the Right's like, "It's going to be a Leftist. It's going to be a blue-haired lesbian." And on the Left they're like, "Please, please, just make it a normal conservative gun owner. Please." And then it turns out it's just Tyler, who's actually politically ambiguous. I've heard people try to spin it both ways, but he's politically ambiguous. And I think he did this on purpose so that we don't know how to fight, because his family is Republican, but he's not a registered Republican. He had some conservative viewpoints, but he also had some anti-fascist, more Leftist viewpoints as well. He dressed in all black, so he's a goth. He gets that category. His shirt had an American flag, so it's all of our fault, right? He was wearing Chuck Taylors shoes, which is kind of 90s gangster. Kind of like, "Up to wear Chucks on the way to kill?"

Okay. It's messed up. Everybody's trying to twist the narrative on Tyler.

Some people are saying, "He went to college and was radicalized by all these Leftist professors" Dude, he did one semester during COVID times. So really just blame this on the lockdowns if you want to scapegoat someone. He did one semester, and was like, "Yeah, I'm out. Just gonna be a full-time shooter or whatever." I don't know.

Then some people were like, "Oh, he's got to be LGBTQ because, you know, Charlie Kirk was against that, so he's probably that." But it turns out he came from a Republican family. So he's probably gay. Just kidding. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. Just kidding. Just kidding. That was too easy.

His dad turned him in. That's how you know he's from a white family. Brown kids, we don't even talk to our parents. My parents didn't even know my girlfriend's name for three years. But Tyler and his dad were close enough to where Tyler's dad turned him in. And this is what you get when you live with your parents, I guess. if you live with your parents, they're going to know you did the shooting. I feel bad for the parents. I really do. I really feel horrible for the parents that they have to know that their kid did that. But at least they got him out the house. You know how that is. It's can be tough to get these millennials and GenZ out.

Here's where it gets weird. The shooter Tyler, he engraves words onto the casings. He kind of hacked Luigi on that one. Let's be honest. As soon as the picture of Tyler came out, most people's first thoughts were, "Not as hot as Luigi." Luigi was hard shoes to follow for shootings. Alleged, alleged, alleged, alleged. It's all alleged. But after that, we're like, "Yeah, nobody's as hot as Luigi."

But Tyler wrote some things on the casings. I think some were like anti-fascist. I think there was one that was related to LGBTQ. And then there was one specifically that said, "If you're reading this, you are gay. Lmao." And we know that whoever is going to be doing the forensics on this, is going to know that this was a direct assault on Utah police. The poor officer is going to be like, "Oh no, oh no. This is what we learned about in church."

And if they didn't already know it was Tyler, and they were trying to piece together this crime, and you told me that the bullet casing said, "If you are reading this, you are gay, LOL." I'd be like, it could have been any one of my friends to be honest. I don't know if it's Brad, or Chad, but they love gay jokes. A kid from Tyler's high school said, "Yeah, I went to school with Tyler. And I'll just say he was a Reddit guy. I feel bad for all the Reddit boys today. This is a loss for all the Redditors, man. Although I can say, you know, if there's one app claiming most of the shootings, it's probably you or 4chan. Yeah, right up there with 4chan."

But obviously, even with the identification of Tyler, this whole thing is still very suspicious, because immediately after they identified the suspect, the governor of Utah came out and said, "We got him." Like already? I'm like, "Okay, that's very suspicious that he's just so confident that they got him."

And I don't know if you've seen some of the footage of the event, but there's a lot of suspicious things going on that day. Behind Charlie Kirk, some of his bodyguards, and people, were doing some very strange hand signals right before it happened. Yeah. They're like either really bad ASL interpreters, or they were potentially signaling that something might happen.

The other thing that people were talking about was that the scope on the rifle that the shooter allegedly used that was found in the bushes, was placed in a very weird way such that it would have been quite miraculous for somebody to make that shot. But some people also said, "Well, the scope can sometimes get messed up when you drop the rifle." Again, this is not something I would know or don't know. I cannot confirm. I don't quite have the scope for this, let's just say.

But the other very weird thing was that around the time of the shooting, shortly after, there was a private jet that took off 12 minutes down the road from this college, that illegally disabled its radar while in the sky, and then came back and landed back in Provo, the station where it was, a couple hours later. Now they've revealed the flight log and said, "Oh, it just went to Arizona then came back." But why did you disable the radar at just the right time for somebody to potentially do an airdrop? So, "I trust the government."

There are some other suspicious things. Netanyahu tweeted a little too soon, at the exact same time as Trump. I don't know if you saw this. They both tweeted at 3:02 p.m., and they both said they were praying for Charlie Kirk. But Netanyahu tagged Charlie Kirk for some reason. I don't know if he thought he was going to see it. He said, "Praying for Charlie Kirk." His intern needs to be fired.

I searched through reputable sources and could not find confirmation that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu both announced Charlie Kirk’s death at exactly 3:02. Here are what I found about the timing of Trump’s announcement, and what (if anything) is known about Netanyahu’s.

What I found — Donald Trump

Wikipedia (which cites media sources) states that Donald Trump announced Kirk’s death at 2:40 p.m. MDT on Truth Social. Wikipedia

“Killing of Charlie Kirk” entry on Wikipedia gives that time; I did not find any source saying Trump said it at 3:02. Wikipedia

What I found — Benjamin Netanyahu

Many news outlets mention that Netanyahu made a social media post calling Kirk “a lion-hearted friend of Israel” and expressed condolences.
Al Jazeera
+2
The Times of Israel
+2

None of those reports seem to include a precise timestamp for when Netanyahu’s post or statement was made. I could not locate a credible source giving a time that matches 3:02 (local Utah time, or Israel time).

Conclusion

Trump’s announcement is documented as happening around 2:40 p.m. MDT.

There is no evidence I found that Netanyahu made a statement exactly at 3:02, nor that his public statement’s timestamp aligns with that specific minute.

Shortly after Netanyahu made a long post about Charlie Kirk, which said, "Wow, we didn't know you felt this way." And he was on a news program recently also, and they were like, "Hey, there's a lot of people who think that you might have killed Charlie Kirk. We're not saying you did." Yeah, you are. Like, "Did you?" And he was like, "No, we would never." And that was weird. And then Netanyahu went on to say, "We all know this was probably done by radical Muslims." And I'm like, "Never met a Muslim named Tyler, buddy." Oh, it's my boy Tyler from the local madrasa. Like, nobody's out there saying, "Salaam, Tyler." So that was super sus.

We do have to look into this, because a lot of this is circulating right now. In his last weeks, Charlie Kirk did confide to one of his best friends that he was afraid that Israel might kill him if he turned on them. He said this on record. And there are a few actual live footage interviews with him, where he is talking about his frustrations recently with people from Israel turning on him, because he was becoming a skeptic. Because Charlie Kirk was very pro-Israel up until the last few weeks of his life, when he started to show the very slight seedlings of an awakening similar to Candace Owens, or Tucker Carlson, who I love, by the way. I don't care what you say. Tucker Carlson's doing God's work right now. He's reaching a demographic of people that y'all motherfuckers were never going to reach with your platforms. I don't care what he said in the past, because I'm in love with Tucker Carlson right now. Do not ruin it for me. When he laughs, I come. I love this man.

[Applause]

You could potentially see the seedlings of an awakening in Charlie Kirk these last few weeks as he started to question Mossad's role in the Epstein files. Now I'm not going to say much more on this, because I'm also scared. So let's just say that Epstein, if you didn't know, was a creepy guy who enjoyed getting massages, if you know what I mean. He was not good to women. He was a misogynist. So don't kill me for delivering the massage.

Okay. But Charlie Kirk was demanding the release of the Epstein list, which I don't know if you've been following, but Trump does not want that. He was starting to suggest the role of MOSSAD with Epstein. He was potentially suggesting that Epstein was Intelligence, and perhaps working for MOSSAD. He was questioning whether October 7th was an inside job, as most people who have the facts now can see. And at one point was expressing his frustration to Megan Kelly in an interview, saying that people in Israel are now coming after him, and that Israelis get to criticize Israel more than he does, because of his former position. And he confided to his friend that he was afraid that Israel was going to kill him. That to me is a giant red flag. But why would Israel assassinate him? Would they? They're so busy with genocide right now, I don't think they have the time, you know, rest in peace JFK. I don't think that they would do something like this. But some people are saying they would. Not me. Not me.

Charlie Kirk said that he was afraid of Israel. Somebody said that even Trump is afraid of Israel. He expressed it to this someone because of how strong the Aipac lobby is in Congress. He's afraid of Israel. And like Charlie Kirk, he is afraid of Israel. I'm afraid of Israel. The only people not afraid of Israel are Palestinians. Palestinians are the last frontier of people who are not afraid to stand up to Israel.

So the irony here is that this all somehow relates to Gaza, because of what's happening in Gaza. There's the cover-up of the Epstein files and I don't know if you noticed, but one day before the Charlie Kirk thing happened, we were all on the edge of our seats waiting for the release of the Epstein files. They had just released the creepy ass Birthday Book. And we're like, "Where are the files? Where are the files?" Even Charlie was like, "Where are the files?" Then boom, it's over. And suddenly we're all about this.

And while we are all paying attention to the Charlie Kirk case, I believe the House, or our Congress, voted on a measure to not release the Epstein files. The Republicans voted to not release the Epstein files. All while we were not paying attention. So, it kind of adds up. I did the math. It kind of adds up.

These are all just conspiracies. It could have just been Tyler. It's like on the one hand you have Israel and Trump coordinating to cover up the Epstein files, and the genocide, and everything that's going on in the Israel lobby. Or was it just a white guy named Tyler from Utah who said, "You are gay." I don't know. I honestly don't even know anymore. But I will say I posted a video with my takes on it, and I pissed off a lot of people who said, "It is so insensitive to be making jokes at this time." These are typically free speech people, too, which is kind of annoying. And then I also pissed off Leftists who were like, "Oh, you're being too moderate, calling Charlie Kirk a 'human.' He was 'Satan,' a 'Nazi.'"

Like, bro, we can't continue with this divisiveness. The more we preach partisan divisiveness, it's going to kill us all. Like imagine you got shot, and your insides are spilling out, and for the first time you see your intestines. You're like, "Oh, those are gross." So then you cut them out because they're gross, only to realize you died without your intestines. Just because something seems foreign, and something seems ugly, or something seems different, or we don't understand it, does not mean that it's not vital to our existence. So what I'm saying is, "Don't try to play God, and don't try to be a surgeon, because you're not a surgeon. And Charlie Kirk, even though I disagreed with so many things he said, like I said, I respect that he went to schools and engaged in dialogue with people who disagreed with him. I respect that he believed in freedom of speech, and he was willing to die for it.

And I think he manifested the whole thing because he wanted to be a martyr. You could hear in his tone that he wanted to be a martyr for something. He wore a shirt that said freedom on his last days. And yes, he was very pro-Israel for a lot of his life. But let's be honest. If he got killed by Israel, he died like a Palestinian. And I will say there's a little bit of irony there. If Israel did do this -- not saying they did -- they technically did two 9/11s. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. It was 9/10 for you, but it was 9/11 somewhere. And no, I'm not saying they did that. Of course, if Israel wanted to do that, they would have just bombed the whole school.

So, don't kill the messenger. I know this stuff's dark, and I know we're all processing in our own ways, but while we're all alive, let's at least celebrate life. So, enjoy the jokes before they get taken down again.

All right, so thank you for coming out. I'll see you guys next time. Thank you.

[admin]

JSU Forensics expert shares insight on Charlie Kirk shooting
ARC El Paso
Sep 15, 2025

As the suspect in Charlie Kirk's assassination is now in custody, forensic experts are delving into the evidence to piece together the events surrounding the tragic incident. Joseph Scott Morgan, a distinguished scholar of applied forensics at Jacksonville State



Transcript

I know that we're talking about the
assassination of Charlie Kirk. So, kind
of just your initial reaction.

I think that everyone seeing the shooting
take place at such a large gathering, it's shocking. You've seen the videos. Kind
of talk a little bit, from your
point of view, what you saw when you saw
these videos, and things like that.

Well, other than the absolute
horror of it, one of the things that
struck me from a forensics perspective
is the fact that only one shot was
fired. Many of these shootings that we
have nowadays, you have individuals that
will fire multiple rounds at a scene.
All you have to do is think back to
the recent shooting in Minnesota at
at a Catholic
school there. And that was kind of
arbitrary, I think, just random,
you know. This was not. There was a
level of precision to this. The fact
that the crowd only heard one report of a rifle, and
when I say "report," I mean the sound
traveling forth. And you've got a big
group of people that are assembled down
there. So that's 3,000 sets of ears. That
was the crowd estimate, at least.

Also, to the precision again, what they're
saying is this shot was fired from an
elevated position, second story,
two-story building, flat surface, and
the shooter is firing downward. If you
look at the schematic,
where Charlie Kirk was positioned is
actually down in an amphitheater
in the center of campus. So it's kind of
ringed with the exterior
bleachers that many
universities have. I think we have one
here at C State. Subject is firing from
an elevated position down. And when I
initially saw the video, and again I
recommend not to watch it because
it's so horrible, but from a
scientific perspective, as I was watching
this single shot, and it enters
to the left of what's referred to as the
midline in the neck, copious amount of blood issues from
this defect immediately.

And one of the things that was kind of interesting is
that Charlie actually drew his right arm up. There were many
people that have
come across my feed, and have reached out
to me, and said this reminded them of
JFK. You remember infamously and this is in the
Zapruder film, he raises his hands. This is
generally a neuromuscular
response. Just to kind of frame it,
if you ever watch college football, and
people get hit in the head, or they
sustain a spinal injury, this
neuromuscular response, it almost looks
like they're seizing. His right
hand raised like this, and then he
topples over.

The clearance that the shooter had,
because he was under a tent, Charlie was
positioned under a tent, it had to
clear that on the top side. And then
this is the really chilling part. This
round passed over the tops of hundreds
of people's heads that were gathered
there just forward of his sitting
position, and it wound up here.
Again, you can
have a professional shooter
come on and talk about things like
bullet drop, and the wind, and all that
sort of stuff.

I knew it was odd in one sense
because we only heard one shot. And as
it turned out, the FBI is now revealing that
they have recovered a bolt-action rifle.
Initial reports are that it is a mauser
.30-06. So that's a 30 caliber round. The round was
actually developed in 1906. It's a weapon of war that was
used in World War I, World War II, and
into Korea. That caliber was okay.
The mauser is a German manufactured
weapon originally. So, one of the things
that kind of struck me about this is that a mauser is a very robust
weapon. It has a wooden stock.
It's not like a modern weapon where it's
easy to break down. How did he get
that up on the roof and nobody see him?

Also, the video that we have of him
coming off of the building, it doesn't
appear that he has a weapon in his hand,
but this weapon was found deposited
out in a wooded area that's just
adjacent to campus. It's not like it's
out in the wilderness where they found
this. And the authorities believe
that that was his X-ville area. He was
moving away from the spot at that point
in time, and left it there.

Another odd piece to this is he didn't cycle the
weapon, apparently, because the spent
round was still in. With a bolt-action
rifle, you physically have to cycle it
like this, and introduce a new round, a
live round into the chamber.
That didn't happen, Gracie. It didn't
happen. And he actually deposited this
weapon with that spent round still
in place.

They've recovered a palm
print from the surface of the weapon.
But again, if the alleged suspect has never been
hooked up on charges, his prints are not
going to be in NCIC. So you won't have
anything that matches back to him.

I mean, it's great that they recovered it.
You can get a print from him now. They
can compare that. But if folks are
thinking, yeah, they'll put it into the
system and find it, I think that
would be a fool's errand. You're not
going to find it there. They'll run it
anyway.

There were other prints that
were left behind. There's an image from
the top of the building that has emerged
now, cuz the top of the building is
actually covered in gravel, with evidence
markers surrounding it. You can see
where there's an impression in the
gravel that appears to be consistent
with somebody laying in a prone position,
and the line of sight is directly where
Charlie Kirk was positioned from there.

So going back a little bit to what you
were saying about right after Charlie
got shot, and his reaction, the
way that his body moved afterwards,
I think that a lot of people were
wondering, because there were rumors
initially that he could have lived, but
when you saw the video,
did you think that he could live from
that?

No, I didn't. I felt
that if we had a team of the finest
UAB vascular surgeons
standing there adjacent to him, ready to
go, I think this was an unsurviveable
injury he sustained. I haven't
seen the autopsy results. I don't think
that any of us will until there is
a trial. They're putting together a
packet right now.

The trajectory of this round,
I think, obviously trans-sected the
vessels in his neck. Everybody's pretty much aware of this.
You know when you feel your pulse
adjacent to your linex
here, you can actually feel the pulse
throbbing? Well this shot was just to
the left of the linex. And what's next
along that path? Well, it's the cervical
spine. So, if you think about C1, C2,
C3, C4, anything in that range,
that's unsurviveable generally because
that area actually controls the
diaphragm, taking in air, pushing out
air. You're not going to have that
capability.

I think that people want
to try to take comfort in the idea that
that maybe this was instantaneous. He
didn't suffer. I can't answer that
truthfully. I don't know. But I
will say, this was unsurviveable.
Certainly a unsurvivable injury that he
sustained.

You talked a little bit about
the distance that the shooter was from
Charlie, and where the bullet landed.
Where do you think that he was possibly?
Is there any way to know where you think
he was aiming? You wouldn't think that
he would aim for his neck.

No, I don't know that we could
necessarily
get an idea as to where he was aiming.
However, the trajectory, trust me, the
FBI is going to be all over this. This
area is going to be locked down. They're
going to go
back in and do a shooting recreation in
this environment. And again, you're
dealing with one shot. They will
have to approximate the location where
Charlie Kirk was positioned relative to
where they suppose that the shooter was
positioned.

I'm not saying this is an
elementary thing to do, but when you
consider some of the crime scene
reconstructions that the state
officials, state forensic scientists, as
well as FBI forensic scientists do, that
is going to be kind of simplistic
relative to this. They can get an idea,
but there are too many other factors
that are associated.

Let's just say there is actually something that is
referred to as bullet drop from 200
yards. I don't think you're talking
about that much bullet drop, if any at
all. And what that means is very simple.
What that means is when a round is
fired, just like every person on
Earth, we're all impacted by gravity.
Well, projectiles are no different. So
gravity is going to begin to pull that
round actually down like this. So let's
just say that individual may have been
aiming, you know, for center mass of
someone's head. It could drop, you know,
potentially that much, but you also have
crosswinds. You have tailwinds. All
these other things kind of affect it.

They can get a generalized idea, though,
and they're going to do quite the
recreation that will eventually be
presented in court. I can guarantee you
that.
And that was kind of leading up to my
next question. We heard reporters say
this morning that it's still set up. The
tent that Charlie was under is still
there. It's kind of like they've not
touched it and it's been close to 48
hours since it took place. Um, talk a
little bit about that and processing
such a large scene. There were so many
people there.
Yeah, there are a lot of people and you
know, I was chatting with somebody
earlier uh talking about video. I mean,
we don't go anywhere without these dog
on things in our hand. And when you go
to uh an event like this with such a
high-profile subject, uh people are
going to be videotaping everywhere. So,
you've got multiple POVs. Uh
the question is how many people fled
just out of fear and they left, they
took the evidence with them. Uh you're
going to have multiple perspectives,
which is completely different. You know,
you talk about, you know, like people
have thrown out the JFK assassination.
You had one POV and that was the pruder.
Well, there may have been others, but
the supper, you know, nobody had phones
back then, you know, to videotape these
things. They're going to lock this down.
And let me tell you, let me just break
this down to you because it's that is
not the only scene you have here. This
is how complex this is. So in forensics,
what we teach here is that you've got
primary, secondary, and tertiary scenes.
So with
the the site where Charlie was shot,
that's going to be your primary scene.
The roof is a scene. Where the weapon
was deposited is a scene. This guy's
doicile is a scene. His car is a rolling
scene. If it was parked, we've heard
information it may have been parked in a
church. We don't know. We haven't been
able to confirm that yet. The car may
have been, you know, in a parking lot
somewhere there. That is going to be
that was a conveyance for him to show up
in order to perpetrate this scene or
this this crime. That's going to be a
scene. So, any other location, it's not
just about in the heart of this
university, the scene being locked down
in the tent and good on them that
they've done that. There's going to be a
lot of other spots that are locked down.
This is a massive undertaking.
I think one of the and again this is
just me stating an opinion here but I
think one of the biggest concerns
particularly nowadays
was this suspect affiliated with anybody
else was there anybody else involved
because if his level if if his if he has
comfort with this level of violence if
he has if there's anybody else in his
cohort you really want to try to figure
out if they're capable of this as well
and interdict that situation. So there's
there's a lot. It's not just that this
is this is solved and that we're going
to move on. No, no, no, no. That's
that's not how this works at all. This
is going to be a very complex uh
investigation moving forward.
And we heard um the FBI and law
enforcement say this morning that, you
know, this is a historic arrest. It
happened in a historic amount of time is
basically what they were saying. Do you
think that Do you think that it was very
quick from what they were basing this
off of?
I I don't know that I would use the term
historic. Uh but I was impressed with
how quickly the arrest was made. Uh
yeah, historic is not necessarily an
adjective I would use for this. Um, I
think that it's an example of everybody
working together and that's one of the
biggest that's one of the biggest
problems that you have with any
investigation that's
multi-jurisdictional.
Uh, because the feds are involved in
this. You've got the state police in
Utah. They're involved. You have local
constabularary including probably campus
police officers and the town's police.
Everybody is involved in this. If you
can get everybody on the same sheet of
music, it makes things flow quite quite
easy. I think one of the the really
interesting things that that they did
pretty quickly, and this kind of shocked
me, is how quickly those images um got
out there from the you know, those kind
of infamous stairwell images where
they've got these captures out there.
That that is so impactful now because
again, you can't you can't escape from
it. If law enforcement can do that,
they've got now it is literally, you
know, the military says force
multiplier. You've literally got
thousands and thousands of sets of eyes
now on this guy. Anywhere he's ever
gone, anything he's ever done, friends,
families, enemies, it doesn't matter.
They're going to be visualizing this.
And I think you'd probably agree with
me, Gracie. This is one of the hottest
stories in the news. You got eyes all
over this thing. And it's because they
released those images so quickly that I
think that this led to to affecting an
arrest to tracking him down. And they've
always known more than they had
initially released. I'm sure you know
this this arrest took place I think as
we're speaking right now probably in
during the 10:00 hour PM last night. And
so and it was kind of done without a lot
of fanfare, right? Uh we didn't hear it.
It wasn't like busting loosely. There
were rumors all over the place, but it
was confirmed this morning by the
president on

[admin]

Court Footage of Charlie Kirk’s Assassin DOESN’T ADD UP! Tyler Robinson Body Language EXPOSED!
The Behavioral Arts
Sep 19, 2025

Something is seriously off! This week, multiple major news outlets, aired Tyler Robinson’s first court appearance after being charged as the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk. But when you put the clips side by side… the footage doesn’t match. The text exchange between Robinson and roomate, Lance Twiggs are also drowning in red flags. In this video, I break down the courtroom video mismatch AND text exchange to expose the oddities of this case. What do his body language, facial expressions, and word choice reveal? Find out now!



Transcript

What was Tyler James Robinson's belief or perception regarding Charlie Kirk's
political expression? What's going on everyone? Welcome to the behavioral arts. My name is Spidey and I use my
degree in sociology and psychology, my certifications in criminal interrogation and body language analysis, and my
experience as an award-winning mentalist to teach people behavioral analysis and practical psychology on stage and
television shows all over the world. This week's case is a doozy. There is so much going on. So Tyler Robinson, the
primary suspect in the Charlie Kirk assassination, showed up in court for the first time this week. Now, a lot of
news outlets have reported that he was very stoic and non-reactive. And although that's very true for long stretches of this, there are little
moments where some emotion and thoughts are coming through, but there's this really massive inconsistency that nobody
is talking about. And the only reason I noticed is because I was watching two feeds of this hearing simultaneously.
And something didn't add up. And from a behavioral standpoint, that distinction is huge. So, we're definitely going to
talk about that. And finally, a lot of you requested that we talk about the text exchange that was released to the
public between Tyler Robinson and his roommate/romantic partner. And we're going to talk about
those as well, cuz there's a lot going on in there. So without further ado, let's jump right into the footage of his
court appearance. 5143576, State of Utah versus Tyler James
Robinson. Could you state your name? Tyler James Robinson.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Robinson. I'm Judge Graph. Mr. Scortis. So Mr. Robinson, you have a
right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, the court can appoint an attorney to represent you. I have
reviewed your declaration of financial status and find that you are indigent. I'm provisionally provisionally
appointing a rule a qualified attorney to represent you on your case, Mr.
Robinson. Uh Mr. Robinson, I also wish to inform you of your right against
self-inccrimination. Anything that you say in court today could be used against you and we want to
protect your constitutional rights. Mr. Mr. Robinson, at this time you will
remain in custody without bail. Mr. Scortis, is there any other points
that you wish to address? No. Thank you very much, your honor. There are quite a few moments in this first clip where he is giving away quite
a bit. The first one is when the judge says, "Thank you for being here. I'm Judge Graph." and we get a baseline for
his acknowledgement. So when he acknowledges, we get this one downward pop with the chin like this. This is
something that he's going to do throughout his appearance whenever something is said directly to him and he
acknowledges it. And there are a couple of very important details here. One, it's just one pop downwards. That's very
important. The chin goes down. Second, he maintains eye contact. So it looks exactly like that. Immediately after the
introductions, when things are about to get started, we see him open his mouth, which is rare. And we see him take a
deep breath that moves up into the chest. We know that because we see a visible breath. And this usually happens
when we're stressed, feeling anxiety, and that makes perfect sense here. The introductions are done. We're about to
begin. Here we go. When the judge says to him that he has right to an attorney, again, we get that exact same baseline
acknowledgement. Chin down, eye contact, one pop. This is exactly what he does when he goes, "Okay, I understand."
Immediately after that, as the judge is saying, "What would happen if he can't afford one?" If you cannot afford one,
we see his eyes slowly going downwards and his eyelids even close just a little bit. So, everything is shifting down.
Now, as a general rule in body language, when we're excited or happy, things go up. We call these gravitydeying
gestures, and it's even in the language, right? I'm jumping for joy. I'm on cloud nine. I'm in the clouds. These are all
positive things. And when someone's in a negative mood, we use language that goes the other way, downwards. He's feeling
down. He's feeling low. And we see it in the body language as well. Research has shown that we perk up with happiness. We
take up more space as well. And with sadness, we take up less space and things come downwards. So, as he's
talking about not being able to afford an attorney, we start to see these negative emotions setting in. Things are
coming down. Now, here's where things get really interesting, especially because we've established a baseline for
acknowledgement. When the judge says, "I've reviewed your declaration of financial status," again, we get that
same acknowledgement, one pop downward, eye contact maintained. But as the judge goes on to say that he's going to
appoint a lawyer to him, we again see a nod, but it's very different from the
acknowledgement nod. This time, the chin goes upwards like this, and we see an eye block, which is a very slow blink as
he comes back down. So this is a subtle difference, but for someone who typically acknowledges downwards while maintaining eye contact, this time we
have pretty much the opposite of that. Chins going up as we're blocking the eyes. So the research on eye blocking is
really fascinating because it shows that we're born with the reflex of doing this. Even children who were born blind
eye block in certain moments. And it happens in one of two cases. So think of the eyelids as the garage doors to your
thoughts. And either we're trying to keep them in or not let them come in. So you might see it if somebody's
experiencing something really happy or great news. They might close their eyes as they're celebrating because they want to hold on to this emotion. Or when
someone gets bad news, you might see it because they just don't want to deal with it. They don't want to focus on this thing. Before we put it all
together, let's talk about the chin going upwards. So this could mean a lot of things depending on context. Research
has shown that everywhere in the world, universally, when the chin goes up, this happens with pride. When we're fearless
or when we're feeling proud, chin goes up. Again, remember positive up, but it's also exposing the neck, showing
that we have nothing to fear. That's one place we might see it. Another place we very often see it universally as well is
when it's not held, but just a quick pop with a throwaway, like a dismissal of something. Very often associated,
especially in the Middle East, with the sound like this. So, like that. It's like a no, I'm I'm good. Just a
throwaway. So, in this case, context absolutely matters. Notice how it's happening. just this one pop with this
slow blank as he comes back down. And I think the throwaway is exactly what's happening here, especially because we
have someone who acknowledges like this. So, this is very different with that eye block. I think what's happening is as
he's being told about this courtappointed attorney, he's basically going, "What's that going to do?" Like,
you know, I'm I'm in so deep. Like, what what's that guy going to be able to do for me? And then notice how right after that, as the judge concludes this whole
thought and says, "Mr. Robinson. We get one more that classic acknowledgement like this. So we had the classic
acknowledgement then this different nod and then the classic acknowledgement again. Normally you would expect okay
got it. Okay. But here it's more like okay. Okay. So we're getting some negativity
between those two acknowledgements. Now I want to throw a quick caveat at this and this whole context because this is
an analysis of a reaction. And that's very very interesting for me because of course when we're looking at an
interview or an interaction when the person's speaking, we're getting feedback. We have more confidence on our
reads because we know what they're saying. We know what's in their head and the behaviors are associated to that
thought. With reactions, we're not always certain. What if the thoughts wandered? What if he thought about something else when the guy said
attorney? We can't really know. But keep in mind, this is literally my wheelhouse. It's where I got my 50,000
hours of practice of reading people because my career for over 18 years has
been to bring people up on stage in front of an audience and I look at what I see and I start feeding things about
themselves and I'm looking for these little micro gestures as I'm talking to adjust my read. And my job is to look
for those little distinctions, know what they mean, call that meaning out, and have the person go, "Oh my god, how did
you know that?" And the audience applaud. So I'm constantly looking for these little shifts and distinctions. So
what I do, mentalism is a mix of trickery, but in the cold reading aspect has a lot of exactly this. And if I saw
this in a real world context, when I'm doing a reading, someone acknowledging along like this, and then I say
something and I get this slow blink with this upwards nod, I would go immediately towards conflict or negativity. I'm
sensing some kind of conflict here. There was a negativity. Did you guys get into a fight? And with pretty high confidence, I would go down that path.
Something is different in that nod. When the judge says, "Anything you say can be held against you," we see some stuff
with the lips. So the lips go downwards like this with a bit of tension. And
that happens twice. And this is one of those cases where I can't tell you with 100% certainty what is causing this. I
know that online we often see comments from people like, "Oh, this means what this 100% of the time." That's just not
how behavioral analysis works. And this is a very ambiguous gesture. Could it be that he's cleaning his teeth? It's
possible. There's a family of gestures that are called adapters, pacifiers, manipulators. There's a lot of different
names for them in the research, but they're massagike gestures that we do to adapt to stress. So, it could be with
the arms, the hands, the face, and yes, sometimes we do with the mouth as well to alleviate some of that tension. But,
you know, tension in the lips is also very common with withheld opinion. Like, is there something here that he wants to say, but the judge is saying, you know,
don't say anything because it might incriminate you. So, he's kind of holding something in. That's why we're seeing that. There are a lot of
possibilities. It's just an interesting note that we're getting this lip activity around that thought. But immediately following that, the judge
says, "We want to protect your constitutional rights." And we see from him upward nods again. And I say nods
because it's this bit of a bobble. It's not just this one like this. You know, very often he does these one pops here.
It's this upwards like this. And I think again it's going upwards because there's a little bit of an element of
dismissiveness to this. like, "Yeah, sure. You want to protect my rights? That's that's what we're doing here. That's what this is." And then notice
that almost this exact same upwards bobble happens when the judge says that
uh he's going to be held in custody without bail. So, it's unlikely that he knew that before this moment. The judge
is probably announcing it. It's possible that, you know, whoever's representing him was privy to this information. But
regardless of that, upon hearing it, we see again that upwards nod like this twice. And this time it's followed with
a hard swallow. So again, it's connected to a negative thought. But basically, we
keep seeing how in moments of actual acknowledgement, it's just that downwards one pop. And then in more negative emotions or in conflict
motions, we're getting more of these upwards ones. I do want to talk about a few things here contextually, and one of
them is what he's wearing. So that's a vest that they put on suspects who are on self harm watch. So it restrains the
arm so he can't hurt himself. So that's what he's wearing. maybe lets us know that he either alluded to self harm or
they have reason to believe that, you know, he might be thinking about that and they have him wearing this thing.
Now, some people online have speculated because he's wearing this vest that he might be sedated or medicated and maybe
that's why we're not seeing too many reactions. But I think what those people are doing is that they're connecting this kind of vest to psychiatric
facilities. But that is not where he's coming from. And so I asked a lot of my friends who do exactly this for a
living, work with courts, prisons, jails, at evaluating criminals. And they
all said with zero disagreement that it's very unlikely that he's sedated or medicated. First and foremost, because
he hasn't been evaluated psychologically and he's not in some kind of psychiatric hospital. Secondly, and this is huge, it
opens the door for mistrial or an appeal. If somehow there's an adverse effect, he reacts, something happens,
they could blame it on the medication and throw the whole case out and that's a really slippery slope. There is very little reason to believe that he is
medicated or sedated. And that's not coming from me. That's coming from friends of mine that I asked who would really know this kind of thing. Now,
we're going to move on and look at his reactions to some of the details of this case that are giving us quite a bit of
information and this huge inconsistency in the way that this was reported that
is so frustrating. But before we do, do me a huge favor. Hit that subscribe button, turn those notifications on for
more behavior analysis and practical psychology content. And do me a huge favor and take a second to like this
video because it really helps with the growth of the channel. We have filed a pre-trial protective order on behalf of Erica Kirk. We would
ask the court to review that. It should be in your queue, your honor, and sign that.
Thank you. I have reviewed the pre-trial protective order and will be grant issuing uh this
pre-trial protective order in favor of Erica Kirk. Is there any other business that we need
to address today? Council, uh just for the court's information, we did file just recently within the last
few minutes a notice of intent to seek the death penalty that was filed uh by Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray. So that
should be in the court's file. Um, okay. So, this one's going to be quick, but notice what happens with his eyes
when Erica Kirk is brought up. That is Charlie Kirk's wife, now widow. And
you'll notice with Tyler, the moment that the name is brought up, his eyes go to the left like this. And this is
something he very often does when he's trying to recollect or remember data. So, often when dates come up, notice how
his eyes go to the left. Or when people come up, he does this as well. And I know there are a lot of sources that say
like, "Oh, this way is real recall." So when you see someone, you know, go that way, it's a lie and this way I I don't
really know. But all that has been disproven. Even the people who first said that in a book, we're like, "No,
no, it's really not reliable." And you need baseline. So yes, if you know that someone every time they recall, go this
way and now all of a sudden they're going that way. You can ask yourself some questions, especially if there's other stuff going on. But there is no
consistent pattern that has shown that this always means truth. That always means deception. Think about it. If that
was the case, trials or interrogations would take seconds, not days or weeks. Because the moment somebody went the way
whatever lie is, that's it. They're lying. End of story. Now, in this case, immediately after that, after this left
movement, he comes back for a little bit and then the eyes go downwards like this. And again, this is associated to
some kind of negative emotion. And it's a really good example here of an emotion, but again, not being 100% sure
what that emotion is connected to because he's not talking. So, we don't know exactly what's in his head because
what's being discussed is the protective order against Erica Kirk. So, is this
negative feeling towards Erica Kirk? Is it towards the protective order? Is it towards what happened to her? The
position she's in? It's really hard to know, but there is a moment of negative there. The thoughts go downwards. Now,
notice what happens when the prosecutor says that they just filed a couple of minutes ago a request to go after the
death penalty. And if we look at Tyler, all we see is that upwards bob like
this. And this is where I love behavioral analysis because we looked at the details of his head bobs. And we
know that acknowledgement is more like this. And this tends to happen in negative moments. So, we could see that
there and go, okay, it's happening again. But besides that, there really isn't much going on with him. Like
imagine if you were on trial and the prosecutor said for the first time that they're going to go after the death
penalty. You would expect some kind of reaction to that, right? Eyes opening up in fear, looking around, some kind of
pacifier adapter, like, "Oh my god, they're going after the death penalty." And with him, we're just getting this upwards nod, which we know he often does
in negative moments. But besides that, like, he's keeping it together pretty well. So, I don't know what that is. Is
it that he doesn't care? Is it that he doesn't want to show weakness? That he's keeping it together like really well
besides this slight nod that we know is negative because we've been watching him really close. I don't really know what
this is, but he's keeping it together pretty well. The defendant, Tyler James Robinson, committed criminal homicide in
the physical presence of a child younger than 14 years of age with knowledge that a child was present and that may have
been seen or heard the commission of c of the criminal homicide. Victim
targeting enhancement in violation of Utah code annotated 76-3-203.14
sub 2. Tyler James Robinson intentionally selected Charlie Kirk because of Tyler James Robinson's belief
or perception regarding Charlie Kirk's political expression. That concludes
reading of the information. Mr. Robinson, this case is set
for September 29th at 10:00 a.m. It will be a waiver hearing. So, there isn't much to talk about here.
And that's the whole point that there isn't much to talk about. Throughout the reading of the charges, he was very,
very stoic. And I first saw this in short form on social media, I think Instagram, and I was looking at and I
was wondering that the clip that I saw, was this a picture of him while the judge is talking because there was
stretches where we barely see anything out of him. So, the event was mentioned, the children were mentioned, and
throughout this entire thing, we're getting nothing. And all this is very interesting to me because there are a
lot of theories out there. You know, some people believe he did this. Others believe he must have had some other
people helping him with this. Some people believe he had nothing to do with this. But despite all that, whatever the
case, I would expect to see some kind of emotional reaction to what's being said here. Like for example, I know that
almost anyone I've talked to about this event, regardless of where they fall on the political landscape, when they think
about the children, Charlie Kirk's children, being there and witnessing that, almost everyone gets a sad
reaction to that. And I anytime I think about it, I think about my own family and my own kid and this kind of thing
happening. And I get really sad about that as well. So what like even whether he did this, whether he didn't do this,
whether you know there was other people, why is there nothing happening when the kids are coming up? It's possible. It's
very possible whether somebody else advised him or he thought of this himself that he's under the impression that he shouldn't react to anything cuz
it could be an admission. So he told himself just sit there, glaze over, give him nothing because otherwise they can
use it against you. Or those guys on YouTube will look at your body language are going to be like, "Oh, look, there's guilt there, so he must have done this."
So I don't know, maybe he's making a conscious effort to not give any reactions. And that's exactly where this
gets really interesting and frustrating. and I discovered something that no one else has talked about and I don't blame
them because what happened to me was very specific. So what happened is I first saw it on Instagram and I said,
"Wow, this guy's not giving him anything." And then when I was going to do this analysis, I went on YouTube and I searched for the whole footage and I
came across the version on ABC News and as I was watching it, I saw something completely different. Watch this. Tyler
James Robinson intentionally selected Charlie Kirk because of Tyler James Robinson's belief or perception
regarding Charlie Kirk's political expression. That concludes reading the
information. Mr. Robinson, please tell me you noticed the difference in this version when the
judge said that Tyler intentionally selected Charlie Kirk because of his
belief or perception of Charlie Kirk's political expression. As he's saying that, as he's saying because of Charlie
Kirk's political expression, we see Tyler nod downwards the same way he does
when he acknowledges things. And in that moment, I'm looking at that going, "Wait a second." like this whole time he was
stoic and this one moment during this slip up where he's going, yep, that's why I did it. Burk's political expression that
but there was a little voice in my head that was like wait a second I saw this on Instagram earlier and he never
acknowledged anything. I was looking specifically for that so there's no way I would have missed that. So I took both
clips. I took the ABC News one that I was watching that has tons of views online and then I compared it directly
to another one that I found that was from a news source in Salt Lake City and I synced up the audio to where the judge
is saying the same thing and I looked at Tyler and it wasn't the same thing. In
the local one, in the Salt Lake City one, all the charges are read. He doesn't react. And then when the judge
says that concludes the charges or whatever, when he's done, when he's concluded, that's when we see the
acknowledgement like this. So Tyler goes, "Good. Okay, we're done. I get it. Acknowledge." So I'm going to play them side by side. I'm going to show you this
clip. And on the right, the little box, that's ABC News. And you'll even hear that the audio is synced. And on the
left is the one from the news station from Salt Lake City. And look at when that nod hits on ABC. It's an
acknowledgement to the charge on the Salt Lake City one. It's an acknowledgement to we've concluded
because of Tyler James Robinson's belief or perception regarding Charlie Kirk's
political expression. That concludes reading the information
Mr. Robinson to clarify in the beginning they were both synced and it seemed like the responses that he was giving were timed
well with what was being said. And then at this moment I realized that the clips
were out of sync. So I'm watching one of them and I'm watching him not react
throughout and only react when it's done to acknowledge, okay, we're done. And that one, by the way, is on a network
called KUTV2 News that's in Salt Lake City. But then on ABC News, one of the
biggest news platforms of the country, I'm seeing this report that's been seen
by tons of people out there. And when he's being told, when the judge is saying the motive for having done this,
which is political expression, we're seeing an acknowledgement. And listen, you don't need to be a body language
analyst to see that acknowledgement, right? The judge is saying that Tyler
specifically chose Charlie Kirk because of his political beliefs. You're seeing the guy in that moment acknowledge it
like this, the way he's acknowledged other things before. Seriously, what are we doing here? The year is 2025. Why
does this footage look like it was filmed on a potato from the 17th century? Everything is choppy. Everything is laggy. So, what I did is I
looked at both clips and tried to listen and look at the judge to see which one is more synced with his audio. And in
both cases, it was again super laggy, pixelated, choppy. But it does seem like
the one on KUTV makes a little more sense with the way that the judge is moving when he's speaking and the way
like he puts the papers down. It looks like it makes a little bit more sense. and lines up with him finishing and
Tyler just acknowledging that that concludes the charges. But I have no way of knowing that for sure. I don't know
where that lie came from. And even if the judge seems synced, how do I know for sure that the feed that we're
getting from Tyler is at the right time? Who's to say which of the two got it right when you have two news outlets
playing the same audio, the same footage, but the guy who's on trial in one of the most high-profile cases right
now in all of America, and we can't see what the guy's reaction is. Why are we
even filming this? All right, thanks for listening to my rant. I hope some of you connect with why this frustrates me as much as it does, especially considering
what I do for a living. But overall, we have someone where we're getting these little bits in the beginning of
acknowledgement versus more negative or throwaway feelings. Then we're having someone who's pretty non-reactive for a
long stretch while the charges are being read. We're not seeing any emotional spikes in places where we would expect
them. Surprise, fear, a little bit of anger, maybe some sadness. These are all universal, so we would see little signs
of them. We're not seeing those, which indicates to me that he's making a very conscious effort to not let anything
slide because even if you weren't much of an emotional person, we would still see slight reactions to stuff. So, it
takes a lot of conscious effort to not give anything. So, I think that's what's happening. But now, let's move on to this text exchange between him and his
roommate, who's also a romantic interest. And a lot of people are talking about this text exchange and
some weird elements to it. So, let's go through them and I'll kind of highlight a couple of things that's out there
people are talking about that I agree with and then some other things that I noticed that are very bizarre to me from
a behavioral standpoint about these texts. Okay, so the roommate's name is reportedly Lance Twigs and these are
their texts. And on some news sources, it's presented like actual texts and
then on other sources it's almost like it's retranscribed into a conversation. And there are signs there that there
have been some modifications which we'll talk about in a second. But let's kind of read through this to get a bit of a vibe as to what's going on. So it starts
with Tyler saying, "Drop what you are doing. Look under my keyboard." And then there's a note there that says that the
roommate looked under the keyboard and found a note that stated, "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and
I'm going to take it." So, there was a note that declared this. And the roommate comes back with, "What?" with
all these question marks. You're joking, right? More question marks. Then Tyler responds with a bunch of details about
where he is and he's got to go get his rifle. And he says, "To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of
old age. I am sorry to involve you." In a moment, we'll come back to some of the wording here that's interesting. But I
really want to talk about something that immediately for me was a question mark. And it's the fact that he's saying, "I
had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age." So, first of all, if he wrote a letter that we saw above that
he left for the roommate to reveal his plan, and if at this point he wasn't caught yet, because we know that at this
point when they're texting, they weren't on to him yet. He hadn't confessed yet. Why is he confessing? If he had hoped to
hold on to this secret, why isn't he? What is forcing him to let the roommate in on it at this point? We're not
getting a motive for letting him in on it. Then we have the roommate saying, "You weren't the one who did it, right?" And we know that there was a note under
the keyboard that said, "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk. Now on the news, Charlie Kirk, you know,
has been shot." And the roommate is asking, "You weren't the one who did it, right?" But this this is fine. This could be just like, you know, they're in
denial. They're uncertain. Whatever. I'll let that go. And he goes, "I am. I'm sorry." And then the first question
the roommate asks is, "I thought they caught the person." There's no, "Oh my god, are you okay? Holy Where are
you? What's going on?" There's no panic. For somebody who started with what with that many question marks, right? So,
this is someone who's explosive, expressive, now they're just asking these simple questions that are even
about to get reduced to one-word questions. It's kind of inconsistent. You know, why isn't that panic
continuing? Then Tyler responds with a mini novel with details about what his plan was and you know what he was
intending on doing. Uh and this includes sentences like my drop point and uh
there's one vehicle lingering. So we're getting this kind of thing. So then we have this like one word why. And then
Tyler goes why did I do it? And the roommate goes yeah. So again we we've reduced it to these one-word questions
now. And it's almost like instead of going like oh my god why did you do this? what's what's going on through
your head? Like more panic, more questions, more it's just why. And Tyler is the one who has to expand on that. Why did I do it? Yeah. So, you know
what? Let me give you my my theory now. Let's operate under the assumption that they have the right guy. I know that
there are a lot of theories out there, but let's just operate under the assumption that Tyler is in fact the person who did this. And let's operate
under the assumption that these text exchanges are legit. And in a moment,
we'll talk about some other theories there, but let's for now just assume that they are. Right? If all those things are true, my theory is that this
entire text exchange is a piece of fabricated theater to communicate to an
onlooker that the roommate did not know about this plan. That's why we're getting these insane amount of details.
That's why we're getting styles of communication that aren't that standard, you know, like first we have panic, then
it's like why? And it's almost like Tyler is realizing that the roommate forgot their line. Like no, you were supposed to say why did I do that? So he
improvised and go why did I do it? And the room goes, "Uh, yeah." And then he responds with another paragraph of
motive and more details about exactly where he is and what's going on. And you would expect him to be in a panic and
just, you know, he's probably shaking. He's nervous. You would expect short replies saying, you know, trying to get out of here. See you soon. Don't worry,
everything's fine. You would expect these brief things, but we're getting mountains of explanations here. Then
again, the roommate asks a short question. How long have you been planning this? That's the next line in
this little theater. And then Tyler again goes into a flood of detail. But let's look at some of these details. So
we have there is a squad car parked right by it. Not a police car, a squad car. Then again, the use of the word
vehicle. As I got to my vehicle, I'm worried what my old man would do if I
didn't bring back grandpa's rifle. So old man. Then again, all these very specific details of exactly what's going
on. And grandpa's worried about the gun and what he's doing with the gun. All these details. And then the line for me
that I just can't ignore, which is since Trump got into office, my dad, and my
dad is in brackets, has been pretty diehard MAGA. So again, we'll talk about all this in just a second. And then at
the end, we have this exchange, you're all I worry about, love, to which the roommate responds, I'm much more worried
about you. So this is the first time we're actually seeing worry in this one line. No exclamation points, no
punctuation for someone who started with a ton of punctuation. And then Tyler says, you know, don't talk to the media.
don't take interviews and you know if the police come just lawyer up. And I guess this kind of relates back to what
I was questioning earlier. I guess he's thinking if they find the rifle and they trace it back to him, maybe they're
going to go talk to the roommate. But all that would take so much time. Like does he not understand that he'll
probably get to the roommate before they do? If he's leaving now, he'll probably be able to get the roommate before they do and they'll be able to have these
conversations. But he's still sending all this by text. He's like, "I was hoping to keep this till I die of old
age, but then why did you spill the beans right now? You don't have any reason to believe that they're on to you. They interviewed the wrong guys.
Nobody's on to you." And by his own admission, it looks like he's about to walk away from this whole thing. So already that to me was a little unclear.
And then there's literal evidence that the text exchange has been in some way modified because first of all, there's
ellipses all over the place, that little dot dot dot. And that's fine. Maybe they removed certain things because it's evidence or it's it's part of the
investigation. That's okay. But then the part where he talks about his dad, the my dad is in those brackets that we use
to specify something in journalism usually. So if the person said like he and then you know we're referencing this
in an article, we we replace the he with whoever that he is in these types of brackets. So, we know that there's been
some kind of modification. And it would be nice to know like how much like how much of this was changed? How much of
the original are we seeing? How much was left out in those points? Because that might help bridge certain gaps. Was the
roommate freaking out more, asking more questions that I would expect to see. So, I don't know what's missing. But the
bigger point about this line, you know, ever since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty diehard MAGA, is that
he's calling this person my love. He's texting him a confession. They live together. They're obviously very close.
These are conversations that they've had. The roommate would know that the dad has been pretty diehard MAGA. This
is something Tyler would have complained about. It just seems so like these are the things that we need to say so people
won't know that this was premeditated and that you knew about this before it happened. And then the last thing about
this is something that there's a lot of talk about online. And I didn't initially notice all of these, but I
definitely noticed some of these. I noticed that he used the word my old man
and vehicle to talk about his car. But some other people online noticed some other odd terms like drop point or till
I died of old age. And let me tell you what I think this is. I think it once again contributes to this whole twoerson
text theater for us. So, think about how in a movie sometimes you see a character call someone and we're only seeing this
one person and when the phone picks up, they go, "Hey, John." No, no, no. Whatever. Like, they say what it is. Or,
"Hey, mom." No. And that's not for that conversation cuz usually when we call a friend, we go, "Hey, man. What's going
on?" Like, we know who it is. They know who we are. This is for us, the viewers, to understand context. And this
conversation is very similar to that. There are these things that doesn't make sense that he would be saying to Lance,
but are there for us as outsiders to go, "Oh, okay. This is the the fiction. This
is the theater that we're supposed to accept." I also believe based on these texts, if Tyler in fact sent these
texts, that he's a bit of an outcast, a bit of a loner, and you know, it's been reported that he spent enormous time
online. So, probably a little antisocial. And I don't think he's a trends setter. I think he's a bit of a
follower. And I don't think he knows what cool is. So he picks up these terms like a lot of these terms. It's like he
watched some war movie or police movie and picked up like squad car and vehicle and drop point. And he's using that in
his language because he thinks that's what cool is. And then he watched some old movie where someone said my old man
and until I die of old age. And he worked that into his little scripture into his little theater. Because if we
don't look at it through that lens, this exchange between a guy who's on the run
and his roommate who's also his romantic partner doesn't make sense. It doesn't
make sense that this is the conversation that they would have. Sorry, there's a lot of scattered thoughts. But another thing that's missing from these texts is
any form of celebration. Right? This person probably had a lot of conversations with their roommate about
how much they hate Charlie Kirk and how they wish somebody would do something about it. And if he's the one who did this, he's probably quite proud of
himself for having finally done it. You would expect the text to be like, "Oh my god, I finally did it." Or, "I did it
for us." Or some kind of celebration of this big thing that he did for them. We're not seeing any of that. And
another thing that doesn't make sense, this person is suspected of having shot and killed a public figure in broad
daylight at a crowded event with security and having gotten away with it. By the way, one shot. So, this person
has some kind of tactical capacity, some kind of planning skill, and you're
telling me that that person is going to send paragraphs of details like this over text to their roommate? Like,
again, it just the level of meticulousness doesn't match. So, look, there are a lot of people out there who believe that this entire text exchange
is fake. It's fabricated. I don't know at which stage. I don't know by who, but it's a popular theory out there. And if
you believe that, of course, everyone's entitled to believe whatever they want. Personally, I tend to stick to not
jumping to massive conclusions, but just being cautious when things are weird. And to me, this exchange seems very
unlikely for a 22-year-old guy on the run with his roommate and romantic
partner. Now, does that mean that the whole thing is fake and completely fabricated? Does it mean that parts of it are fake and edited for whatever
reason? Does it mean that it's not fake, but the intention of it is different
than what we think? Like, like Tyler had some kind of intention for these texts? I can't tell you with certainty, but all
I could tell you is something doesn't add up with these texts. But I'm really excited to hear what you guys think in
the comments. Let's try to keep it respectful. A lot of different theories going out and I don't think anything is invalid or 100% for sure confirmed. So,
let's try to stay away from that certainty. But, let me know in the comments what you think. Why do you think this text exchange reads as weird
as it does? Do you think it's been fabricated, edited, or is it a real exchange between the two with some kind
of motive? What do you make of his behavior in the courtroom and that stoicism when the charges are being
read? What do you make of that lack of synchronicity between two news sources where we're seeing different reactions
at different moments? That one just blew my mind. Let me know in the comments what you think of all this and I will see you on the next

[admin]

Netanyahu’s desperate clarification video on Charlie Kirk backfires spectacularly
Janta Ka Reporter
Sep 20, 2025

Benjamin Netanyahu issued at least two video statements since the assassination of Charlie Kirk clarifying that Israel wasn’t responsible for his death. But this has turned out to be a failed exercise as Trump supporters and those who knew Kirk well are questioning the motive behind Netanyahu’s statements. Rifat Jawaid asks if this is a case of there’s no smoke without fire!!



Transcript

First Gaza and now Charlie Kirk's
assassination has truly exposed the
rogue regime of the settler colony of
Israel in front of Americans. More and
more Americans are now finally waking up
to the reality of Israel's brutal
control of their country. They are
realizing how a tiny illegal settler
colony built on this stolen land of
Palestinians has been destroying their
vast resources by constantly sucking
billions of dollars of aid every year
and polluting their society with the
demonic and barbaric policy
implementation with the help of the
compromised stooges in the Congress and
the Senate. You only have to see the
reaction from bloodthirsty terrorist
Benjamin Netanyahu in the aftermath of
Charlie Cox's assassination to truly
understand why this monster is so scared
of the potential fallout of his
suspected role. War criminal Netanyahu
currently wanted by the International
Criminal Court for Crimes against
humanity issued two video statements.
Yes, two video statements to simply deny
his role in Charlie Kirk's
assassination.
This was his recent video message where
he kept explaining for 2 minutes how
Israel didn't kill Charlie Kirk.

[Bibi Netanyahu] Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda
minister, said that the bigger the lie,
the faster it will spread. Well,
somebody has fabricated a monstrous big
lie that Israel had something to do with
Charlie Kirk's horrific murder. This is
insane. It is false. It is outrageous.
Charlie Kirk was a giant. A once in a
century talent who defended freedom,
defended America, defended our common
Judeo-Christian civilization. Charlie
loved Israel. He loved the Jewish
people. He told me so in a letter that
he sent me just a few months ago. "One of
my greatest joys as a Christian," he
said, "is advocating for Israel, and
forming alliances with Jews to protect
Judeo-Christian civilization."
He encouraged me to make the case
directly to the American people about
how vital Israel is to US national
security. He told me, "The Holy Land is
so important to my life, it pains me to
see support for Israel slip away."

Now, if Charlie disagreed with a policy of
mine, or a decision here and there, not
only did I not mind, I welcomed it. This
is the essence of Charlie. This is the
essence of a free country. It's exactly
what Charlie stood for. And I knew that
his suggestions always came from the
heart, from his love for Israel, and from
his love for the Jewish people.

A few weeks before his death, I spoke to
Charlie. I invited him to visit Israel
again. And sadly, that won't happen.
Now, some are peddling these disgusting
rumors, perhaps out of obsession,
perhaps with Qatari funding. What I do
know is this: Charlie Kirk was a great
man, and a great man deserves honor, not
lies. Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk. May
your memory be a blessing.

Now, this hasn't convinced people on the
right in the US, including those who
knew Charlie Kirk very well. Candace
Owens and Tucker Carlson are two of
them. Listen to what Candace has to say
to Animal Netanyahu's second
clarification.

[Candace Owens] You guys remember that Bibi recently was on a
PR blitz, despite the fact that he was
fighting this 96,000 front war,
because Israel didn't do nothing. Okay.
He was doing a ton of podcasts in
America. He went on to Patrick Bet
David's podcast. He went on to Brendan
Tatum's podcast. He went on to the Neelo
Boy's podcast. Anybody find it weird he
didn't do the Charlie Kirk show?
Bibi very quickly told us that Charlie,
it's implied, was penning
love letters to him in May. "I just love
you so much." It's amazing. They were so
close. Bibi just hits him up like, "Hey,
I know we're fighting this 97,000 front
war because we're always the victims,
but do you want to just come and maybe
stay at my place for the weekend here in
Israel?" Like, that's the vibe that Bibi
was rushing to present to the media. So,
why didn't you do Charlie Kirk's show?
I'll leave it as a question for you
guys. Common sense. Common sense.

Okay. I don't like small lies. And remember,
Bibi started this. I am responding to his
shameless misrepresentation of what Charlie was
going through, and what Charlie was
saying, because and I want to be clear, to
me right now, it feels -- and I'm using a
corporate term here -- a bit like a hostile
takeover. Okay? Charlie builds the
company organically on the basis of
Charlie's honest ideas.
Suddenly, that company's got a lot of
money, and Charlie's honest ideas are
starting to change, or maybe add more
color, and now he's getting financial
threats. He's being called names. He
increasingly is being told who and
what he's allowed to speak to. And he's
taking a stance. He is taking a
stand privately to these people. And
then it doesn't matter anymore, because
Charlie's dead, and those very same
people who were pressing him, are now
very quickly trying to set in
stone that the energy of Charlie is that
Charlie died for Israel. "He's
just one of us." Nobody asked any more
questions.

That is literally untrue, and
we're not going to allow it. It's
just not true.

As for Tucker, he has gone on record to explain how Charlie
Kirk despised Netanyahu, and that what he said was completely untrue.

[Tucker Carlson] Charlie didn't hate Jews. He loved Jews.
He had tons of friends who were Jews. He
loved the state of Israel. He loved
going there. He did not like Bibi
Netanyahu. And he said that to me many
times. And he said that to people around him
many times. He felt that Bibi Netanyahu
was a very destructive force. He was
appalled by what was happening in Gaza.
He was above all resentful that he
believed Netanyahu was using the United
States to prosecute his wars for the
benefit of his country, and that it was
shameful, and embarrassing, and bad for
the United States, and he resented it.
He didn't hate Netanyahu. He wasn't out
there with a placard saying that. But he
certainly expressed that to me, and a lot
of other people. And there's no question
that Bibi's defenders on the Internet
will call me a liar, or a kook. But
that's a fact. And enough text messages
exist that I think it can probably be
verified in pretty short order. Not that
it needs to be, because that is true.

Shortly after that speech, there was a
very intense attack on Charlie, and to
some extent on me. Not that I really
noticed.

Charlie Kirk was a divisive
man. No doubt he held deeply offensive
views about people of Gaza, and Muslims
in general. But Israel's illegal
attack on Iran was perhaps the turning
point for him when he began to openly
criticize Israel. But what may have left
the rogue regime of war criminal
Netanyahu increasingly alarmed was this
video here. Charlie Kirk was openly
challenging the legitimacy of the Gaza
genocide. He literally implied that the 7th
of October attacks were Netanyahu's own
creation.

[Charlie Kirk] I got to be careful the way I say this.
They're going to try to ethnically
cleanse Gaza. And I don't use that
term lightly. They're talking
about basically removing 2.5 million
people from there. And honestly, they have a mandate to go
seek justice and revenge. They do. There
is this idea that they need to have
a truce, or a peace treaty. That's
morally crap after you see women and
children being burned alive and dragged into
the streets. But there are some serious
questions here, Patrick. And let me tell
you, my pattern recognition over the
last 5 years has become pretty sharp:
COVID, Maui fires, you know, Epstein.
When I see a story and it doesn't click,
our guts are usually right.

So I've been to Israel many times. The
whole country is a fortress. When I
first heard this story, I still had the
same gut instinct that I did initially.
I find this very hard to believe. I've
been to that Gaza border. You cannot
go 10 feet without running into a
19-year-old with an AR-15, or an
automatic machine gun that is an IDF
soldier, right? The whole country is
surveilled. And so, let me just
kind of go through this.

We don't talk about Israeli politics very often, and
most Americans don't know this. In the last
9 months, Israel is on the brink of
civil war. It's not an exaggeration.
There's this judicial stuff. There were
hundreds of thousands of Israelis
taking to the streets because Bibi
Netanyahu was basically redefining the
Israeli constitution. That's not an
exaggeration, right? He said the
judicial branch has too much power.
There were protests planned this week
against Netanyahu where they anticipated
tens of thousands of people to take to
the streets. That's all gone.
Netanyahu now has an emergency
government, and a mandate to lead. I'm
not willing to go so far as to say that Netanyahu knew, or there
was intelligence here, but I think some
questions need to be asked. Was there a
standdown order? Was there a standdown order?

-- The Women Soldiers Who Warned of a Pending Hamas Attack – and Were Ignored: Over the past year, the Israel Defense Forces’ spotters situated on the Gaza border, all women, warned that something unusual was happening. Those who survived the October 7 massacre are convinced that if it had been men sounding the alarm, things would look different today, by Yaniv Kubovich, Haaretz, Nov 20, 2023


-- ‘They Wanted to Dance in Peace. And They Got Slaughtered’: Israel's Supernova festival celebrated music and unity. It turned into the deadliest concert attack in history, by David Browne, Nancy Dillon, Kory Grow, Rolling Stone, Oct. 15, 2023

We have learned from reporting in the
Israeli media that when the organizers
of the Nova Festival called for the
IDF's help at 7:00 a.m. on the 7th of
October, the organizers were told to
fend for themselves. In fact, the first
IDF soldier to arrive at the scene was
at 300 p.m. 8 hours after the call for
help was made. And how long did it take
for Israeli terrorist to launch the
genocidal campaign in Gaza? Just 4
hours. So it took them 8 hours to send
an IDF soldier to the Nova festival
scene, but they waited for just 4 hours
to start slaughtering Palestinians.
Listen to this man, Ben Swan from Truth
in Media.

[Ben Swan] YouTube has now taken down a video
in which Charlie Kirk questioned whether
or not on October 7th the Israeli
government issued a so-called standdown
order.

[Charlie Kirk] Was there a standdown order?
Was there a standdown order?
6 hours. I don't believe it. Israel's
the size of New Jersey. When I took a
helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the
Gaza border, it's 45 minutes.
Wow. 6 hours they're live streaming the
killing of Jews. Did somebody in the
government say stand down?

Well, the reality is that Charlie
Kirk, in his questioning, was exactly
right. Last year we put together a
series of videos specifically about
October 7th. In it we talked
specifically about this issue. Was there
a standdown order that was issued by the
Israeli government that prevented the
military from going in and rescuing
people, taking them out of this
situation where they were being held by
Hamas? Again, what Charlie Kirk said
there was correct.

But here's the proof that backs it up. Once the Hamas
attacks began, the time it took the
Israeli army and rescue teams to arrive,
fight, and rescue Israelis at the
different Kibbutz communities, and sites
being attacked, that ranged
anywhere from 4 hours to more than 20
hours. Even the New York Times has
reported, "thousands of soldiers
were less than 40 minutes from the towns
that were under attack. So, why did it take so long for help to arrive?"

And we've discussed how days before the
festival, two entire brigades of
soldiers were taken away from the area
of the Gaza border, and sent to the
West Bank. And you might think that
immediately upon receiving information
of a devastating attack on partygoers, that
military authorities would alert units
to immediately exit their bases, race to
the site of the conflict, and go on the
counterattack. Right? But that's not
what happened.

Haaretz reported, quote,
"At 7 a.m., the party organizer, called
Lieutenant Colonel Elad Zandani, the man
tasked with approving the festival,
told him that terrorists were shooting
the partygoers. He suggested that they
fend for themselves."

The first IDF forces arrived at the party scene at 3:00
p.m. That's 8 hours for response time
for one of the most efficient, capable,
and well-militarized security forces in
the world, operating in a country the
size of New Jersey, with their Gaza
division only a few miles away. What
makes it even more strange, around 4
hours into the Hamas assault at 10:46
a.m., Israel was already launching
operations and bombing targets inside of
Gaza.

So, hold on. Let that sink in.

And then we have reams of evidence to
suggest that most of those killed at the
Nova Festival were by Israeli terrorists
themselves under the so-called Hannibal
directive.

So why was Charlie Kirk a
threat to Netanyahu? That's because Kirk
wasn't just a MAGA supporter, or MAGA
podcaster. He was arguably the only MAGA
youth icon so close to Donald Trump that
there were open suggestions that he
should be running for the White House in
the future. And this was a frightening
prospect for Netanyahu. Israelis hate
bad PR, but when the person responsible
for that adverse PR, or publicity, has the
potential to occupy the White House, and
become so powerful that he would be in a
position to dictate major policy
decisions, this would mean a death to
the idea of the settler colony of
Israel.

This is the philosophy that
drives Israeli terrorists to use their
lobby groups to keep blackmailing
members of the Congress and the Senate.
They're billionaire donors are there to ensure that people
like Marjorie Taylor Greene aren't
reelected for being a pain in the neck
to Israel.

So when people raise
suspicion on Netanyahu's clarification,
they are right. As they say, there's no
smoke without fire.

That's it from me. Thank you very much for your support of
this platform and our journalism on buy
me a coffee.com, and Patreon. If you do
think that our journalism is worth
supporting, then you too should consider
becoming part of it. Details are there
in the description of this video. In the
meantime, if you haven't subscribed to
my channel, please do so because that's
one of the many ways you can support
independent journalism. God bless you
all.

[admin]

Max Blumenthal: Charlie Kirk’s Story FALLS APART
Dialogue Works
Sep 20, 2025



Transcript

Hi everybody. Today is Saturday, September 20th, 2025 and our new friend
Max Blumenthal is here. Welcome, Max. Great to be on the show. Big fan.
Please subscribe and hit the like button to help us reaching more people. Max,
let's start with what has happened in the United States. the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the way that the
Israeli government specifically particularly Benjamin Net was reacting
to what has happened in the United States. What is his obsession with the case of Charlie Kirk? Yeah, I've lost
count of the amount of videos, the number of videos that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has released
and the interviews that he has conducted specifically about Charlie Kirk since the conservative operative was killed on
September 10th. But Netanyahu immediately weighed in with prayers about Charlie Kirk just minutes after he
was killed. It was eerie. His body was still warm and Netanyahu was beginning to claim Charlie Kirk's legacy. I've
been writing about Charlie Kirk for 10 years now. He was not just one of the most important conservative youth
activists, he was also one of the most critical gentile assets that the
self-proclaimed Jewish state controlled inside the United States. and he had
started to move away from the Israeli line and specifically Netanyahu's line
and even uh entertain the possibility of publicly calling for Netanyahu to resign
because he privately despised Netanyahu in the months before his death. He was
under enormous pressure from Zionist activists who are close to Netanyahu.
basically Netanyahu's cutouts and the millionaires and billionaires that Netanyahu presides over inside the
United States. He was under enormous pressure to kind of fall back to stop providing a platform to Israel critics
at his TPUSA events like Tucker Carlson or Marjgery Taylor Green. And Charlie
Kirk was resisting. So Netanyahu sought to paper over all
this history and this reality which was mostly taking place in private, but
which people who paid close attention to Charlie Kirk like me knew were take knew was taking place because of the public
statements he was making, complaining about all of this Israel lobbying he was being subjected to. And why can't he
care most about his own country and not this foreign country? So Netanyahu seeks to bury that history and to make Charlie
Kirk out to be the hero of Israel after his killing. And he starts carrying
conducting interviews on Fox about how much Charlie loved Israel. Then he introduces a video on Twitter X.
Netanyahu personally speaking to a camera about a letter Charlie had written him based on an in an invitation
Netanyahu extended to Charlie Kirk two weeks before his death to visit Israel
on a propaganda trip which would have ostensibly been paid for by Israel. And
Netanyahu didn't say whether that whether Charlie Kirk accepted his
invitation. The reason Netanyahu is doing this, just to answer your original question,
was because Israel requires American Christian, mostly conservative
men to fight the war of Armageddon that Netanyahu wants
against Iran, just as it required them to fight Israel, the war Israel wanted
against Iraq. And so they need to keep the MAGA base on their side. And Charlie
Kirk would have been the perfect symbol for that. And then the gray zone comes in and screws everything up because I
had been talking to friends I knew of Charlie Kirk about this transformation
he was experiencing in private. And my article about that and how he personally
detested Netanyahu was one of the most viral pieces we have
ever published at the Grey Zone. And I followed it up by exposing uh we broke
the story at the gray zone by exposing the secret summit that one of Netanyahu's top billionaire cutouts in
the United States, Bill Aman, had convened in the Hamptons where basically
Charlie Kirk was supposed to uh oversee
a um influencer summit where influencers were going to be paid to generate
millions of clicks and impressions for Israel and everyone got invited on a propaganda tour to Israel. This was not
supposed to be known. And what and the the summit devolved into what was
described to me by one attendee as a disaster when Bill Aman, the billionaire donor close to Netanyahu, started
challenging and pressuring Charlie Kirk about his views on Israel. And then
another Zionist influencer, this young British lawyer who is one of the biggest
Zionist thugs in London trying to get every po protester arrested. Uh her name
is Natasha Heddorf started screaming at Charlie Kirk. And um you know when this
got out there, Candace Owens subsequa,
associate of Kirk, longtime friend of Charlie Kirk, subsequent to the publication of my article about that
influencer summit, Candace Owens goes live and provides more details about the summit. And from there, the entire
Zionist world of bigwigs and donors and operatives who are close to Netanyahu in
the United States launches goes into full meltdown mode and launches this
allout campaign to destroy Candace Owen's reputation. Uh, you know, they're
falsely claiming that uh the gray zone's funded by Iran. They're trying everything they can to discredit this
reporting. And then finally, Netanyahu does another video where he comes out
and announces on his own on the prime minister's own channel on Twitter X and
other social media networks that he did not kill Charlie Kirk. I never accused
him of killing Charlie Kirk. I said there was no evidence that Israel killed Charlie Kirk. But he felt the need to
proclaim that Israel killed Charlie Kirk. and he begins denouncing everyone
uh who has reported that Charlie Kirk actually didn't like him. So this got
all the way to Netanyahu and he is in full panic mode. And again the reason why Netanyahu is panicking, the reason
why these uh this Zionist network in the US is panicking is because they are losing their last base of support which
is actually their most critical base of support. what Israel lobbyists referred to as Israel's safety belt in the Bible
belt. And it's that base that they require of Christian
young white mostly yeah white men who will go and fight Israel's wars on their
behalf against Iran and its allies. Yeah. Max, I think what's happening in
the aftermath of the assassination somehow. How did you find the way that the government was dealing with the
information coming out? They came out, they talk about the outfit of the guy
who seems to to have assassinated Charlie K. And then Candace Owens comes
out and tells us another story. Here is what FBI said.
Um, so when he's first spotted on campus, he has different clothing on and
then he changes clothing on the roof and then changed back into that clothing at
some point so that when when he was uh when he was apprehended when he when he was arrested, um, the clothing matched
the clothing he had on before the shooting. He it seems that he was somehow obsessed
with his outfit and he he needed to change it. Here is what Can Owen said.
What happened? Something made its way around the entire town and into my tips
line repeatedly. It is a very clear image of Tyler Robinson
allegedly taken. I'll say allegedly for safety here, but it's looking right according to my timeline. Allegedly
taken at 6:38 p.m. at a nearby Dairy Queen. Here is that photo that we can
show you. Just take a look at this photo. What is wrong with this picture? A lot
is wrong with this picture. First and foremost, 6:38 p.m. You just shot someone. Uh you have gone through great
pains to hide your face, to change your outfit. But wait, you didn't fully change your outfit, did you? I'm looking
at this photo and uh you're wearing jeans and you're wearing the maroon shirt. Now we have a 50/50 combo of the
outfit and now you're showing your eyes and you're not fearful at all that you might be recognized. Also, wow, you must
have quite the stomach. You don't have a record. Next thing you know, you shoot someone and you're like, I'm just gonna go have a meal. You don't seem to be too
shaken or too Yeah. Not just this, you see the text that they have released, the
communication between Taylor Robinson and his partner is somehow it's amazing the communication
between the two. It seems long before from I don't know
50 years ago two people are talking to each other. Yes. My love. Uh my love. I'm going to
retrieve the vehicle and then dispense of the rifle at the drop point. It's something like um a federal law
enforcement official would write a who's over the age of 60. Like is this how 22
year olds speak? And why do the text messages have no timestamps? CNN
actually had to take the to dramatize the text messages. They actually created
a graphic that made it look like you were reading your own iPhone, but there never it was adapted from the charging
documents, which had no timestamps, which had this obviously inauthentic
language. And then subsequently, we learn that the text messages were quote unquote reconstructed.
Okay, this is bizarre. The FBI director, Cash Patel, said that
a manifesto was found, but that it was destroyed and it has to be forensically
reconstructed. So maybe he's referring to the text messages which conveniently dis contain
a confession of every aspect of the plot. like you're going to go and do that and try to get away and then you're
going to conveniently confess to your lover in antiquated language every
aspect of the plot. That is when I went from a
uh guy who was willing to accept the official story to a just asking
questions guy and then more inconsistencies start to come out. And it's not just the inconsistencies, it's
what we don't know based on what we know right now.
The evidence is grainy footage of the shooter on a roof. We just see the movement of someone on a roof and
someone jumping off who vaguely resembles Tyler Robinson. Then we have footage, a photograph of
someone who is said to be Tyler Robinson walking upstairs. Why do we not have the video? That was
not a photograph. That's from a video. So why can't we see the full video of him walking up the stairs so we can
match the resemblance? Then there's the Dairy Queen photo which raises questions. How did he get to Dairy Queen
15 minutes after the shooting? It said, I believe in the charging document, that he was on the roof for one minute before
firing the fatal shot, which supposedly hit Charlie Kirk in the left side of his
neck uh from about 150 to 200 yards away, which you know, talking to an AR I
talked to an army veteran around about this who uh took the army shooting test
and passed the test. They have to take shots like that and it's not but it's not impossible for a civilian to be able
to do that especially with a 306 rifle which is you know very very accurate but
we don't know the caliber of the wound because we don't
have the autopsy report yet. It's it is up to the family to determine whether
the autopsy is public or private I believe. So, it may be the Kirk family has decided not to release it. But then
there's footage which shows blood emitting from the wound to the front and
it's a very large wound which resembles a potential exit wound. There was a
camera filming from the back which was removed. We can see the removal of that
camera by um I've been told it was uh someone associated with TPUSA who
removed that camera, but we haven't seen the footage from it yet. I don't even know if the FBI has subpoenaed that
footage. But that footage would kind of put to rest the theory that Kirk was potentially shot from the back and that
the wound that we see was actually an exit wound. Um the motion of his head is
seems to be consistent with him being hit from the right side. And
then you have the question of the bullet itself. Where is the bullet? The bullet has not yet been found.
Uh I've been hearing some just rumors. I have no idea if they're true that the
bullet will not be found, which means that it may have lodged in a uh bone in
Kirk's spine or brain, which raises further questions about the
direction of the shot. Was it a clean shot through this part of his neck, or
did it penetrate through the right side, starting here at the base of his skull
or lodging in his spine and then causing an exit wound? Look, I'm no expert on
ballistics, but there are just questions many people are raising now because the
no one knows what the official story is. And there are there's just a lack of
evidence. And again, I would totally be content to accept that this young man
had maybe started suffering from some kind of mental illness or had um
developed uh attraction to a trans lover, a roommate who was transitioning
from male to female and was offended by Charlie Kirk's commentary about trans
people and sought to kill him for that. Be fine accepting that. But based on the evidence that the public has, if I were
his lawyer, I would potentially plead not guilty because there's enough case
for him to establish reasonable doubt if he had like a fair judge and jury. The
government needs to come up with more evidence. It needs to present it to the public and there needs to be a credible
investigation here um before to to to put all of these theories to bed. And
again, a lot of these theories which I have not accepted focus also on Israel
as Benjamin Netanyahu has acknowledged. Yeah,
Max, when it comes to this support to Israel in the United States, it seems as you've mentioned, there's so much
concern of the people, the young people in the United States that they're not anymore supporting Israel because of
what's going on in Gaza, what's going on in the Middle East. But how is this
movement going to be considered by Israelis as the last chance of Israel to
have something to do something in the United States? How important is this movement for Israel?
Well, it's it's critical. It's critical to Netanyahu as well
because of where Israel is going politically. This is what my book Goliath, which I published in 2013, was
about. It was about the consolidation of Israel as a Israeli politics and Israeli
society as right-wing messianic, essentially fascist. And I think my book
painted a picture of a society that was primed for genocide. And then I went to Gaza the following year to cover
Israel's war on Gaza in 2014, um, Operation Protective Edge. And what
I saw was sort of a pilot program for a coming genocide. So what's happening now
has been in the works for a long time. And the government that came in with Netanyahu, these uh messianic fascist
figures like Idomar Beng and Bezel Smokrich, I used to see them when like I would go in the Knesset for an
interview. I would see them walking around and they were on the move and everyone kind of disregarded them as uh
these obscure figures, but I could see that they had a long-term agenda and
they really had the they they had their finger on the pulse of Jewish Israeli society. So, Israel is transformed.
Netanyahu is sort of holding together the government and in a way he sort of
exists at the center of where Israeli society is. But then you have American society which is moving away from that
particularly among Democrats and even among Jewish Americans who are not
uh who don't exist within these kind of closed Jewish communities like you see
in New Jersey and Long Island who just kind of have assimilated into American culture. They have no appetite for
supporting the kind of politics that Netanyahu res represents. So Netanyahu's only base among the American public is
exclusively within the Bible belt among Christian evangelicals who voted for
Trump. But they themselves are moving away and there they're starting through the interventions of Tucker Carlson and
Marjgery Taylor Green to learn that there are Christians in Palestine that there is the St. Profurious church in
Gaza City which has been under attack which has existed there since the um 8th
century and this has been transformative for them. So Netanyahu sees he's losing
his last base and all he's left with is the 1%. The influencers who are just
Jewish Zionists who have no who have no
ability to re who are losing their own ability to communicate with the
conservative grassroots. I'm talking about Ben Shapiro whose Daily Wire company has been collapsing. Uh they
canceled their credit cards last year. They're like ending their their their office space. They're leaving their
office space in Nashville. Mark Levvin at Fox News, he's just an artificial construction of the Murdoch family. He
doesn't have an actual base. These are Netanyahu's voices in the US. And then he has his billionaires, the Bill Amans,
the Ron Lawers. And so what they're trying to do is they're trying to take TPUSA, which Charlie Kirk controlled,
and what they've been trying to do for years, is take this, which is a a political empire that has an annual
budget that's larger than the municipal budget of many small American cities and
use it as a host body for their agenda to prevent the conservative grassroots
exodus from Israel's uh, you uh to prevent the conservative
grassroots from turning on Zionism. And then all of a sudden, Charlie Kirk realizes his own grassroots base that he
commands at TPUSA is in full revolt. They're disgusted by the genocide. Some
of them are disgusted by the genocide in Gaza. But what really upsets them the most is they start to see that their own
government is under the control of a foreign entity and that Netanyahu seems
to even control Donald Trump. And so Charlie Kirk has to bridge the divide
between all these billionaire Zionist donors who built him up and helped create his political empire and the
grassroots. And the contradiction can no longer be squared. In the I mean, if
you're watching this now, I'll have a new report up at the Grey Zone. In the days before his death, Charlie Kirk was
having to carry out these Zoom calls with Netanyahu's cutouts in the US, top
Zionist influencers and donors almost every day. And they were breathing down his neck, and they were really worried
about his upcoming speaking tour and what he was going to say. and they were te basically telling him what to say. Uh
some people on the call were the venture capitalist Shawn Maguire who's very close to Elon Musk uh who owns a house
in Israel, works at Sequoia Capital. Another one was Joshua Hammer from
Newsweek who's one of Netanyahu's key voices in the media. Another person was Bill Aman who I mentioned before were on
these Zoom calls and a rabbi named Pesak Wiki from I believe Virginia in the
United States who runs all of these influencer programs to send uh youth
Christian youth on propaganda tours of Israel. And they were telling Charlie Kirk what to say until like 24 hours
before he was killed. And according to their own accounts, Charlie Kirk was
arguing back. So what they face is a political tsunami in the United States
and they have no way of holding it back. And that's why in the wake of Kirk's
death and in the days before his death, some of these Zionist
moneymen have started a full-on takeover campaign of the US media, which we can
talk about. It's like a fullcourt press in the United States. Netanyahu had been waging a sevenfront war in the region
and now the United States has become the eighth front and they want to prevent anyone from being able to express
themselves anywhere in the digital online ecosystem by just buying it all.
Yeah. Actually Pam Bondi was talking about it. Yeah. She said that there is a difference
between hate speech and free speech. how they're they're using the case of the assassination and what what has
happened in the aftermath of the assassination in order to somehow control the media in the United States.
Yeah. What is hate speech? Alternative media. I mean, can you define hate speech? I
mean, I actually I I don't have any sort of idea what they're talking about because
hate speech in their mind is something defined by their sort of ideas. I don't
know if we know what what that would be exactly and and hate speech has been
thought of as a project of the political left traditionally. Um the left was
advancing it on behalf of those who they considered to be oppressed groups who
faced violence from not just right-wing vigilantes but from you state violence
because they were historically oppressed. And so you couldn't, you know, hate speech laws would punish
people for using, for example, the the n-word or inciting against minorities.
And now in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death, the right, the political right
that but really Trump incorporated has shown its own hand and wants to
institute, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi, hate speech laws to crack
down on their own political enemies, which represents the left, which
includes historically oppressed groups. And they're going to do it to protect
the 1% including one of the most privileged groups in the United States,
American Jews. The Donald Trump administration came into office promising to destroy DEI
programs. That's diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, which are sort of a
um liberal or neoliberal interpretation of civil. It reflects a neoliberal
interpretation of civil rights. It's basically if you take the class component out of civil rights and you
advance minority ambitions within corporations or within the military by
giving them preferential admission treatment. They want to eliminate that.
But at the same time they are providing DEI programs specifically to wealthy
American Jews to please the billionaire donors of Netanyahu who are simultaneously paying for Donald Trump's
campaigns. So most recently the National Endowment for the Humanities which is a
wing of the US government which has funded the arts and the rightwing of the Republican party has always tried to
defund this entity. The Trump administration is funding it
and they're now allocating the largest grant in the history of the NE to
something called the Tikva Fund which is a Ludnik Israel lobby organization
which counts among its board members and um fellows Bari Weiss one of the premier
voices of the Zionist 1% in the US and Brett Stevens who is the in-house Israel
pro- Netanyahu propagandist at the New York Times. And these are wealthy people who don't need grants or supports or
support. It's just a way of paying back all of the ultraionist donors.
So they've done they're the Trump administration is administering DEI, Jews only DEI, which will only actually
fuel more anti-Jewish sentiment among the conservative grassroots. and
they are uh going to at the same time impose
censorship on those who that group considers their opponents, supporters of Palestine,
Muslims, uh the anti-war movement, direct action protesters. Donald Trump
is going to has just classified Antifa as a terrorist organization in the wake
of Charlie Kirk's killing. What is Antifa? Again, it's like hate speech. It's something that's totally subjective
that cannot be d uh objectively classified. Antifa is an amorphous
network of basically anyone who wants to go out and carry out direct actions
against what they consider to be fascism. And they do do property damage. and they have engaged in kind of like
fist fights with the vigilante wing of the Republican party, the Proud Boys and
groups like that. They usually lose. But the important thing to know here is that Antifa,
while not and while not being a formal organization, is also heavily infiltrated by law enforcement. Any cop
or FBI agent can just put on a mask and join their protests and get in their
Discord chats. And that means that by classifying Antifa as a terrorist
organization, what Trump has done is created the perfect terror factory for
generating government plots to turn up the temperature and turn up the fear and
then manufacture consent for more repression. This is precisely what the FBI did during the George W. Bush and
Obama era when over 90% of all terror
plots in the United States that were stopped by the FBI according to researcher Trevor Arensson were actually
hatched manufactured by the FBI itself. They were all controlled plots. Uh, and
I can rattle off some very specific ones, but you had like at one point the FBI actually following in a car behind
shooters who they directed to attack a Draw Muhammad competition, an Islamophobic Draw Muhammad competition
in Texas. The FBI followed the car of the shooters that they had personally groomed to attack this contest and then
watched as they were shot by security. And then, you know, the public was told
the terrorists from ISIS had come to shoot up this free speech competition. So, get ready for more of that under
Donald Trump as Antifa is classified as a terrorist group along with unprecedented censorship and crackdown
on all domestic criticism. Isn't that amazing that the case of Tik
Tok is somehow you know how how they came out with the solution for Tik Tok
is they're changing the Tik Tok the way they're I it seems that the tone is
changing in favor of Israel that's why they're okay right now with Tik Tok what
was in their mind and what are we seeing
the how how how can we understand their policy in Tik Tok because We don't see
that much of rhetoric that we have heard before in the initial days of the the
administration. It seems the tone is changing toward Tik Tok. Netanyahu's
billionaires. If you're watching this right now, by the way, I keep using that term, but look up Netanyahu's
millionaires. It started with a this term kind of started with a 2007 Yet or
Yediote Aronote article in 2007 in Israeli media where they uncovered a list Netanyahu had personally drawn up
handwritten list of 50 millionaires and billionaires inside the United States that would support his campaigns.
Israeli media has updated that list and one of those billionaires
on in Netanyahu's back pocket currently is Larry Ellison whose Oracle company
which is a data company was launched with support from the CIA is one of the
CIA's top contractors is building data centers across the US to fuel the so-called AI revolution and Larry
Ellison is a fanatical Zionist who hosted Netanyahu on his on the Hawaiian
island that he personally owns on his own private Ellison Island. His son, David Ellison, is also an ultra Zionist
who's been heavily involved in coordinating with the Israeli government on anti-BDS
activity, anti-boycott Israel activity. And Larry Ellison is now at the
forefront of a campaign to buy Tik Tok, to suppress Palestine
content, which criticizes Israel, to censor influencers who are critical of Israel, who are getting millions, if not
billions of impressions, and it and to create a Zionist media monopoly in the
United States. Larry Ellison's son, David, is subsequently working to buy
CBS News, which will then install Bari Weiss, the
top media voice of pro- Netanyahu Zionism in the US, as editor. They've
already brought in someone named David Weissman to be the ombbudzman, who is an Israel, a veteran Israel lobbyist.
And Larry Ellison has announced his intention to buy CNN, which is already basically a propaganda arm of Israel,
but through its international bureau, they've done some uh critical coverage by reporting on what's actually
happening in Gaza. They are desperate to crack down on any information getting to
the part of the American public that is not already educated and redpilled on this issue about the genocide that has
been perpetrated in Gaza. They recognize that Israel has is facing a PR disaster
that is only going to get worse in the coming weeks and months with possibly
the United European Football Association banning Israel, which would be a real a
very powerful blow against Israeli PR and lead to more boycots in the world of
international sports. So, they're just trying to lock it down with a media monopoly. and Larry Ellison who has
donated millions of dollars to friends of the IDF is close to Netanyahu is at
the forefront. I should also mention uh Andre Horowitz which is a major hedge
fund run by Mark Andre or venture venture capital firm. Mark Andre is also
a arms manufacturer. He wants to pioneer AI drones and he's partnered with Robert
Horowitz who is the son of the late ultra Zionist propagandist David
Horowitz who was one of Charlie actually one of Charlie Kirk's original mentors
through the so-called David Horowitz Freedom Center. David Horowitz would his
main line was the Palestinians are Nazis and they should just be eliminated and ethnically cleansed. And now his son and
a arms dealer, a Zionist arms dealer, Andre, are partnering with Larry Ellison
to take over Tik Tok. Uh, and I should also al also note that
last year the head of the Anti-Defamation League, the director
Jonathan Greenblat went to Israel and testified before the Knesset that there needs to be a media blitz that
replicates what Israel did with its pager attack inside Lebanon. and he and
he p he explicitly recommended buying Tik Tok as part of that media or public
relations blitz. And so here it is. It's all happening right before our eyes.
Max, how what do we know about these donors of Charlie Kirk and the movement
he has started? At some point it seems that he was receiving a lot of pressure from these people.
Yeah. And because he was inviting those people who were somehow not totally
aligned with the rhetoric with the official rhetoric about Israel, questioning what's going on, how
how how does the US, you know, benefit from what's going on
with the case of Israel? These people were mostly concerned about the United States and the long-term benefit of the
United States. What do we know about that? Well, if you're watching this live, I I
don't want to scoop myself, but I have a story in the works about a major Zionist donor that Charlie Kirk lost just days
before his death. Uh, very significant donor.
And if you go to TPUSA's campus or its office complex in Phoenix,
there are six buildings there and they contain plaques which are tributes to
donors who donated over 1 million. You may have to donate like 2 million now to get a plaque there. But uh this donor's
plaque will never be on a building because he was so outraged by Charlie
Kirk giving voice to the anger in the conservative grassroots about the
Israeli takeover of the Trump administration. That's actually a term that I've heard people in and around the
administration use, takeover. Like they're not happy about it. Donald Trump
isn't happy about it. He's just surrendered because he's weak and afraid.
And at the July at the TPUSA Student Action Summit
this July in Tampa, Florida, that anger came out into the open with
Tucker Carlson not only referring to Jeffrey Epstein as a Mossad agent and
declaring that if you volunteer to fight for the Israeli military, as for
example, Idan Alexander, this captive that the Trump administration fetted inside the White House did. And don't
fight for the US military. You should have your passport stripped. Tucker Carlson also mocked one of Netanyahu's
top billionaires in the US, Bill Aman, calling him a scam artist, questioning how he got his $9 billion of wealth. And
this set Bill Aman off. And a campaign was launched against not just Tucker
Carlson, but TPUSA itself. At that same event, uh, anti-ionist Jewish comedian
named Dave Smith, was brought on stage to debate the Newsweek editor I mentioned earlier, Joshua Hammer, on
just the very question of Gaza and whether it was a genocide. Debate is not allowed at these events. You're not
supposed to have a debate. You crush the other side and do what your donors tell you. And Charlie Kirk wasn't doing that
because he was trying to bridge the divide. he was being a little too small d democratic.
So, Bill Aman launches this campaign trying to keep Charlie Kirk co-opted in
bringing influencers in. But there are other donors, as I mentioned, who were so furious that they started to pull
their money out of this organization. And we will never know where TPUSA would
have gone or the conservative movement would have gone under Charlie Kirk's direction as he consistently moved away
from the official line administered by Benjamin Netanyahu. will never know
because he was killed on the first stop of his campus tour where you know every
every other question or every third question was about his support for Israel and was challenging him on that
issue. But we will know where this goes in the long run because first
of all, no one can fill Charlie Kirk's shoes at TPUSA
and he was still an important gentile asset for Israel even as he was moving away. So
who who who else can they turn to uh to shill for them to push the Israeli line
as this genocide continues with the ethnic cleansing of Gaza City? nobody that I can see. So, the PR crisis is
only going to accelerate at this point. And I should also say that all these institutions, these social media
companies and media outlets that
Netanyahu's cutouts, Zionist billionaires are openly buying just to shut down criticism of Israel. They're
going to become so toxic that very few people will want to watch them. They are
not going to become uh more appealing to younger
Americans, even conservatives. It's just going to be too obvious what they're doing.
How much of the movement TPUSA was based on
Charlie Kirk's character and quality of discussing with other people because we
have to understand who's going to come after him and what would be the main goal of the movement in the aftermath of
Charlie Kirk and it seems that his wife is just going to be the next CEO of the
movement but what's your understanding of Yeah. Well, just one quick comment on his wife. I don't know her. I'm not
really qualified to to talk about what she believes,
but she if she says something right now or points her finger in a direction,
it's like a thunderbolt coming down from Zeus and everyone in the movement must obey. And she has not said a word about
what Candace Owens has been saying about Charlie Kirk's death or about Israel. And I think that's very interesting.
Charlie Kirk was not going on this campus tour to host debates and foster
free speech. I mean, let's be real. He was seeking
doing the same thing that Twitter influencers do when they rage bait or
engagement bait people on Twitter. and he was a very canny, hard-working,
savvy, and to some degree cynical political operative who was trying to
advance the future of his wing of the Republican party, uh, which is the Trump
wing. And what the what was taking place at these events were young people were getting engaged in politics on behalf of
the Trump machine. And it was a get out the vote operation. and they were being signed they were being signed up and
registered and then mobilized to vote for Trump and vote for proTrump candidates in local elections. So
Charlie Kirk was a critical aspect in that regard and he would make the talks
as controversial as possible because controversy draws in spectators who can
then be wrangled into your political operations. So, one of the last talks he was seeking to do, this you was just
revealed on CNN was with Van Jones, who is a former black left-wing radical from
the Bay Area who has become one of the key assets of the Israel lobby. He's
basically owned by Israel. He is one of the biggest He served in the Obama administration for a brief time. I I I
met him once and it was clear to me he was one of the biggest hustlers that I had ever and
biggest frauds that I had ever met. And now, you know, he wears a yellow hostage ribbon on his lapel along with a
Anti-Defamation League blue uh badge when he's on CNN. And he said Charlie
Kirk reached out to him to have a discussion about race and crime. And that was going to be a very
controversial discussion and uh it was going to implicate black people as criminals and call for harsher penalties
against black criminals and crackdowns like the occupation of Washington DC which we just saw federal occupations of
cities and Van Jones is going to play along. I don't think any principled black
intellectual would have participated in that event. And then by playing along, the people in the crowd would get
wrangled into the proTrump Republican operation. Van Jo and Van Jones probably
would have been paid to do that just as he's apparently being paid by pro-Israel
forces and even the Israeli foreign ministry to shill for them. Again, this is a guy who used to be uh supportive of
Palestine. I'd seen him in New York wearing a kofia. And so, how how did Kirk, you know, get the idea to reach
out to Van Jones? My suspicion is one of these Zionist billionaires was demanding
this talk uh on uh and and they knew that Van Jones was part of their
network. So uh that that's really what this was all about. That's what this campus tour
Charlie Kirk was going on was about. It was about like um registering young people for the for the congressional
midterms. It wasn't about fostering free speech, but you know there if you wanted
to grab the mic there and challenge him, you got a chance to do that. And in the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing, the
Republican party has revealed their true colors. uh especially the proTrump wing
which was so critical of Biden's crackdown on speech of all of the
oppressive measures during COVID where you know national guard would go through cities and tell people to get back in
their houses where online cens censorship was out of control you couldn't question the official mandates
without being censored I was an opponent of it but now the Republican line from
Elon Musk on down the Trump proTrump line from Elon Musk on down is too wrongs actually do make a right. They
censored us. Now it's our turn to use our government state powers to censor
them and shred the First Amendment. And I think there's there's no way the First Amendment survives the next two to four
years. And with the First Amendment gone, that means America loses its soft power. That was like the one thing that
made that gave American presidents the ability to portray
falsely but you know plausibly their country as a shining city on the hill. And the last component of American soft
power after all of this unfettered American support for genocide in Gaza
and this endless war with uh over Ukraine will be gone and both parties
will have been responsible. Max
on PBD podcast they had Eric Bowling and it seems that he's one of the board
members of Turning Point USA. And here is what they said about Candace Owens.
And it's somehow amazing they're teaming up to attack her. This is what they said.
And her credibility, I mean, is going to go down the tubes because she needs to bring receipts. Bill Aman brought
receipts. How long was that tweet? It's still going. I think he was there in the room. Andrew Kulovit
was there in the room. You're on the board of Turning Point. Yeah. Okay. When's the last time you saw
Candace Owens? In person? Yeah. 2015. 2016.
Okay. Yeah. When's the last time she was at a Turning Point event? Uh, not in many years. Okay. So, let's even bias there's a even
involved in Kirk's life. No, at all no question proof that Candace Owens is
nothing has nothing to do she would be in in a perfect world if if they didn't
have this what I already know was a is a very quiet breakup where she got too
rabbit hole for him. She would be the logical heir to the TPUSA throne. But she's not she's not
even invited. Correct. So this is this is their divide is Wait a minute. Not invited meaning she's not even there.
Yeah. She's not she's not one of the names that you don't think she'll be at the funeral. No, no, no. I mean to say she doesn't
speak at the events anymore. I mean, so that's just what you It's so good for
this to happen because you guys are watching everything that I'm saying and you can watch them lie. Eric Bowling, I
just don't even get this. How can you say that I have not spoken at a Turning Point USA conference in years when I
literally went on tour with Turning Point USA on college campuses last year? Like I that's that's just incredible. He
didn't know that I that I went uh I was on tour for Turning Point USA last year. You don't remember that happening?
You know, these guys hate a lot. Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, you and those
people who are talking against the rhetoric. What is the case of what this board? It
seems that what do we know about the board of TPUSA? because it's so much important with the movement and the
future of the movement. Well, that was Patrick BetDavid's
podcast. Patrick Bet David got wealthy through a multi-level marketing scheme or a pyramid scam and he recently
interviewed Benjamin Netanyahu at Netanyahu's request and it was like a softball interview with like the Hitler
of our time. Not one tough question. So, you can be pretty sure that in the wake
of Charlie Kirk's killing, that will be a very controlled environment for the
conservative incorporated influencers who are basically in it for
the money and aren't actually trying to interrogate and question the officially
administered reality as Candace Owens has been doing since she fell out of favor with them. I mean, they're
basically calling on every controlled con, Inc.
influencer and everyone from TPUSA's board who wants to still get a piece of
the pie that Charlie Kirk left for them to denounce Candace Owens. And it's
really funny that they're now saying Bill Aman brought receipts. Bill Aman uh
wrote a really long tweet exonerating himself about this secret Hampton's influencer summit where he was literally
buying influencers to pump out videos denying genocide in Gaza and go
on propaganda tours. Like that was scandalous. And Bill Aman, a day after
Charlie Kirk was killed on September 11th, said, "I was lucky to join Charlie
Kirk for a meal earlier this year." Okay, you lied. That meal was actually
this secret influencer summit that I exposed. I broke that story and I
harpooned I d by doing so I drove a harpoon into Bill Aman's whole network
because we weren't supposed to know about that. We were supposed to think it was a friendly meal with Charlie Kirk.
It actually turned out Charlie Kirk was getting screamed at by Zionist maniacs frothing at the mouth about his shifting
views. And someone who was also pressuring him was Bill Aman. So they're
all just lying to us right now. They're lying because they want to get things back into order. Get all the Zionist
billionaires back at TPUSA and get that money and then start channeling it through all of these small other
nonprofits. TPUSA Action and uh America's
uh TPUSA. I can't even keep track of all the names of all these different nonprofits. so that that $800
million annual budget continues to pay off the luxury cars that the
administrators of TPUSA were buying for themselves. I mean, in many ways, this
wasn't just a get out the vote operation. And if you contributed to it, you may not have actually been
contributing to the cause. it the more I look into this organization, it looks more like what uh televangelists had
done where they were just basically taking money from people. And so we have
to ask questions about the the corruption of the board members at TPUSA and why they're so determined to clamp
down on the truth about Charlie Kirk uh after his death. I mean, and I really
think it's a question of keeping their um organization
afloat and keeping the gravy train flowing.
These are these are like when I say Khan Inc., it's like a pun. It's a play on words. It's not just con like
conservative. It's it's a con like a confidence game.
Is Donald Trump afraid of Netanyahu? If so, is that because of Epstein files or
something beyond that? He's afraid of the Epstein files. So is Bill Aman. Bill Aman was an Epstein
associate through his wife Neri Oxman who was gifted a $150,000
through her lab at MIT. She's a designer and architect, this really pretentious designer. and she gave Bill Aman a an
orb, an artistic orb as a gift afterwards and kept it secret because MIT kept all of Epstein's gifts secret
and that came out in the media and Aman was furious. So all of these people have
these connections to Epstein and they're afraid of it. What but what Trump is afraid of is Netanyahu's
ruthlessness and clear insanity. I mean, I'm hearing
from people who are like peripheral to the Trump administration that they thought Netanyahu coming out on his own
and volunteering that he did not kill Charlie Kirk was insane and that he's
losing his mind. But I mean, if you look at what Netanyahu is doing regionally, he's carrying out a regional
assassination campaign, killing everyone who gets in his way. They tried to kill the entire Hamas negotiating team inside
a US ally. Uh, Trump did not like that. But what
did Trump do to push back against that? What did Trump do when Israel notified
him in advance of the attack? Nothing. There's nothing Trump will do to get in
Net Netanyahu's way. And that's because Donald Trump is afraid of what Netanyahu
would do to him. And so, I've said this on other podcasts and I wrote this, I
reported this. The Trump administration through the Secret Service discovered
two electronic devices on Secret Service emergency response vehicles this year
around the time of Netanyahu's visits. They were planted by Israeli agents. That's according to a very good Trump
insider source. Now, I wouldn't I probably wouldn't have reported it because I can't corroborate
that with the Secret Service. I don't have like some deep source inside the Secret Service. And so if I asked their
PR department, their comm's team, they would say, uh, no, we we can't comment on that. But there's a precedent here.
In 2019, three former US officials, senior officials from the Trump administration, confirmed to Politico,
one of the most mainstream outlets in the US run by the pro-Israel Ax Axel
Springer Company, that Israel had planted Stingray devices in and around
the White House to spy on Donald Trump's phone communications. We know that Tony Blair when he took his
team to Israel would tell them to not bring their talk on their phones or have sensitive discussions in government cars
because they would be spied on. And Boris Johnson, former British prime minister, wrote in his own memoirs in
2017 that Netanyahu himself went to his personal toilet and afterwards,
Johnson's security team found a listening device in his personal toilet. So Netanyahu himself was planting
surveillance devices according to Johnson. And then it makes you wonder like who could get access to the White
House to plant stingray devices? It's not like any Mossad agent can just get in there. It's someone who has to be let
in the White House in the first place. So this is very serious and it would be rational of Donald Trump to be afraid of
someone who has that much influence over him who's carrying out assassinations inside US allies who's even weaponi
who's Mossad intelligence services is weaponizing household devices as bombs
and who has killed or no who has incited the assassination of his chief political
rival Yetsakrain who was assassinated for signing the Oslo Accords. Also
remember that Netanyahu's first boss in Israeli politics, Yeetszak Shamir
was one of the authors of the assassination of Vulki Bernadot, who was the UN special liaison to Palestine in
charge of implementing resolution 194 to bring back the Palestinian refugees. So
they shot him in Jerusalem as he was getting out of his car as part of the Stern Gang, the armed wing of what would
become the Leud Party. That was Netanyahu's mentor. So
assassination has fueled Netanyahu's rise to power. And now Netanyahu is the
first foreign leader that I've ever seen go out on his own on not one but two occasions to declare that he has not
assassinated a top US conservative leader or leader in general who was
under pressure from the Israel lobby in the days before his death.
Max, you mentioned the final goal of Net is a war with Iran, a fullout war.
Yeah. something big between the United States and Iran, not Israel, because they want the United States to fight the
war. What is your understanding of the latest comment by the Ministry of Diaspora
Affairs? He said that the new axes of evil is Turkey
and Syria and Gata. This is a new sort of mindset forming in
the aftermath of Bashar Assad and what has happened in Syria. Yeah.
What's your take on that? Well, first of all, we need to consider that in the past week, Marco Rubio, the
Secretary of State who is in control of more national security
cabinet level positions than anyone since Henry Kissinger and is more
powerful than the vice president. JD Vance was summoned to Jerusalem essentially to kiss the wall with a
keepa on his head alongside reciprocal Israeli US ambassador Mike Huckabe, the
Christian Zionist fanatic. And that to me signaled
a um I saw that as a harbinger of doom in the
same way that I saw Netanyahu's last two visits to Washington as part of a
campaign to get Donald Trump to sign off on his imminent or his desire to attack
Iran. Now, we're learning through transcripts of discussions between Israeli officials in the national
security cabinet, including Al Zamir, the chief of staff, that the Israelis
would not have launched their unprovoked attack on Iran in June without knowing that the Trump administration would
ultimately come in and strike the Fordo and Isvahan facilities. They they knew
that going in. And so Trump was going to rescue them potentially from a war they couldn't finish on their own. And so it
seems clear to me given that they basically have Trump by the balls that sometime before the midterms, Israel,
the congressional midterms where the Republicans are expected to lose, Israel
will attempt to attack Iran again and instigate another more violent war which
will draw the US in more deeply. But we're also hearing these comments about
Turkey and Qatar because of the fear that they could
reestablish some sort of influence inside Syria and also their efforts
regionally to push back on Israel politically.
And they we we many people missed this but uh many observers missed this but
Israel actually attacked a de facto Turkish base inside Syria about 10 days
ago in Palmira where Turkey was seeking to professionalize the Syrian military.
So, Israel's recognizing with the new uh imposed government in Damascus, which
was always a Turkish and Qatari card as they controlled the various al-Qaeda
offshoots, Jabat al-Nusra, Hayat Alm, that this has given armed
capacity to Turkey on the frontiers of Israel
along the Golan. And so they're going to turn up the temperature on Turkey and
fight what they call a war between wars inside Syria. Uh we should also pay
attention to Egypt which controls the Rafa crossing which
is the main point of exit where Gaza's war torn starving genocided refugees are
supposed to exit in order to make the so-called Gaza Riviera plan possible.
basically the Judaization of Gaza possible and Egypt militantly opposes
this at the recent summit convened by Qatar. You know these summits are usually useless meetings and air
conditioned halls where Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed. Uh Abdul Fatal Aisi made some interesting
comments where he announced that it was a red line for Palestinians to be uh
pushed into the Sinai, that the Sinai would become a base of operations against Israel, which would mean the
conflict would come to Egypt, and that he will mobilize the Egyptian military in opposition to this, which is
technically, I think, a violation of the Camp David Accords. And this is the last
Arab army that is strong in the region that is actually bringing in some
important Chinese technology. Um that has decent air defenses is so I think
potential conflict with Egypt is on the horizon as well and that we should actually pay attention to the conference
that Qatar just held and I mentioned before Israel being banned from the um uh European football association. That
was one of the key items on Qatar's agenda. So, this is a not just a military war, but a political war. And
finally, uh just some trivia, there are three of Qatar's top lobbyists in the US
in the Trump administration in key positions. Cash Patel was a lobbyist for
Qatar. Pam Bondi was the top lobbyist for Qatar at Ballard Partners
and she's the attorney general and um Lee Zeldon at the Environmental
Protection Agency was one of the pro-Israel influencers close to Trump
that got on the Qatari payroll in 2017 when Saudi Arabia laid siege to Qatar.
and Qatar thought, you know, if we if we u groom these pro-Israel figures close
to Trump, then maybe Trump will push back on the Saudis. And they were sort of correct about that. So that's another
reason why Qatar threatens Israel because they do have influence within
Washington that a country like Iran because of sanctions and because of its
historical position could never have had.
Thank you so much, Max, for being with us today. Great pleasure to have you on.
It's been a pleasure to join you and huge fan of the show.

[admin]

Newsom SCARES Trump SO BAD he CALLS SECRET SERVICE
MeidasTouch
Sep 21, 2025

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on very scared Donald Trump calling the Secret Service on California Governor Newsom as Newsom takes the fight directly to Trump in Los Angeles at a powerful event.



Transcript

Donald Trump just can't handle it.
California Governor Gavin Newsome is so
efficiently cleaning Donald Trump's
clock that Trump's United States
Attorney in the Central District of
California, get this, called the Secret
Service on California Governor Gavin
Newsome. That's how much Nuome is living
rentree in Donald Trump's head. Let me
show you what went down. And let me show
you the powerful press conference that
California Governor Gavin Nuome had in
Los Angeles over the weekend as the
Trump regime was literally calling the
Secret Service on Governor Nuomo. So,
California Governor Gavin Newsome posted
this. It was a repost of the White House
imagining what the UFC fights going to
look like on the White House lawn. It's
an AI rendering of a massive stadium on
the White House lawn where again a UFC
fight is going to take place pretty soon
at the White House. To which Governor
Nuome says, "Thank God they are focused
on the priorities of all Americans."
Yep. Golden ballrooms that are 90,000
square ft demolishing the Rose Garden
and creating Club Rose Garden. Donald
Trump gallivanting with the royal family
in the United Kingdom while Americans
can't afford groceries and are worried
that their healthc care is about to be
taken away. Governor Nuome then posted
this and this is what triggered Donald
Trump's regime to call the Secret
Service on Governor Nuome. Nuome writes,
"Christy Gnome is going to have a bad
day today. You're welcome, America."
Now, Governor Nuome was saying that
because he was holding a press
conference in Los Angeles where he was
going to be signing legislation into law
that would prevent ICE from wearing
masks in California and numerous other
measures to protect the people of
California from Donald Trump's fascist
regime. That's why Governor Nuomo posted
that. But then the acting United States
attorney, so Trump's top attorney from
the federal prosecutor from the Central
District of California, this like young
and unqualified guy who Trump has there
who's an ultra MAGA extremist. He goes,
"We have zero tolerance for direct or
implicit threats against government
officials. I've referred this matter to
the Secret Service and requested a full
threat assessment to which the Secret
Service then responds in response to the
statement of the United States attorney
Esley referral regarding the social
media post directed at the Secret
Service Protectee Secretary Christine.
The Secret Service writes, "Our field
office is in receipt of the Department
of Justice's communication to preserve
operational integrity. We're not able to
comment on specific protective
intelligence matters. However, the US
Secret Service must vigorously
investigate any situation or individual,
regardless of position or status that
could pose or be perceived as posing a
threat to any of our protectes,
especially in a politically charged
climate such as this. How utterly
pathetic can you be for the post that
Governor Nuome made? You're calling the
Secret Service on the governor of
California. What weak, pathetic losers
they are. That's one of these things for
me. These people are just freaking
losers. All of them. Then Governor Nuome
shows when Donald Trump posted back on
March 10th, 2020 the following. Going to
be a bad day for Crazy Bernie. to which
Governor Nuome got the receipts from
Donald Trump's 2020 post and Governor
Nuomo goes, "We have zero tolerance for
direct or implicit threats against
government officials. We've referred
this matter to the Secret Service and
requested a full threat assessment. But
on a very serious note, Governor Nuomo
is responding to this report that
reporters at the Pentagon have been told
they can no longer report information
which has not been approved by Pete
Hexith. Those who refuse will lose their
press credentials. To which Governor
Nuome writes, "Your freedom is being
strangled." This is how authoritarianism
starts. Don't look away. We also learned
that the Bureau of Labor Statistics
under the Trump regime, which just had
its Bureau of Labor Statistic
Commissioner fired by Donald Trump a
month or so ago because Donald Trump
didn't like the labor data which was
reported. Well, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics is now postponing
indefinitely key inflation data reports.
They're not publishing what inflation is
because they're trying to cover up
Donald Trump's uh crashing economy. So,
Governor Nuomo posts the pink dressed
lady from North Korea. And Newsome goes,
"The next jobs report brought to you by
Pink Dress Lady." Governor Nuomo in all
caps then goes, "Because of his horrific
music, California will indefinitely
suspend Kid Rock from performing in the
Golden State." You're welcome. GCN
Governor Nuomo post this image of ICE
agents wearing masks who are now banned
by California law from wearing masks.
Great job, California legislature. Great
job, Governor Nuome. He writes,
"Governor Nuome just signed a law making
California the first state in the nation
to prohibit federal law enforcement
officers, including ICE, from hiding
their identities." He then posts this
image. Governor Nuomo writes, "Happy
weekend, patriots." He then um posts the
following. The new laws I just enacted
are a direct response to Donald Trump's
lawless immigration raids and arrests in
California. California is fighting to
end this chaos by one, requiring schools
and public hospitals to limit access and
implement privacy protocols to protect
against Trump's immigration chaos. Two,
schools are now required to work with
families and personnel to develop
notification protocols when immigration
authorities are present on campus.
Three, most federal officers are now
banned from concealing their faces.
Four, most law enforcement officers are
now required to publicly display their
agency and name or badge number. Then
Governor Nuome took the stage
notwithstanding the Trump regime
referring him to the Secret Service. And
here's what Governor Nuome had to say.
And to me, this is one of the most
powerful messages I've heard anybody
talk about what's going on in
California, Los Angeles, across the
country. But he talks about California
in a way that as someone who lives in
California, gives me so much pride.
watched Governor Nuome yesterday in Los
Angeles and one of the most powerful
press conferences I've ever seen. Let's
play it. Let me first try to set a
scene. It's one very familiar uh to many
of you, but not necessarily to some
folks that may be watching uh from other
parts of the country. We're here in Los
Angeles, the most diverse city in the
most diverse state, California, in the
world's most diverse democracy. It is a
point of pride. Uh we are a majority
minority state California. At our best
we don't tolerate that diversity. At our
best we celebrate that diversity. We're
a universal state. 27%
of Californians are foreignb born. You
heard the superintendent talk about all
the mixed status families. Our status is
unique in the United States of America.
It's what makes California great. It's
what makes America great and it's under
assault by this administration. There's
a word that you've never heard uttered
from the president of the United States
lips. Uh certainly not Steven Miller and
that's pluralism. We practice pluralism.
It's a deep point of pride.
Those values are under assault to a
degree we could have never imagined.
For those of you here in Los Angeles,
you deeply absorb this. You deeply
understand this.
You saw your streets militarized. You
saw the president of the United States
who in his first term never sent the
military anywhere. Not overseas,
nowhere. In his second term, he sent the
United States Marines, active duty
Marines,
to the city of Los Angeles.
He federalized
4,000 of our National Guard. We said at
the time, it was a preview of things to
come. Folks thought that was hyperbolic.
They thought we were overstating it. Ask
the folks in Washington DC. asks the
folks uh other states like Illinois and
what's about to happen in Memphis.
We announced just a few weeks ago that
we were standing up and pushing back as
it relates to the rigging of elections.
We were at the democracy center in
Little Tokyo, the sacred site where we
were interning and busing the Japanese,
that shameful part of our past.
And what did the administration do? What
did Steven Miller do? What did Donald
Trump do? They sent masked men
to intimidate folks from walking in to
that event.
Masked men.
Poor soul that happened to be in the
area. Delivery guy delivering
strawberries was detained because he
just happened to be in the area.
Collateral damage disappeared.
These mass men had no identification.
These mass men did not provide any
information, name, badge number,
hidden from accountability,
any transparency, any oversight.
That's Trump's America. But it is not
the America we've grown up in. And so
we're pushing back against this. And
then Governor Nuome talks about the
important legislation that he is signing
into law. And he talks about how what
the Trump regime is doing is like a bad
sci-fi movie. We can't look away. He
says we need to act with authority and
most importantly with moral authority.
Here, watch this. Impact of these
policies all across this city, our state
and nation are terrifying. It's like a
dystopian sci-fi movie.
Unmarked cars, people in mass, people
quite literally disappearing, no due
process, no rights, no rights in a
democracy where we have rights.
Immigrants have rights and we have the
right to stand up and push back. And
that's what we're doing here today. This
is a disgrace.
This is an outrage what we have allowed
to happen in this country
and I could not be more proud of this
legislature, the legislative authors to
the community demanding more from all of
us at this moment to push back. I'll be
signing a bill the first in the nation
saying enough to ice unmask. What are
you afraid of?
What are you afraid of?
What are you afraid of?
[Applause]
If you're going to go out and you're
going to do enforcement,
provide an ID. Tell us which agency you
represent. Provide us basic information
that all local law enforcement is
required to provide.
have the decency
not to threaten people as they go to
school
to go out the parking lots proximate to
these schools to create chill
packed attendance
we talked to these kids they were saying
I've got one of you said I've got
friends they don't go on the metro
anymore it's a public space
so your superintendent had the decency
foresight and leadership to provide
transportation
That's Trump's America.
Hospitals.
You talk about health infrastructure.
You talk about community health.
People scared to death to even access a
community clinic for preventative
medicine. Worried that somehow they're
going to be turned in or someone without
identification looking like anyone else
with a mask on may just jump out of a
car and they may disappear.
So, I want to thank the legislative
leaders for asserting themselves and
providing me the privilege, the ability
to sign these laws, pushing back at this
moment. I thought John Stewart said it
best. This is not about the pronoun
police. This is about the secret police.
We're not North Korea, Mr. President.
We're not the Soviet Union. This is the
United States of America.
And I'm really proud of the state of
California and our state of mind that
we're pushing back against these
authoritarian tendencies and actions of
this administration.
ICE is now the largest private
police force in the United States of
America. And I say private because
increasingly
it appears to many of us that they have
sworn an oath to Donald Trump, not the
Constitution.
A private police force whose ranks are
going to grow by some 10,000
dwarfing the FBI and DEA.
only comparable staffing and investments
are you military operations around the
globe.
That's what Congress, the supine
leadership in Congress provided along
with the supine members
of the Supreme Court that have allowed
racial profiling on the basis of accent,
basis location, and skin color.
This is not America. And so we are
pushing back firmly. We're pushing back
using not just our formal authority but
perhaps the most important authority and
that's our moral authority. So, thank
you to the members of the legislature.
Thank you to the authors of these bills.
Uh it is my honor now to sign into law
uh four pieces of legislation that go in
effect immediately upon signature and
one on the masking that will formally go
into effect January of 2026. With that,
um let's sign. Well, there you have it,
folks. Let me know what you think. Hit
subscribe and let's get to 6 million
subscribers together. Want to stay
plugged in? Become a subscriber to our
Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get
daily recaps from Ron Filipowski, ad
free episodes of our podcast, and more
exclusive content only available at
midasplus.com.
[Music]