Altruistic World Online Library

ERIKA OUTED BY HER OWN TEAM?! MORE INSANE DETAILS COME OUT!
Daily Freddo with Kasia
May 25, 2026

Please note: All statements in this video are personal commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. They do not represent definitive facts or accusations. I do not intend to harm, defame, or mislead anyone, and encourage viewers to do their own research and form their own conclusions. Everything you see on this channel reflects my personal views and opinions. It’s just me sharing my thoughts, ideas, and commentary—nothing here is connected to or represents any company or organization I may work with/for.



Transcript

The video I published yesterday of Alex Clark's tweets caused quite a stir, especially on X. If you've missed it, I
am going to play a two-minute snippet of it in a bit just for everyone to grasp the main context of it. But it was generally about that infamous text
Charlie allegedly sent the day before the UVU event to Andrew Kvette and to his head of security. The story of this text goes as follows. Candace Owens told
us about the text without letting us know that it was Andrew Kvette who received it and also that it was him who told her in the first place. Erica Kirk
said that Charlie has never sent any texts like that, claiming she had his phone. She checked the messages and there wasn't anything like that in
there. When Candace told her about the text and that it was Andrew that shared that information with her, Erica
allegedly said she finally checked his Telegram app and that yes, the texts were there. She asked Candace if she ever saw those texts herself. Candace
said no. Only then Erica said, "Well, he meant or he wrote left was going to analy him. He wrote left." So, we were
confused. Who knew about the texts? Was it just Andrew? Why didn't Erica know about them? Wouldn't Andrew have told her immediately like he did Candace? Why
would Erica pretend she didn't know about the texts? And if she really didn't know, why nobody told her, but they told Candace? There are just so
many questions about it. And then Alex Clark helped us all out and accidentally revealed that they knew that Charlie
meant left in that particular text and that's why they pushed him to wear a vest. Let me play a short clip from yesterday just to get on the same page
with those who missed the yesterday's episode. Those that watched it, feel free to skip. Here are the tweets once again to remind you. All right. And I
wonder if you'll notice. Also, now you heed the warning that Charlie doesn't trust someone. But when he texts everyone saying they are going to kill
me, you all brushed it off. I hope you all feel absolutely awful for ignoring Charlie's concerns. And Alex answers, uh, no, we did not brush anything off.
We knew he meant the left and we tried to get him to wear a bulletproof vest on campus stops and to only do indoor events. He refused. Yeah, that's how I
know Alex is full of it or she is told to say those things. Okay, because we all saw it unfolding. Erica said she had
Charlie's phone and that he never said it. He never sent the message they are going going to analy me. He never said anything else about it. Let's all
remember that moment. Okay, again very me memorable moment. I have his cell phone. Didn't say that.
This is what happens when a grieving wife challenges the internet's favorite rumor.
But Charlie and I always we promised each other we would never live in fear.
And he would say, "If they're going to get me, they're going to get me." But he was not messaging people the day before saying, "I'm going to be murdered.
They're coming after me. Someone's going to kill me." He didn't he didn't say that. And I have this cell phone.
Then when caught on a lie because Candace revealed that it was Andre Kvette that told Erica, "Yeah, we actually got those texts." Erica said he
sent it on Telegram where the messages automat automatically get deleted. Then she asked Candice if she had the actual
texts. And once she made sure Candace didn't have them, she said Charlie meant left was going to analy him. It was the
left. But now Alex says they all knew he meant from the get-go that the left was going to analy him. And that's why they
wanted him to wear a vest, but he refused. So which one is it? The lies and inconsistencies just keep coming.
Alex got too confident speaking online and now she has chocolate all over her face. So, I wonder how many people knew
about Charlie's texts that they were going to analy. Did Erica know? And if she didn't, like she claimed, she didn't
find out until she was made aware of those texts, you know, when she found them on Telegram. Why did Why didn't she know? Charlie didn't tell her. He told
everybody at TPUSA but didn't tell her, is it because they were having problems and he didn't tell her? Or maybe she
lied. But if she did lie about knowing, why? So again, what are the two biggest issues here? If Erica lied about not
knowing about this message, that makes her look suspicious. Why would she lie?
Is it because Charlie didn't really mean left when he texted that? Does it have to do anything with the messages he sent the same day? the message I am forced to
abandon a little hat's cause or second option is that she really didn't know which is very weird because Alex Clark
just admitted they all knew and that's why they were pushing him to wear a vest and this is what Erica said in her interview for New York Times that
interview happened like 8 days after guys by the way on the evening before Mr. Kirk traveled to Utah. He and his wife met for dinner in the Phoenix area with a friend who was a faith leader.
The purpose was to pray together over Mr. Kirk's imminent tour of roughly 20 compasses. Both Mrs. Kirk and a friend
5 minuteswere worried. Mr. Kirk, whose appearances on college campuses drew ordinant support and fierce condemnation, had received numerous
deaths over the past year and had been traveling with the security team for months. Over dinner, Mrs. Kirk implored her husband to start wearing a
bulletproof vest. When he demured, the friend suggested that Mr. Kirk speak behind bulletproof glass. "Not yet," Mr.
Kirk replied. He said he felt confident in his team and that there would be additional security on the Utah event.
But Mrs. Kirk, like several of her husband's subordinates, had occasionally heard him imply that his life could be cut short by violence. She found herself
wondering if a part of him had already surrendered to such prospect. So, this checks out. If he was sending out texts that he was fearing for his life, at the
same time abandoning the cause of his main investors and then people around him, including his wife, would be begging him to wear a vest. I am not
accusing anyone here, but it all looks messed up, especially with Erica's recollection of Charlie's last night that he couldn't sleep. He kept waking
up and he didn't sleep in the bed with her, but in his kids' room. She claimed it was from all the excitement. Candace suggested a long time ago that it might
have been fear and anxiety. Baron Coleman on his most recent podcast spoke about signs and patterns that could indicate some marital problems between
Erica and Charlie. Someone tweeted the summary of them. So we can go over th this list instead of going through the
whole podcast of Vyon. Okay, so here is a list. Just in Baron Coins says there are six things that bother him about the
death of Charlie Kirk and why he suspects Charlie and Erica may have been in real trouble. Number one, Charlie and
Erica sold their $5.25 million home in January 2025 and moved into a condo. He also said like he added a little bit
more to it. So they had this condo in between TPUSA office and their multi-million dollar villa.
So Charlie also had this big building that his office was half of a building, okay? And he had his suite in there. He could take a nap. He could stay over. He
had his shower. It was like a mini apartment allegedly. So I don't know why they had this stop in between. They had a condo. Anyway, Erica said that night
before Charlie died, he didn't sleep in his own bed. He also wasn't wearing his necklace or wedding ring. She said he had to come back to get both, but didn't
say goodbye. And Baron also mentioned here like what spouse wakes up early in the morning and doesn't even give a
kiss, you know, doesn't wake them up like honey, I'm off. He was starting his massive tour. They were allegedly getting ready for it. He was so excited,
you know, she was with him. Just go be amazing. You know, she was like his bigger biggest cheerleader. He wouldn't wake her up to say, "I'm about to get on
the plane. You know, the tour is starting. Love you. Bye." That was a weird part for me as well. Then Baron
pointed out to Erica's interview with Glenn Beck. She held up handwritten notes actually written by Charlie that said, "Kids number one." Baron said
something about that didn't sit right biblically. That's also the podcast with the missing wedding photo. Baron was referring to this note that Erica found
on Charlie's desk that caused some controversy, but I realized it was just his notes for one of his last Fox
interviews. Here it is. He's literally quoting his own notes. Trump voters, young men, they want family, children,
and legacy. Young women who voted for Kla Harris, they want careerism, consumerism, and loneliness. That is a dramatic divide uh that is going to play
out in our politics for the years to come.
So, he wrote the note while getting ready for his interview. Nothing suspicious about it, which by the way, I thought there was something shady about it too at the beginning. Everyone did.
Now, we know it was a normal thing.
Anyway, let's get back to Baron's list of reasons. Baron also said, "Why were they supposedly going to sign updated
live documents on September 15th?" Yes, we know that they were going to make updates to his will on the on September
15th, on Monday. Well, he didn't make it till then. Number five, he said Charlie and Erica's last public appearance together was almost 3 months before
Charlie passed. Why? That's a good question. Then he pointed to Charlie's last two Instagram posts. Both were just
him and the kids. And in the last photo, Erica wasn't even tagged. Baron says he doesn't know for sure, but he has a suspicion they were in trouble. Real
trouble. To him, it looks like they may have been splitting up. Okay, so he meant this last post of Charlie. So,
it's only him with his son. The weird thing about it is that Erica did not like it. There's no like from Erica. If
you go through comments and likes, nothing. And also, he did have a family picture from that day, but decided to
only post himself with his son. It could have been nothing. Just, you know, me and my boy type of picture. Either way,
10 minuteshere is the family picture. Why he chose to post himself only with his son and not with the whole family. Not tag Erica. Erica didn't like the photo. I
know it's How sad is it? We're in a social media era and likes actually mean something, right? All right. Erica used
this picture on 13th of September in a carousel post that included picture of her over the casket. All right. Anyway,
let's get back to Alex Clark and her revealing to us that they all knew about Charlie's text and that he meant the
left was going to end him and how Erica pretended not to know about it. or maybe she knew about it
or maybe she really didn't know about it. See how complicated it's getting?
Either way, her behavior around the subject has been weird and that's the main issue that Alex's tweet revealed
that there were lies told allegedly. I was curious about people on X reaction to what I noticed in Alex Clark's tweet
and I want to read you some of the comments. It's a very interesting phenomenon. For example, this one. He received those types of texts daily,
kiddo. It wasn't uncommon is what she was getting at. You all focus on the last few days and those type of deaths from the left came daily. Well, we know.
We know they were receiving them all the time, but the main tweet, the tweet that she was answering to was referring to
the particular message, not in general what threats he was receiving. No, what he what he sent out the day before.
Okay, I'll remind you. Oh, so now you hid the warning that Charlie doesn't trust someone, but when he texts everyone saying they are going to kill
me, you all brushed it off. I hope you all feel absolutely awful for ignoring Charlie's concerns. Strictly the text
that he sent before. That's what the person is talking about. And Alex goes, "Uh, no, we didn't brush anything off." Meaning, they didn't brush the text off.
We knew he meant the left. He didn't say the left. We knew he meant the left.
Okay. And we tried to get him to wear a bulletproof vest.
Here is another comment. Too bad Candace and her mommy don't have husbands who know how to truly love them. Real
men don't burden their brides with worry. They shield them. They bless them. They don't whine and place fear into their hearts. Should I quote Andrew
Kovvette? Erica knew everything. They all claimed that Charlie after the day of work, he would tell Erica everything.
That's why she was so ready to take over as the CEO. Also, he didn't want to burden her with some threats he was
receiving, but was okay to put her right in the line of fire and appoint her as his successor. Right? How does this make
sense? Another comment. This post has errors. Charlie received many deaths over the years. Wearing a vest would
have been normal procedure. Also, the text said, "The left is going to kill me." Was this statement literal when someone says it in terms of go hard on
me? They are going to me on this tennis match, for example. No. The text did not say the left. That's why Alex said they
knew it meant the left, not that he texted the left. Also, they all claimed he refused to wear a vest. All right?
And if he meant it in this way like, "Oh, they're going to they're gonna like go hard on me. It's going to be difficult." Why would Andrew Kvette
contact Candace and be like, "He texted that to me and his head of security." Again, this comment does not make sense.
Thank you. Next. Jesus Christ. They are all on record plenty of times talking about the death threats their family faced. Yes, we don't doubt it. We are
talking about one very particular text and his immediate circle's reaction to it. Okay. Erica has acknowledged that there has always been a danger in
general but didn't acknowledge the specific texts. It's going to be hard to get her on this but I don't think it will be too much longer for all to be
revealed. The truth is closing in. There was another very good comment that I want to read to you. Here it is. It was
the left. Please explain what was so urgent that they had to take action after over a decade of him debating them unharmed. I know another group who
certainly had more pressing issues and a lengthy history of taking out their opponents.
Bingo. That's the issue. The comments don't address the main problem. Erica lying about the existence of those texts and the chain of events that was
confirmed even by TPUSA that happened on the day 9th of September. Erica claimed she went through his phone and he never
sent them until it was revealed that Andrew Kvette was the one who received this text and Charlie's head of security. Of course, she might have not known about it. There is a possibility.
If she didn't know, though, why would she beg him to wear a vest the night before, which again aligns with what
Alex Clark confirmed in her tweet. If Erica didn't know simply because her husband didn't want to worry her, then the whole thing with his audio
appointing his wife to be TP USA's next CEO falls apart. It doesn't make sense.
If he wasn't telling Erica things not to worry her, how can we believe he wanted her in his place? The most dangerous position at the company, receiving
threats every day. But Andrew Kovette said it himself. Erica knew everything.
Charlie told her everything. That's why she's so perfect to continue his mission, right? Well, then she must have known about the text. This is just my
opinion what I can observe. Something happened on the 9th of September that made them made him fearful. Okay? Like
we said, they've received these threats constantly, but something different happened the night before. They were
extra extra fearful, and that's why we keep going with this. But as usual, I want to know what you guys think. I'll
ask again. Did Erica know about Charlie's text from the night before or not? Let me know in the comments. And if you enjoyed this video, make sure to
like and share it. And if you haven't yet, please subscribe to my channel, turn on the notifications to never miss another Daily Fredo episode. For even more content, follow me on Instagram and X Daily Fredo. That's all for today.
Have a good one.

FIRED from Turning Point USA: ONE EMPLOYEE'S STORY
Diario AS
Feb 6, 2026

Aubrey Laitsch, a former Turning Point USA employee who worked with the organization for four years alongside Andrew Kolvet, is speaking publicly for the first time after being let go. In this video, she explains that while she’s grateful for the opportunities she had, she can no longer stay silent about what she witnessed behind the scenes — including how employees are treated and the direction the organization is moving in.

Aubrey makes it clear this is not about bitterness, but honesty. She says this video marks the beginning of her telling the truth, as much as she is legally able, and emphasizes that she’s speaking up because she knows she’s not alone. She also highlights the importance of First Amendment rights for everyone, including those inside conservative organizations.



Transcript

My name is Aubrey Lech and I am the former public relations manager for Turning Point USA and I was a part of
the recent kind of mass termination group at Turning Point uh and was let go about 3 weeks ago and at the time of my
release I was working for the ATK company which is spokesman Andrew Kvett's private business that contracts out with the Turning Point kind of
ecosystem. Uh, so encompassing of TurningPoint USA and Turning Point Action, I was working directly for him.
Prior to that, I did work for Turning Point USA. So I've been with the organization since 2021. So my boss,
Andrew Kulvet, and I had a very close working relationship. I talked with him on a weekly, if not daily, basis. My tasks were assigned by him to me.
working directly for him was a challenge and very intimidating because, you know, he was Charlie's right-hand guy, always in Charlie's ear, um, constantly. And
1 minuteso, it was very important to me to be an impressive and loyal employee to Andrew,
to which I believe I certainly was. I did so many things for that company. I worked many, many hours outside of my
general kind of understanding of what this job entailed. And I had no problem with it because I wanted to work hard
for both Andrew and Charlie, for my co-workers and for the Lord. And that was the expectation that Charlie had for
us as well was to work very hard. I really believed in the mission of Turning Point and what we were doing.
So, taking you back all the way to 2021 when I first started working at Turning Point. Let's be honest, being a conservative was not very cool or trendy
back then. I think we really owe it to a lot of the work that Charlie put in and us at Turning Point put in. It kind of made conservatism more cool and trendy,
but back then it wasn't very cool. And so it was such a beautiful thing to be kind of plopped into this place of employment where everybody was so
like-minded. It was just such a fun place to work. I had nothing but wonderful experiences right from the
start. But then in I'd say around 2022 or 2023, things kind of started to change. The energy kind of had shifted
within the organization as a whole. And I believe that stemmed from Charlie sort of taking a step back and kind of more taking that true CEO leadership role.
And Charlie decided to entrust some of these people that had been working at Turning Point and some outside hires to kind of take more of a leadership
position within the organization. And I don't blame Charlie for that. I kind of understood where things were going. Um,
I wasn't a big fan of the energy and kind of environment shift, but I understood why things like this needed to happen. These people that Charlie put
into leadership positions, I didn't always agree with, but I was certainly in no place to judge the discretion of
my CEO. I trusted that he put the right people in charge. But over time, I pretty quickly learned that some of these people in leadership positions
were not people that I felt were either prepared or qualified uh to be or or deserving to be in that role. Fast
forwarding a few years from that time I just spoke about in 2022, 2023 all the way up until September 10th, 2025.
Obviously, it was an extremely traumatizing day for everyone. I think pretty much everyone in the world with any amount of sanity was slightly
traumatized by what they saw. It was an extremely traumatizing day for me. And I
worked non-stop. My phone received hundreds of phone calls on September 10th, thousands of text messages. And
multiple times I kind of got reprimanded for not being responsive enough to people. But I literally just could not keep up with everything that was
happening between my email and my personal phone and my work phone. It was just nonstop. And I've seen a video of a
co-orker of mine who was also released from Turning Point. She spoke about 20our days. Yeah, absolutely. Those were
very, very real, especially for those first two months uh post Charlie's assassination. In December, we obviously
had America Fest here in Phoenix, Arizona. And that was non-stop work, too. And so, really, it's just been go
go go for almost the past 6 months with like no extra compensation, no breaks,
no real, hey, let's grieve as a family, you know? Let's let's take some time and
we'll pick back up where we left off in just a little while. And I wasn't necessarily expecting that. Charlie was someone who always expected us to push through and to continue to work.
However, I think that these are extremely um unprecedented circumstances in which we were all under. And so that
was a huge turnoff for me at the organization was just how everything has been handled since 910. During the memorial, for example, I literally did
not sleep for over . Despite all of that, I want to go ahead and fast forward to my termination,
[clears throat] which took place about three weeks ago, and I was brought into an office to have a discussion just generally about my employment. It was
myself, Andrew Kulvette, and Marina Munz, who is the CMO of Turning Point USA, who I used to work for when I was
just full-time with Turning Point prior to joining the ATK company. They pulled me into a room and they sat me down and told me that there were two instances
they wanted to talk to me about. Um, one of which is pretty irrelevant to this timeline. So, I'm just going to talk
about the one which was an Uber ride that took place allegedly in the months of either October or November of 2025.
And what was told to me was that a Turning Point executive got into an Uber one day and they randomly just kind of started talking about Turning Point. And
the executive asked the driver, "What so what do you think about Turning Point?" And the driver proceeded to tell the Turning Point executive, "Well, it's
just really sad. I've heard the organization's really going going downhill. There's not really a direction and nobody likes Erica."
And the Turning Point executive proceeded to ask this Uber driver, "Well, who told you that?" And the Uber driver told the Turning Point executive
that his daughter was good friends with a girl that worked at Turning Point way back when in high school. They had spoken about Turning Point since
Charlie's assassination and that, you know, this was told to him by his daughter. And the Turning Point executive, of course, asked, "Well, who what's the employees name?" And the Uber
driver allegedly said, "Aubrey." Aubrey who? Aubrey Lech.
7 minutesAnd the story was presented to me as one of the reasons for my termination. And I
was just a little taken aback because number one, I'm not really friends with anybody from high school. And a lot of that has to do with my political
beliefs. I've been a conservative since I was pretty much a junior in high school. And so I don't know who I would have told this
story to. And it also doesn't even align with my true thoughts of Erica at the time. I've actually known Erica since
2013. We were doing pageantss uh around the same time as one another. She was in the MissUSA organization and I was in the MissUnited States organization and we happened to cross paths at an event.
So, I've known Erica for quite some time and my thoughts of her and nobody liking her do not align whatsoever with that
timeline of October or November. So, that was one of Turning Point's reasons for letting me go. So, unlike my peers,
8 minutesI actually was given reason. However, there's another thing I kind of want to dive into. To protect myself, I am going to preface with Turning Point has not
insinuated this. They never told me anything like this. However, I just have a gut feeling that
I was terminated from Turning Point because I am questioning the narrative of what happened to my role model and
CEO Charlie Kirk on the day of his assassination. What is being told to us in the mainstream media just really doesn't add up to me. And I'm really
hopeful that one day it will, but as it stands right now, it just doesn't. And so I've been here in the background
talking with people, expressing how I truly feel because as an American citizen, I have the right to my freedom of speech and my freedom of thought. And
I have a lot of concerns and a lot of questions about what took place that day and the events leading up to that day.
It is from my own experience that you can't question the narrative and
work at Turning Point. That is how I feel. That is how other people I've talked to feel. It goes against everything that Charlie ever stood for.
Charlie was someone who did question things, who did challenge the narrative.
And I know that if anything, anything at all were to have happened to myself or another employee or any other peer
within the Turning Point family that Charlie would be doing the same thing if we were brutally assassinated in the way that he was. He would have never lived
it down. And that is what I'm standing by as well. I am not going to just idally sit by and hope that the truth
comes to light. I'm going to take action. I'm going to ask questions. I'm going to talk to other people. And I refuse to apologize for having my own
freedom of thought, which is something that Charlie ingrained in me and so many other young people. So really the purpose of me coming on here and
speaking with you today is to just bring light to the situation of the treatment happening inside the organization. All
of these people who have been terminated were the most hardworking, loyal, honest
employees that Turning Point has ever had. And I know that because I've actually been at Turning Point longer than most people. You can that's public
record. You can see it for yourself on these job websites. Turning Point's average length of employment is about a year and a half to two. And so to be there for almost 5 years is actually
quite some time. I've seen the median marketing team, for example, turn over at least twice consuming of about 40
people. And so I know that these people have been some of the most loyal, hardworking, and honest individuals to ever pass through
the organization because I've been there, done that, and seen it all. I'm doing this for them and I'm doing this for my friends who I consider family who
are still there in hopes that they will start to receive better treatment by the leadership there because nobody deserves
to be let go without cause and frankly it's a loss for turning point. We're all going to be better off because of this because we have removed ourselves from
an environment that was no longer serving us and in my opinion no longer serving the Lord which was Charlie's entire intention. The other purpose of
this video is to bring to light the fact that although Turning Point is an organization that is all about freedom
of speech and promoting that from my experience, it is certainly not a place where that is something that is really accepted.
I didn't want to do this. I didn't want this to be the ending result for me
or for Turning Point. It literally breaks my heart to make this video, but I know that I owe it to Charlie and that this would be the expectation for me.
And so that's why I'm doing it.
Everything's for Charlie. Overall, it's really disappointing to see the direction in which Turning Point is going. And that is maybe one thing right
that they got about this Uber ride is I'm not confident in where it's going as it stands right now. And I'm really
disappointed by that because I packed up and moved my entire life back to my hometown solely for the purpose of
working for Turning Point. That is how much I love this place. I just refuse to stand by, watch my peers be unfairly
treated and watch leadership attempt to take over something that was Charlie through and
through and something that he poured his heart, soul, and mind into building and creating and maintaining. I appreciate everyone who stuck around for the
entirety of this video and God bless you all.

The World Is A Stage: Trump Survives...Again? | Ep 343
Candace Owens
Streamed live 4 hours ago Candace Owens

Another White House shooting incident happens, one of our multiple FOIA requests receives a response, Blake Neff & Andrew Kolvet say Charlie Kirk would be frustrated with Thomas Massie, zionists come for my 3-year-old, and Brigitte-Doll grabs her first national headline.



Transcript

Chapter 1: Start.
All right, you guys. Happy Tuesday. And I mean it, by the way. A very happy Tuesday because we did it. We are so
excited to announce that we surpassed a goal that we had on this show. We kept that goal private because it meant so much to us and we were unsure if it
would ever happen, but over the weekend it did. Breit Doll grabbed the first her first national headline and we could not
be more proud. Congratulations to our little Breijit doll, The Hollywood Reporter. Check this out, you guys. They
published this. How Hunter Biden ended up in Candace Owens's home studio next to her Breijgit Mcronone doll. Oh my gosh, it's just such a beautiful moment.
I'm so proud. I am so proud. Breit doll.
We just want to soak it all in. And we didn't tell Breit Doll about the headline because we don't want it going like straight to our head, but we're pretty excited over here. In other news,
uh we're back just in time for another White House shooting incident. And I'm also proud to give you guys an update on
one of our multiple uh FOIA requests. We received a response actually regarding the last White House shooting incidents,
the Operation Erica Kirk one. And the response was interesting to say the least. Lastly, you should know that over
the weekend, Zionists came for my three-year-old daughter. Okay, America, this is why we cannot have nice things.
Zionists are why we cannot have nice things. Welcome back to Candace.
Chapter 2: Another assassination attempt & our latest FOIA.
Go Brashe doll. Go Brashe doll. It's your birthday. It's your birthday. Okay.
Okay. I'm over it. Now, regarding topics to cover today, I know I am going to be positively hammered for this over the
internet. I know I'm going to catch heat from our usual political pundits, but I have to say I have to say it because I know everybody is thinking it in this
moment. Okay? We cannot just be out here having an assassination attempt every weekend and expecting different results.
This is just is getting it's too much.
Okay, Trump, it's too much. First one in Butler, you had me. You had us all. I was on the brink of tears. I was seized.
We covered this. We came in over the weekend to cover this. Second one, okay, happened on a golf course. We were there. We covered it. diligently
reporting on Ryan Ruth, the uh wouldbe assassin. We said, "How could he?" But
now Trump, we're we're kind of we're losing count here. Okay, this is becoming like a weekend hobby or something. It's It's like I said, too
much. It feels a little played out. It's like bell bottoms in the 70s. It was a thing. It's not happening anymore. The
the public is growing apathetic. You're setting the wrong kind of Guinness Book of World Record. You know what I mean?
3 minutesIt's not even generating public interest anymore. And I'm going to keep it real with you, Trump. It's giving Munchousin
syndrome. It's giving you constantly trying to turn these assassination attempts into a brand. And this can't be
your brand. I don't want this to be your brand. Anyway, I'm sure you guys saw the headlines. Apparently, another one and
another one happened this weekend at the White House. A perpetrator fired bullets. He was killed. Great. I'm glad
he was killed. Uh that's the long and the thick of it. I don't even care to cover the details here. I'm glad certainly that everybody outside of the
would-be assassin is okay. Truly, I am glad that uh nobody else died. But I would really just like to turn the chapter on this narrative because now
it's like a narrative. We're getting the feeling that assassination attempts are going to continue until his ballroom is fully funded and complete. Now, we are
obviously not saying that we want Trump to die. We're saying that we're getting bored of him almost dying every weekend because it seems like it's for
attention. We just want him to be safe and secured, to be quiet, and to have a peaceful weekend like every other president out of the almost dying news
cycle. Which brings us to the last almost assassination attempt and our questions regarding the White House
correspondents dinner, which we are seeking to have answered because we told you the truth. As a refresher, we told
you that we filed multiple FOIA requests. We also sought comment from the White House asking specifically
about the um internal email that we had shared with you guys requesting the artificial boosting of Erica's I want to
go home clip because that's a very odd priority for our military to be concerned with, right? making an Erica Kirk clip go viral, describing her as an
emotional asset, making sure this is number one overnight. Reach out to the surrogates. Get this thing going. We're talking like an hour after the shooting.
We don't know if the streets are safe, but they're out here worrying about boosting Erica. Feels a little fake and gay. Just going to say it. Feels a
little fake and gay. But we told you that the White House at first came back to us denying strongly that any person
in the military office had drafted or sent the email. But we noticed that specific language, that specific
verbiage, that specific denial. The White House military office did not draft the email. We then learned that
multiple offices within the DoD have access to various distribution lists. So
it was uh likely very intentionally evasive and precise language. They were
denying only that that specific office had sent the email. So who did? We wanted to find out. We went back to them
and said, "Just to be clear, are you saying this is a fake email? No one received this. You've never seen it. I'm
CCing Stephen Chong. I'm CCing everybody on the comm's team. Or is the email itself fake? Did you get this email, Steve? Because I see you were CCed on
the original one. And poof, like a ghost, we were left just hanging there.
So, we told you we're going to fi file FOA request. We're going to send it to to everybody, every office. And I'm pleased to now update you all and let
you know that we did hear back uh from the NSA. They were the first to write back regarding our records request. And here is what they wrote specifically. It
was very interesting. They wrote, "You do not appear to be seeking records created or controlled by the NSA. We
redirected your request to the Office of the Secretary of War andor the uh Joint Staff."
Oh, that's interesting. The Office of the Secretary of War. Wow. Well, we didn't ask them to direct our email to
anyone. So, I I found that to be an interesting direction to send it. You know, rather than denying the existence
of the email, they redirected it to Pete Hegsth's office. And that's an interesting diversion. Now, Pete Hgsth
in general um was his office behind the email. I think he would know something about it. And we're talking about the
Department of Defense. I I think he would know. And he I will just say this, Pete Haggsth has certainly been one of
the more deranged pro-Israel voices of this administration. Bomb, go to war, war, war, war. A very far departure uh
from the Fox News personality that viewers had grown accustomed to. We're not sure what's motivating him uh to
constantly be pushing America into wars that are obviously not going to help America. And there's also this regarding
uh Pete Hegsth in general. We have ne not not for one moment let up on our Fort Wuka investigation. They tried
every single strategy trying to uh make us feel embarrassed about it, pretending like it was wrong. Nope. I I know how to read people correctly. It's a unique
skill set I have. They were overreacting and not providing any answers. Something's up with Fort Wuka, right?
And also, like I said to you, filing lawsuits does not equate to providing an alibi as to one's whereabouts. Sorry,
Brian Harpole. Just because a lawyer puts something in a filing, it does not make it true. Everybody knows that. See
Blake Lively for details. Uh similarly, see Breijit Mcronone who put in a lawsuit filing, I think this was totally
accidental, that I was a dual citizen of uh the UK and America. I'm just actually not I've never even applied for a dual citizenship. But Brian Harpo's lawsuit
is filled with all these verifiable lies. In fact, to me, it's quite astonishing that a lawyer would not face some sort of consequence for signing off
on such easily verifiable lies. for example, uh suggesting that Brian felt compelled to do the Shawn Ryan podcast
interview because of conspiracies that I drumed up on the internet about him when I had never so much as mentioned Brian
Harpole on this show until two days after his car crash interview that went viral for all the wrong reasons. Anyway,
back to Fort Wuka. It continues to be this inflection point. And if you recall, one of the things that we
discovered when we began proddding Mitch Snow's story regarding that morning at Fort Wuka, the night after he
claims to have seen Erica at some hotel, he claims that he saw Brian Harpole walking out of some meeting. Uh well, we
prodded that narrative, confirmed he was there, confirmed the police were called, everything he said uh was accurate.
could not confirm, still cannot confirm his memory of who he saw. He could just be making an honest mistake or he could be telling the truth. But we started to
wonder who else was in attendance of that meeting to to look for answers. And there was an Air Force plane that became
very relevant. I will remind you on September 9th, it left Fort Wuka at
11:43 a.m. local time. Um, and it flew to El Paso, Texas. That is why it became
interesting when we had Brian Harpole as he attempted to drop some alibi of I
flew out at 2:30 in the afternoon from Texas up to Utah, Salt Lake City. It couldn't
have been me that was at Fort Wuka. We pointed to this plane and said, "No, this this plane could have been somebody that was at the meeting and then went to
Texas, landed at 1:31 p.m. local time. was just a 50-minute hop from El Paso, Texas to
Fort Wuka. Then that plane flies from El Paso to Andrews Air Force Base, Washington DC. Now, the reason that
flight was relevant and caught a lot of attention early on was because it used a SAM call sign. SAM702.
SAM, to remind you, stands for special air mission. in aviation. It's an official military call sign that is used
by the United air the United States Air Force to designate flights that are transporting senior government officials, foreign dignitaries, or high
ranking VIPs. Okay? When you see a Sam in the sky, it's rare. You've got a vice president, you got an FBI director, you
got a Pete Hegsth type character. Now, we have tried to no avail just yet to determine who exactly was this senior
government official who was aboard that flight from Fort Wuka to El Paso, Texas.
This seems to be like information which would be easily determined. I mean, we pay a lot of taxes right now. Just want to know like where my tax dollars are
going. Anyway, I checked Pete Hegsth's schedule on September 9th. He was in Washington DC at 3 p.m. uh greeting
Singapore's Minister of Defense. So, not likely that it's Pete Hgsth because of that. Doesn't work with the timing. He's
photographed, but I will tell you that Pete Hexath has taken that exact plane and used a Sam call sign. Pete Hexth has been on that
plane in the past. It's why people were wondering if it could have been him. But no, it doesn't work. If you add that meeting that he had, um it doesn't he wouldn't be back in DC in time.
Cash Patel, however, we have absolutely no indication where Cash Patel was on September 9th. Truly, and it's
interesting because that Sam character, it's flying around Las Vegas. That's where Cash Patel's from. We just don't know. Uh, so I decided, hey, we should
probably file an FOIA request. This is my new favorite pastime, by the way.
Filing FOIA reports. How have I not been doing this before? That's fun. That's a fun weekend activity, right? Don't go out and do an assassination.
assassination attempt. Instead, stay home and file some FOIA reports to figure out what the hell our government
is doing. Who are they even working for anymore? I wonder if we can file an FOIA report uh to figure out who Trump works
for. That'd be interesting. I want some information. I would like to figure out who the president is working for. Just kidding. We already know the answer to that.
Chapter 3: Vine & Fig Tree's big Israel PR push.
Which brings me to my favorite thread of the week. It was genuinely astonishing.
We all know, we see the signs. We know we're looking at a bunch of bots, pro-Israel bots on X. We know the comment section. They're basically just
like sock puppets at this point trying to convin people in profiles. Uh it's it's all one psychological operation.
But to see somebody publish receipts about having received an offer to participate in this was stunning. And that's exactly what Gabrielle Cooia did.
Uh, now she goes by Gabby and I can tell you who she is. One piece of her past is she was fired as the Pentagon's chief correspondent.
She claimed she was fired after she criticized uh Pete Hegth for having established new rules that actually
limited the press's access to the Pentagon. She wrote at the time, quote, "Let's call this what it is. They are limiting freedom of movement in the name of national security.
She might have been ahead of her time.
It seems like we've been doing a lot in the name of national security. Get me the ballroom. I need this. I need that.
Who what nation are we securing though?
That's my question. What nation are we securing? This administration doesn't seem to be this one. Anyway, like I
said, that's been the running theme of Trump 2.0 0 using national security as a pretense uh to really help everything
but America. A pretense to install anything and everyone from Erica Kirk to his ballroom. And this Gabrielle was
asked to partake in a rather sinister White House adjacent pro-Israel campaign. And fortunately, very
fortunately for her, she lived to tweet about it. So, let's read this together. what she published.
She wrote, "You may be wondering two things. One, what happened to Trump? Who is he listening to? And two, why does it
feel like the internet isn't real and engagement is fluctuating based on particular topics lately?" I think I can help answer both of those questions.
There's a company called Vine and Fig Tree, VFT. VFT is a pro-Israel organization with ties to the
administration. Earlier this year, VFT was at the White House meeting with Sebastian Gorka. Shortly after that
16 minutesWhite House meeting, I was contacted through a third party and asked to script write for VFT.
The individual who contacted me is publicly very Christian and widely perceived as America First. Now, I'm gonna pause here and tell you that she
later identifies this person to be Shawn Chennowith, who is the director of cognitive advantage at the US uh at the
National Security Council. So, he works under and with Sebastian Gora. So, that makes sense. She continues, I was told
the script would be used to create an AI generated video on behalf of the White House specifically for the NSC and
Sebastian Gorka. They told me, "Yeah, we have to do this on behalf of them, the administration, because they don't want it to look like it's actually coming
from the White House." You know what I mean? I mean, it worked out for them.
And Nick Shirley, pause. Nick Shirley, the guy who infiltrated the Favlla in flat.
I'm shocked to hear him mentioned in this as potentially someone who is being
intentionally platformed by um other forces.
I'm just look I'm just saying the story was a little weird. It just didn't for me pass the sniff test. I'm sorry, Nick. I'm sure you're a really nice person.
Anyway, she continues, "I was then given a Dropbox link containing research, polling data, internal comments, and
strategy material compiled by VFT and the third party involved. Inside the Dropbox were seven folders. Through those documents, I learned more about what this organization actually does.
Their reports monitor major conservative and dissident right accounts, and they frequently frame those accounts as vulnerable to or part or participating
in foreign influence operations." The reports include information regarding Nick Fuentes, the Hodgej twins, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Jackson Hingle,
Ian Carroll, and Mario Novel, just to name a few. They also collected polling and response data surrounding Joe Kent's resignation from the administration.
In another report, they argued that distrust surrounding Charlie Kirk's assassination was mostly due to Americans falling for Russian, Iranian,
and Pakistani propaganda networks. In that same Charlie Kirk report, they state, quote, "This represents an urgent
national security threat and demands a whole of government response on par with cyber attacks on terrorism."
I just want to pause there, guys. That is very concerning.
Again, what they are doing here is using the pretense of national security to smear citizens who are quote unquote
dissident because we are not accepting their narrative and we believe that they are guilty of being involved in the Charlie Kirk assassination. So what are they doing? They're reversing it.
They're saying actually no, you guys are the problem and we need to treat you like terrorists. That's what's happening. Exactly what the MAGA
movement fought against. Remember when everybody who was in MAGA was called a domestic terrorist and we called that out and we said what you are doing is
you are using the government to attack citizens who have a right to support Trump. Trump's administration is now doing this. They are engaged in this.
Sebastian Gorka she is implicate implicating as the character who is orchestrating this and saying we need to
full force respond to this. people thinking this is this is so totalitarian to read this like people thinking is
problematic. People not believing the Charlie Kirk narrative. We're going to blame Pakistan. We're going to blame
Russia. We're going to blame Iran. How about you blame the piss poor narrative
that you came up with that had Superman necks? uh kids who had never been to campuses, scaling the rooftops
like Spider-Man, taking one shot, a bullet disintegrating, uh not being matched to a gun. How about you blame
the narrative that you pushed and the most unbelievable widow that then took
over his his company and was on Zoom calls within six days laughing at emojis?
Why don't we leave Iran and Russia and Pakistan out of this one? This is on you guys.
Why don't you blame your emotional response assets for not being able to quite sell this one to the American
people? Actually, people you are highlighting as being influenced by foreign obs are actually being
influenced by their friendship with Charlie Kirk. That's what I'm being influenced by.
friendship with Charlie Kirk, the person I knew he was and the people that I knew that he eventually surrounded himself
with who are in my view utterly satanic and everyone can see what's problematic about Turning Point USA reversing course
on everything he believed in in CA in including platforming his actual enemies. Why don't you blame the lies
that you instantly came out of the gate with?
The way you're treating Joe Kent for trying to investigate whether or not his assassination could have been a foreign influence operation,
calling him weak, referring to him as a leak, a leaker, uh the organization that his wife is at the helm of getting behind the smearing of the person who
tried to investigate the killing of Charlie Kirk. I got a lot of things that I could blame before I blamed Russia and Iran and Pakistan.
I digress.
Back to her thread. Gabby continues, "The internal comments attached to these reports are what stood out most. They
talk about going after Fuentes, stating that undermining his Christian identity is probably a good idea. They contemplate getting Matt Walsh or
Michael Nolles to publish on behalf of VFT. They suggest collaborating with NCRI funded uh with NCRI, which was
founded by Joel Benkelstein, a multi-million dollar organization that tracks hate speech on social media.
Okay, pausing here to remind you of who they are. They were also the ones that came up with a report with my face on it, uh claiming that Christ is King was
suddenly anti-Semitic. They cooked they cooked that one up. Crisis King is anti-semitic. You know who they partnered with on that? Do you know who else was on that report?
Here's Johnny. Johnny Moore, one half of the Andrew Kovette duo. Here's Johnny
and Dr. Jordan Peterson all trying to convince you in a scop that if you think Christ is king, you might be falling for the dark tetrd.
That's that's who that is. And now we are looking at Sebastian Gorka allegedly
partnering and trying to essentially target Americans for not believing their
lies. Let's partner with it. Well, we'll just start deeming it hate speech. We'll start calling them terrorists. Everyone who disagrees with me is a terrorist.
I digress. Again, we jump back in.
Another internal comment weighs in on how they will advise politicians based on their data, which also compiles
information surrounding JD Vance's 2028 run. Quote, "There is definitely a way to use this in our favor. Tell
politicians that there are two wings of the party. They don't overlap and the majority lies here, and this is where you should be if you want to get reelected." End quote.
The documents uh also discuss burner profiles, burner ad accounts, AI
generated interview style videos, audience personas, troll content briefs, engagement testing, and ideological audience segmentation.
If you're wondering whether the White House is actually listening to VFT, it's worth reviewing the White House's latest
16page counterterrorism strategy touted by Gorka. more to come.
I mean, that is absolutely incredible.
Truly just incredible to to and we can just Yeah, we can uh click into these.
She posts the receipts of the Dropbox, the information that she was given access to. Our government, I just want
to make sure you understand what's happening here. Our government is now describing citizens with platforms who do not
believe the lies that they are spewing as dissident, as terrorists. They are
smearing them. They are smearing me as being susceptible to a foreign influence operation.
Pakistan, Iran, Russia, that's where we got our Charlie Kirk ideas.
It's just it's it's the most incredible that I see it's it's a total stripping away of our rights, our ability to think
like rational human beings. Okay, this isn't a totalitarian state. In fact, you should read more about Sebastian Gorka.
Um, by the way, he didn't even get cleared in the first administration because of his past and to to British intelligence, his ties to British
intelligence. So, he's been credibly accused of being a spy for a long time, never been accused of being America first. And any person that is hosting
this meeting and not saying get out of my face, we can convince Americans by telling them the truth, by sharing the information with them and showing them
that it really was Tyler Robinson scaling the rooftops like Spider-Man who took a shot.
Any person who would not send that person running out of the White House who pitched something like this is in my view the person who's the enemy of the
American people is in my view the person that is being influenced um by a foreign nation
and this is again a of course pro-Israel organization.
So this is just something to to pay attention to because I am telling you I what Trump is doing right now, what this
administration is doing is they are squeezing our rights and it's why I no longer consider myself I do not play
their games of left versus right because they are stripping so much of our power our power in the process and it it seems
obvious to me they have a strangle hold over Trump. I don't know what it is. I don't know what they know about him. I don't know what they know about his family. I don't know what threats they
have made. But that Trump is allowing this to take place and the only thing they can promise him is his name on
27 minutesbuildings in Gaza uh once they're done murdering everybody. No, something something's not right. I will leave it
at that. Anyways, we should uh we should head to break. We will be right back after a brief break.
Chapter 4: Natalie Jean Beisner comes for my 3-year-old.
All right, moving on uh to I guess just this this new age we're in right now, ultra Zionism. Everybody's just a Zionist and they're coming apart.
They're pathological. They're lying.
It's like they can't land any hits. Uh they're going after doxing people's families, trying to make people fearful.
And I want to be clear, these people are dangerous. I mean, I keep saying you can't go halfway with the psychopath.
You can't go, "Oh, it's okay. I'm just going to look the other way as you mass murder children in Gaza." Because I'm sure you'll stop there. I'm sure that
30 minutesonce we hand over the reigns of America to you, you don't have any plans to mass murder people here. Who killed Charlie Kirk? I'm just saying where there's
smoke, there's fire. And there seems to be a lot of fire right now. Um, in terms of the people who are radically defending the nonsensical story
surrounding his assassination, they all seem to have one thing in common and is that they love Israel above anything else. Well, this was trending over the
weekend just to just get into the minds of one of these Zionists. Never even heard of this person, but she certainly has heard of me. Natalie Jean Bisner was
trending. The kind of trend that you just don't want because you came for a three-year-old toddler. I'm not kidding.
I posted, you know, I used to every Sunday post uh something funny that my toddler said. I kind of stopped doing that after Charlie's assassination. Uh
but started doing that again this weekend. And I just tweeted this little funny thing that my three-year-old
daughter said. Here's my tweet. Husband, it's a messy jersey. Daughter, I am not messy. And I wrote, lol, no one insults
the princess with a photo of her in her messy jersey cuz she has no idea who Messi is. Neither really do I. I don't
follow uh sports. And it was just a cute little father-daughter thing when he pulled it out and said, "Oh, it's a messy jersey." And of course, this to a
Zionist is an act of war. Is there a child breathing? Is there a child happy?
Attack it. So Natalie Gene Bisner tweeted this. Candace's daughter is going to grow up to be a mega or
in prison or both. That obviously backfired because most people don't have this mental derangement when they see a three-year-old wearing a soccer jersey.
Now, who is Natalie Eisner? Let's just take a look at her social profile because this would be the reason that so
many people believe that this has to be a full-time job, right? You just don't
go to an Instagram profile and see 10 posts. I mean, there's not even 10 posts a day. It's just you. It's not my
profile. What I'm showing you here is not my profile. And that's weird because there's more posts about me on her profile than there are uh on my profile.
And so, who is this person? We're interested in finding out now. It looks like there there could be a name change
somewhere. We started just proddding, but uh what we can confirm is that she's just another washed up D-list actress looking for her next gig. That's what happens. These women go to Hollywood.
They go when they're young. Um, as the story goes, a lot of them think they can sleep around and they're going to be young forever. They kind of give up their lives. They don't settle down.
They don't have children. They don't have um husbands to go home to. They're looking for their next acting gig when it doesn't work out and they've aged out of Hollywood. They still have it in them. They still think they can make it.
That's really kind of the Natalie Bisner story. Still thinks that she can make it. So her last act is being a Zionist,
acting like she cares about Israel, acting like she can really sell the Zionist caused by being more deranged
than anybody else. And so that's what she's doing. She is uh here to target three-year-olds that are wearing messy
jerseys. I do think because we have gotten we've arrived suddenly at this point where they have grown so
increasingly deranged that they are citing us as domestic terrorists because we won't get in line with the genocide because we won't get in line with the
assassination of Charlie Kirk that we are s we're going to have to learn about who these people are right if you are a person who just naturally tweets uh
calling three-year-olds mega people need to know where you are who you are why you are, where you're from,
how did you get here in your life, what's in your medicine cabinet. I don't know. I wouldn't want to live next door to something like this. These people,
like I said, are dangerous. And I wouldn't be shocked if we discovered some things about these people. So, I am going to start proddding um looking into
ome of these accounts who post all day every day. And um I'll let you know what I discover because we did already find some interesting things about Natalie
Jean Bisner. And I will leave it at that. In other Zionist news, Turning Point USA was trending for doing what they always do, just reversing course on
Chapter 5: Turning Point USA uses the ghost of Charlie Kirk to go after Thomas Massie.
everything Charlie Kirk ever said and using the ghost of Charlie Kirk to say, "Well, if he was here, he would say this, even though it goes against
everything he ever said." Hence our countdown. Blakey Blakey, we are at 50.
I didn't think we'd see 50 days, and here we are at 54 days. 54 long days and
long nights of uh no response to the AI alleged AI video of Charlie Kirk
appointing Erica as CEO. We just are asking him to drop the video. It's not that hard. I don't know why they're reaching out to Daily Mail reporters and
saying they can have a screening. Like it's like the October 7th video. You can have a screening. We can bring it to you. Uh we can show you on FaceTime, but
you can never tell anybody. It's pretty simple. You guys are the ones that played it. It was her walk out music as she soaked it in. Oh, it's me. Power.
Unlimited power at Amfest. We're just saying you gave us the audio.
Give us the video. It feels so rational.
It's a rational ask. But Blakey says it's not. He says only psychopaths would want proof that Charlie went against
everything he ever said. Whenever Charlie did this, he did it in private.
By the way, I guess he was just a public character. He pretended to be conservative, but secretly he was a diehard feminist. Die hard.
Yeah. He just he was when he got home, he was like wearing the hats, the women's march hats. He just was like, "Erica, I just if anything ever happens
to me, I want you to take over. I want you to leave our kids at home um effectively orphaned and take over my
whole company. And while you're at my company, please reverse course on everything that I ever said. I just I don't even want to recognize it as my company. And Erica said, "Okay, honey.
Yeah, babe. Gotcha. I'll do that, babe.
I love you. I'll do that forever." And so she did it. That's what they want us to believe. That's the story that they are pedalling.
Yeah. No, I just keep suffering from this common sense. I just don't believe it. I think they are all liars.
Vindictive liars. deceitful traitors to everything and everyone that Charlie was loyal to.
Sadly, he was loyal to them. And here we now have Andrew Kovette and Blakey Nef saying
that Charlie, who was very clear that Thomas Mass, he was one of his favorite congressmen, said it multiple times. You could listen to Charlie in his words.
Well, they now say that no, if he was here and privately he told us he he
would have been very frustrated with Thomas Massie and so now he's anti-massie wherever he is. Erica says he's dancing in heaven and they're
adding now that he would just be I don't know implying that he'd be happy that Massie lost. Here is uh what they had to say on the show that they need to stop
calling the Charlie Kirk show. Take a listen.
Charlie was a fan of Thomas Massie, especially historically. Liked him on war, liked him on bud, being a budget hawk and spending,
but he was pretty frustrated uh that Massie didn't vote on in the affirmative on the big beautiful bill. U because it
was essentially the totality of President Trump's first year agenda wrapped into one bill. And um I will just say privately Charlie was really really frustrated.
Yeah, I I think that's the right way to put it. And I think he would have become more frustrated over the events of the past 9 months, which is we liked what
Massie said. We liked his libertarian credentials. We liked him making the debt clock that ran on like Massie just and there's so many things to like about
him. But he has, especially over the past few months, he's become the number one, let's put it, Republican gadfly,
Republican who gets in Trump's way, criticizes Trump, and not just on debt or the war, but also on Epstein saying
where there's this pedophile class that Trump is allied to essentially. And I think Charlie would have been, as you
said, very frustrated. He would have, and Charlie was not a guy who would feud publicly. He would have certainly been messaging Massie about that and being like, "What's going on here?" And he
would have he would have been very concerned with it. We don't know exactly what he'd say. Yeah. I don't know either. Us being honest about it.
Yeah. But I I will tell you that I had some very candid conversations after the big beautiful bill that where he voiced his frustration to me privately.
There you have it, guys. The Absolutely Not Charlie Kirk show. I vote they rename it the Blake and Nef show. The Blakey Nef show. The Andrew Kovette show. The Erica Kirk show. It's all just
right there. You don't have to keep directing the ghost of Charlie Kirk uh and protect like first off, Charlie went so hard against the Epstein files. How
dare you use as an example, Blake. He just would have been so upset that Thomas Massie just keeps harping on this Epstein thing and telling the truth that Trump is protecting the Epstein class.
No, Charlie would have been not okay with that.
Yes, he would have. Charlie did not support Jeffrey Epste. he would not have supported Trump saying to look away uh on the Jeffrey Epstein matter and
everyone needs to shut up about it and move on and protecting people who harmed children. Okay, let's stop. Let's stop with that narrative altogether.
Pointedly ridiculous. Anyway, um Raphael Shreber, who was a legislative director for Thomas Massie, tweeted this. Andrew
Kobe, didn't you call our office a few months ago on March 12th, 2026 to be exact? profusely apologizing for TPUSA
posting a video of Thomas Massie, labeling him a rhino, that you blamed on some 20-year-old TPUSA intern that was
excited about Jake Paul, and that you would have never allowed it. Didn't you ask us to express your sincere apologies to Massie and that TPUSA was not going
to get involved with the race, but that you personally wanted Massie to win?
What changed? Were you lying then, or did you get some new money in the interim? It's a good question. And that's how they behave behind the
scenes, wheeling and dealing and lying and then publicly saying something completely different. This is what this
organization has become in the wake of Charlie's death. Probably before it and it's plausible that Charlie woke up to that. Uh very plausible given the facts
of the fears that he had expressed toward the end. I don't think he recognized his own company and he suddenly realized that these people were
directing him to behave like a puppet and he was tired. He was done. In fact, he announced that day before he died. He was left with no choice but to abandon
the pro-Israel cause. A tweet that a message they all denied existed didn't exist until I dropped it, which made me public publicly number one. I guess I
41 minutesgot that from Pakistan. Pakistan must be behind it.
I bet it was Iran that made BB go on Fox News the next day and say, "I didn't kill him. It wasn't me." Yeah. Okay.
Sure. Anyway, we'll be back after a brief break.
Chapter 6: Comments.
All right, you guys. The last episode we had was our our Hunter Biden episode.
The response was amazing. The comments were just so moving and inspiring really. People struggling with
addiction, people who have been clean for a while, people who have been clean but tempted recently and said that that
episode kind of gave him the strength to keep going. Just truly beautiful to have a read through those comments. Top comments from that episode. Real B with
no S writes, "Respect to Candace for not bringing his father into this. Not a Daily Wire move at all." Yeah, I have a
thing about that. I think it's totally demonic to ask people to publicly say something about their parents or people that they have relationships with.
Bending the knee. I I told you about this whole like say something about Kanye when everybody's saying something about Kanye. They want me to do it because I'm his friend. That's not my
job. uh when you are a true friend to somebody, if you have something to say, you say it in private. And regarding Joe Biden, everyone knows what my opinion
about Joe Biden is. I'm I'm not a Joe Biden fan, and Tun Biden knows I'm not a Joe Biden fan. I'm still not going to be a Joe Biden fan. I I have not moved one
inch on my opinion. Uh that he did a lot of terrible things uh when he was a senator. He voted terribly. He was
involved in things. I I think he has done tons of corrupt things over his political career. But me having that conversation with his son is just weird.
It would just be weird. Say something bad about your dad. Say it. Uh, no. It doesn't work like that. I would never ever ever say anything bad about my
parents publicly. And they drive me crazy. Like, if you be honest with you, my sister, everybody in my family drives me crazy. But that's my family. Um, so
that's what you got. Lace Space writes, "Hunter showed more emotion in an hour and a half talking about crack than Erica has in eight months. truly a masterpiece of an interview. Well done.
Yeah, I saw a lot of comments like that.
Um that it's crazy that you're seeing more emotion and character out of Hunter Biden than you are seeing from the, you
know, the wife of the Black Widow, the CEO. And I totally agree with that assessment. And we're done playing
pretending. We're playing pretend as though she's normal or behaving normally. The grieving widow shtick has failed. You guys put a lot of money
behind it. A grieving widow does not become the CEO and the chairman of a company and instantly hit the road uh smooing with famous people. So, let's
just stop it. All right. Comments under today's episode. James the least writes, "The fact that Erica Kirk and Victor Marks are close is the least surprising
thing ever." Uh Aean Cullen writes, "Hi, Candace. I won't get to watch the show tonight. I just wanted to jump on here to say your talks with Hunter was possibly your best guest show yet. It
was so humbling and real and just a glimpse of the reality. Thank you so much. I hope you come back and are able to watch the show. And regarding the first comment regarding Victor Marks,
again, your character can be assessed by all the homies you're hanging around.
Like Erica's one of those people. It's everyone around me. It's just not me.
I'm not buying it. I am not buying it. I know what some of those people, the lives that they live and lead at Turning
Point USA. She has not gotten rid of those people. There is nothing about her that cleanses the pallet.
Nothing. I just I don't find her to be believable whatsoever. That's my opinion. I'm allowed to have it. It's my show. Sean Kadui writes, "Did you ever
find out who was leaking to Erica from Kanye's circle?" No. Thank you for reminding me because I actually dropped that ball.
Crazy, crazy, crazy that Erica had someone in Kanye's circle and was playing both sides of that. Um,
gosh, that got me angry even thinking about it. Just man, she is uh she maneuvers. Trillion writes, "Poll time.
Who is the most what is the most fake and gay moment of 2026?" A Trump's 2,344th
assassination attempt. B, Erica Kirk's I just want to go home clip. C, Israel buying out Thomas Massiey's seat. Or D,
all of the above. Okay, if I have to pick, I would say the fakest and gayest moment for me is the I just want to go
home clip just because the email itself is just insane. It's insane that none of the journalists are asking the question.
They they that should be the number one question. Hey, Candace said this email exists. Does it exist? Were you guys artificially boosting Erica Kirk? Isn't it just amazing that their mom on that?
Like that's not really relevant. It's incredibly relevant if our military is boosting Erica Kirk clips and it would
then lean in to a option a Trump's 2344th assassination attempt being fake and gay. So I say A and B kind of go together.
Another comment um loopy Larry is flipping out in Florida looney bin.
That's a great I can't believe you can even make that long of a handle name.
This person writes, "Blake and Kulvette put words into Charlie's mouth. Um, they are like worm tongues." I totally agree
with you. It's crazy. And Blake is worse than Andrew. Andrew always tries to just say something that is plausibly true. I could imagine him being like, "Oh, we
didn't get the vote for Thomas Mass." He's like, "I'm expressing frustration at that because you're not going to love the way uh someone votes all the time." Like, that's actually believable. I
don't I don't deny that. I actually think Andrew is probably telling the truth. He was frustrated about this one point. I've done and said things that Charlie was frustrated with. Charlie's
done and said things that I'm frustrated with. Doesn't remove the fact that he supported Thomas Massie and he would have supported Thomas Massie and he would not have appreciated money being
spent by Apac uh to remove him. He thought he was amazing and it's there will be a consequence for that. You can't just be out here buying seats.
Like I said, Icarus is flying a little too close to the sun. All right. Now, Gen X writes, "Trump committed high treason." Someone on X said that he was
the biggest Trojan horse in history. I agree with this statement. I agree. He's a Trojan horse. Uh he has completely let
uh people in to destroy America. And I don't know what is motivating that. I have no charitable read on it anymore.
It's just despicable. There's no other way to say it. The people that he has partnered with are despicable. It rises to levels of criminality. The the
trading that's happening. He makes an announcement. People are like insider training on what they know. The forthcoming announcement is the meme
coins taking from people who already have so little, getting them to believe that his meme coins are just stealing
wealth. He's like stealing from the poor to further enrich his own pockets. How can anybody have a defense of Donald J.
Trump in this moment? That that fascinates me.
Hunter Biden was smoking crack. What's Donald Trump's excuse?
That's my question. What is Donald Trump's excuse? All right, you guys, a couple of announcements. I am going to be off air next week. Next week, I'm
actually going to St. Petersburg. I'm so excited for that. I've been wanting I have been wanting to go to St.
Petersburg for a very, very long time, just as a Christian in general. Uh, just to see some of those cathedrals and churches. And we're finally making it happen. Family trip. And so, that's
happening. So, I'll be off air for an entire week. I can't wait for the headlines of people saying I'm I guess I'm funded by Iran and Russia and probably Pakistan. Obviously not true.
My husband's been to Russia quite a few times because he fishes and I know Europeans just get to go everywhere.
They just travel there for them. It's a short flight and when we got married I was like man I would really love to get out there. We're finally making it happen. So I will be completely off air.
Also if you are watching the show right now hit subscribe. Uh we're we're very close to 6 million. We only need a couple of hundred more people to hit
subscribe to this channel so that we hit 6 million. So hopefully we can hit it by tomorrow. If not, I'll just remind you again. And if you do want to support our show, the only way that we are actually
funded is by you guys at home um supporting the show, signing up for book club, buying merch on website. We have amazing new merch. I'm actually going to
wear some merch tomorrow. Go to canowens.com. Uh we are just dropping new merch every day. You guys are giving us ideas for merch and I am a big a
lover of mugs. So, we put everything on a mug. We have our Make America Christian Against stuff that has been a hot seller. Those hats have been amazing because MAGA is over, but Christianity
is not. It never will be. And um yeah, there's just a lot of conversations that are changing. I'm personally very happy of the left and right are coming
together. So at that is one good thing to come from the collapse of original MAGA and whatever this Zionist neocon
takeover is. It has brought I think people together from all different marches of life and different political sides. So we will leave it at that you
52 minutesguys. Uh we will see you tomorrow.

FBI UNDER FIRE After Tyler Robinson Bombshell Reveal (This Is BIG)
State Secrets
May 26, 2026

The FBI is now under fire after a bombshell reveal tied to Tyler Robinson — and critics say this changes everything. The unexpected development has triggered a wave of scrutiny, with commentators questioning how key details were handled and whether earlier decisions are now being reexamined. Social media erupted as the story gained traction.

In this video, we break down what the Tyler Robinson bombshell allegedly revealed, why the FBI is facing backlash, and whether there’s verified documentation behind the claims. Is this a legitimate oversight that demands accountability — or another viral controversy fueled by incomplete information? As reactions pour in and analysts weigh in, the pressure continues to mount



Transcript

Egyptian.
Do you believe that Tyler Robinson murdered your husband? Yes, I do.
Why do you think it is so hard for so many people to believe that real man?
[music]
I forgive him.
[music]
The FBI is suddenly facing serious heat in the Tyler Robinson case after people noticed that key details reportedly never made it into the official story.
And now Tyler Robinson's own grandmother is allegedly pointing fingers at Erica Kirk, claiming there's way much more going on behind the scenes than anyone
was originally told. Most people never really bought the official narrative that Tyler was the sole person responsible for Charlie's passing. They
always felt like there was more to the story, especially when you look at how suspicious people connected to Charlie have been acting these past few months.
That's exactly why nobody is surprised that Erica's name keeps getting pulled back into this. She has been the one pushing hard for a speedy trial despite
multiple reports suggesting that some pieces of evidence are still inconclusive at best and flat out missing at worst. So, yeah, it's really
not looking great. And now everyone is asking the same question. Did the FBI genuinely miss critical details or does someone want parts of this case buried
before the public can connect everything? Because the deeper people dig, the worse it looks. What really sent this whole situation into overdrive
was when people online started noticing that Tyler Robinson's trial keeps getting pushed back again and again.
Really, what the FBI has done generally, we went to examine physical evidence this week. It took us 6 [music] hours.
We did finish the what the SBI has.
However, we still have never seen the gun. We don't The gun is at Quanico, so we've never been able to look at the gun. I actually think that's really important.
Earlier in May, Utah Judge Tony Graph reportedly approved another delay request after Tyler's lawyers argued they needed more time to examine DNA
analysis tied to key evidence. Court delays happen, sure, but this one caught people's attention fast because of the reason behind it. According to reports,
Tyler's legal team allegedly felt like new information kept getting dropped on them at the last minute, and people started questioning why the defense was
still being handed new material this close to the hearing date. That's when the online conversation got way more intense because to a lot of people, it
started looking like the prosecution may not have been fully transparent from the start. And that's exactly when Erica's name got dragged back into the
spotlight. Erica publicly declared that she had seen all the evidence and was 100% certain that Tyler was guilty. And she said this way before the case ever
went before a judge. Now all of a sudden Tyler's team is getting buried in new evidence. Yeah, not a great look. And it
didn't take long for people to start seriously side eyeing the FBI, especially after Tyler's grandmother stepped forward and publicly declared
his innocence. But honestly, a lot of people feel like this case started looking suspicious way before any accusations against the FBI even surfaced.
Piece of evidence is that he confessed to his family and they convinced him to turn himself in. No, I've gone to the trials. I've met his family. I've spoken to them. They don't even think that he
did it. I don't know where that story ever came from.
From the very beginning, people were already clocking how little the official story made sense once you started breaking it down piece by piece. For
starters, people could not wrap their heads around why Tyler Robinson would allegedly decide to take out Charlie Kirk in public and then supposedly
confess about it inside a group chat with friends and his partner right after. Those texts just did not feel believable to a lot of people. And then
it got even stranger when reports claimed Tyler fled the scene only for his own father to reportedly turn him in just days later. That timeline feels a
little too convenient, especially since Tyler himself did not appear to have any known personal connection to Charlie Kirk in the first place. So, what
exactly is the motive here? And then there's the detail about those bullets engraved with messages that looked almost too theatrical to even be real.
To a lot of people, those bullets sounded less like organic evidence and more like something pulled straight out of a movie script. Even big names like
Joe Rogan publicly questioned whether the alleged vintage World War II era rifle Tyler supposedly used is actually from that era because to them it looks
way too clean to be that old. And once all those doubts started stacking up together, trust in the official version of events really began collapsing online.
You believe that Tyler Robinson murdered [music] your husband? Yes, I do.
Why do you think it is so hard for so many people to believe that reality?
cuz it's too simple.
Again, everyone always has to think there's more to the story. Well, sometimes there's not.
Now, let's get into what Tyler Robinson's grandmother actually said, because she was honestly one of the last people anyone expected to step publicly
into this situation. The second she started speaking out, people immediately picked up on one thing. She clearly did not believe Tyler was fully guilty the way authorities were presenting it.
According to reports, Tyler's grandmother, Debbie, spoke to the Daily Mail shortly after news of his arrest exploded online. What made her comment
stand out was how confused and emotional she sounded while talking about Tyler and the allegations surrounding him. She said, "I don't think he ever shot a gun, to tell you the truth. He doesn't hunt.
He's never liked anything like that. I know he doesn't own any guns. There's just no way he could have been that good of a shot." And then she made things
even more emotional when she reportedly said, "I'm just so confused." She also described Tyler as the shiest person and
claimed he had never once talked politics with her. According to Debbie, Tyler had never been in any kind of trouble in his life, which only made the
whole situation feel even more surreal to people following the case. Despite the fact that Tyler's own father was the one who turned him in, Debbie's words
made it sound like at least part of the family did not believe Tyler acted alone or possibly did not believe the official version of events at all.
Now, apparently the narrative is that this is his grandfather's [music] rifle from World War I and doesn't have a serial code.
Okay. Interesting.
Okay. Why? Wait, wait, wait, wait. And once those doubts started coming from inside Tyler's own family, online
speculation exploded even faster. The moment all of this started gaining traction online, it didn't take long for the conspiracy theories surrounding
Charlie Kirk's passing to come roaring back all over again. And the one theory that never really went away was simple.
What if Tyler Robinson was just the fall guy? That theory spread fast because people were already suspicious about the lack of a clear motive, the strange
evidence timeline, and the neverending delays surrounding the case. Some people online are now convinced that bigger political figures allegedly wanted
Charlie gone, and that someone like Tyler may have been the easiest person to pin everything on while the real people behind the situation stayed
protected in the background. And what makes this even more layered is that these conversations did not just appear
overnight. As far back as late 2025, Reddit threads and online forums were already packed with people questioning
the official version of events and arguing that Tyler Robinson did not look anything like the mastermind authorities were describing. But once the FBI
accusations and Debbie's comments entered the picture, those theories got amplified on a whole different level.
One comment claimed Tyler Robinson is a psy. Israel was behind it, as was his wife and TPUSA and our government. and
the evidence already proves it. Another person wrote, "The bottom line is there is zero doubt in my mind that Tyler
Robinson didn't do it. The evidence against him is a joke and easily manufactured. Lots of false reports to influence public opinion immediately
after, too." Now, whether those theories are true or not, the fact that so many people are openly distrusting this investigation says everything about how
completely fractured public opinion around this case has become. People aren't just debating Tyler Robinson anymore. They're questioning the FBI,
the evidence, the prosecution, and whether the public was deliberately steered away from the truth from day one. And somehow things have only gotten
darker from there because now people are laser focused on one specific detail they believe changes the entire picture.
Reports suggest that investigators were never able to definitively match the bullet fragments recovered from the scene to Tyler Robinson's supposed
weapon. In any shooting investigation, that forensic match is not just important. It is everything. That is the single piece of evidence that is
supposed to directly and undeniably connect a specific firearm to a specific shot. Without it, the entire physical
case starts looking shaky at best and deliberately constructed at worst. So, the fact that this critical detail still appears unresolved has people completely
losing faith in the investigation all over again. Think about that for a second. This is not some minor background detail that prosecutors could
reasonably overlook. This is foundational forensic evidence, the kind that juries rely on, the kind that defense attorneys build entire cases
around. And yet, here we are with reports suggesting it was never conclusively established. So, people online are asking a very straightforward
question. If the evidence against Tyler Robinson is truly airtight, why does one of the most important forensic pieces still seem completely surrounded by
uncertainty? And it is not just regular people online raising these concerns either. Legal analysts and people familiar with how these kinds of cases
are built have pointed out that inconclusive ballistic evidence is a massive red flag in any high-profile prosecution. Because prosecutors do not
typically push hard for a speedy trial when their forensic evidence has holes in it, unless there is another reason they want this case wrapped up fast. And
that observation alone sent the internet straight back to one name, Erica Kirk.
This is exactly where the accusations against Erica started escalating to a completely different level. Some people believe Tyler's family may actually be
right to question her role behind the scenes, and the reasons people keep coming back to her are not random. Erica was Charlie Kirk's wife. She was close
to the inner circle. She had access to information, resources, and connections that most people connected to this case simply did not have. And according to
widespread online speculation, she would stand to benefit the most from Charlie's passing, both financially and in terms
of controlling the narrative around his legacy. Once people started layering that theory on top of all the confusion surrounding the forensic evidence, the
internet did not just go into conspiracy mode. It went into overdrive. But here is where it gets even more complicated.
Because Erica's connections do not stop at conservative media circles. People online have spent considerable time pointing out that her network reportedly
11 minutesextends into powerful spaces in politics and law enforcement. And once people started connecting those dots, a much more unsettling question started
circulating. Could someone with that level of access have influenced what evidence made it into the official record and what quietly disappeared
before the public ever got a real look at it? Now, to be clear, these are theories circulating online based on publicly available information and
community speculation. Nothing has been proven in a court of law. But the reason these theories keep gaining momentum instead of fading away is because the
official story keeps producing more questions than answers. And every single time a new delay gets announced or a new report surfaces suggesting evidence
gaps, the people pushing these alternative theories feel more justified in asking them. What makes the situation even more layered is the pattern of
behavior that people have been tracking around this case since the very beginning. From the moment news of Charlie Kirk's passing broke, the public
response from people close to him felt off to a significant portion of observers. The speed at which certain narratives got locked in, the way
specific details were amplified while others seemed to quietly disappear from the conversation, the urgency around moving the case forward even as key
forensic questions remained open. To a lot of people watching closely, that pattern did not look like justice moving efficiently. It looked like damage
control. And then there is the broader political context that people refuse to stop discussing. Charlie Kirk was not just a private citizen. He was one of
the most prominent and polarizing conservative voices in the country with connections stretching across media, politics, and organized advocacy
networks. The idea that his passing could be reduced to one individual acting alone with no deeper political
motivation or outside involvement has always felt incomplete to a large segment of the public. Not because people are desperate to believe a
conspiracy, but because the details that keep surfacing simply do not line up cleanly with the version of events that was handed to the public early on. And
that gap between what people were told and what the evidence apparently supports is exactly what keeps fueling the distrust because trust in
institutions is not lost all at once. It erodess piece by piece, detail by detail, delay by delay. And this case
has had no shortage of any of those things. Now, zoom out for a moment and look at the full picture that has assembled itself over these past several
months. You have a forensic match that was reportedly never conclusively established. You have a defense team that claims new evidence kept getting
dropped on them late. You have a grandmother publicly declaring her grandson could not have done what he is accused of. You have online communities
that have been questioning the official narrative since day one and growing louder by the week. You have a prominent figure connected to the case who has
been publicly vocal about her certainty of guilt before the case even went before a judge. And you have a trial that keeps getting delayed every time it
looks like it might finally move forward. Any one of those details on its own might not raise serious alarms, but stacked together the way they are, they
paint a picture that a lot of people find impossible to ignore. And the longer this case drags on without clean, transparent answers, the more space there is for doubt to grow and spread.
There is also something worth noting about how the public conversation around this case has shifted over time. In the very early days, most of the skepticism
was concentrated in specific corners of the internet, Reddit threads, niche forums, independent commentary channels.
But now that skepticism has gone significantly more mainstream. Regular people who do not typically follow true crime cases or get deep into political
controversies are starting to ask the same questions that the online communities have been raising for months. And that shift in who is asking
the questions matters because it suggests the doubts are no longer easy to dismiss as fringe thinking. What people want at the most basic level is not complicated. They want transparency.
They want the forensic evidence to be clearly and publicly addressed. They want to understand why the case keeps getting delayed. They want to know
whether all relevant evidence was properly preserved and disclosed. And they want the questions surrounding the people connected to Charlie Kirk to be
taken seriously rather than brushed aside. That is not an unreasonable ask.
That is just accountability. Because at this point, people are not simply asking whether Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger anymore. The conversation has moved well beyond that single question.
People are now asking whether the public was intentionally guided toward one version of events, a version that was clean and simple and easy to accept
while something far more complicated stayed carefully hidden in the background the entire time. They are asking who benefits from this case being
resolved quickly. They are asking whose connections run deep enough to shape what the public sees and what it does not. and they are asking whether justice
in a case this high-profile and this politically charged can ever truly be impartial. Those are heavy questions and
the fact that so many people across so many different communities are asking them at the same time is not something that can be easily waved away. Whether
the official version of events ultimately holds up or completely falls apart, the damage to public trust in this investigation is already real,
already deep, and already spreading. And as long as forensic questions remain unresolved, delays keep piling up, and
the people closest to this case continue behaving in ways that feel more suspicious than reassuring, those questions are not going anywhere. If
anything, they are only going to get louder. If this story has your mind spinning, drop your thoughts in the comments below because we genuinely want
to know what you think is really going on here. If you found this video worth your time, hit that like button. Make sure you are subscribed so you never
miss when we drop something new. And share this one with someone who needs to see it.

Baron Coleman And Zach Costello REACT To Erika Kirk DENYING Her Travel History!
Zach Costello Clips
May 26, 2026

In this clip from the Zach Costello Show, Zach Costello and Baron Coleman react to Erika Kirk explaining that she did not travel much during her pregnancy.

What Zach and Baron find really interesting is that fact that no one called her out for travelling or being on an "Egyptian plane" yet she's very eager to defend herself in the interview, and she uses manipulative tactics to do so. What do you think about all this?

Watch the full video for the complete breakdown and let us know your thoughts in the comments.

THEY FINALLY RELEASED CHARLIE'S SECRET VIDEO... AND CREATED AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM
Daily Freddo with Kasia
6/7/26

Transcript

Ladies and gentlemen, the secret video of Charlie Kirk appointing his wife as the next CEO of TPUSA has been released and it is an insult to our intelligence.
Instead of releasing the whole clip with its context, we got a heavily edited cut in the middle two sentence clip with
loud music as part of the montage playing before Erica Kirk's speech at Women's Leadership Summit organized by TPUSA. But there is an even bigger
problem with this clip. Remember how Erica Blake Nef Daily Mail kept telling us that that video of Charlie was taken
in Aspen at an investor retreat? That Daily Mail journalists got a private screening and they could 100% assure us
that the video existed. Yeah. A person online came forward and posted pictures from the Aspen event and it looked nothing like the clip of Charlie that
was released yesterday. She then claimed that she spoke with some other donors and that there was a third room she did
not go into. But as far as we know, there aren't any pictures or videos of it, which is very convenient because Daily Mail, if you remember, also didn't
give any visual description to us, even though they claimed they've seen and validated the existence of that video.
There's so much to get through. As usual, I'll show you all receipts. So, let's get right into it. Let's see the
clip first. The most important relationship in your life is the one that you have with your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. His passion was my passion and now his mission is my mission.
I appoint my wife to run Turning Point USA if something happens to me. Erica would do a great job.
That was it. That's what we get. Are you guys satisfied? Does it feel like Blake Nev got his told you so moment? Yeah, he
does not. Someone said, "Lol, one, I thought you all said you weren't going to release it. Two, didn't this happen at a private donor meeting? Three, what
happened to the news outlet and the whole the video would expose private donors? You guys can't be for real. But Blake Nef, after claiming they will
never release the footage because Candace will say it's AI anyway, thought he had his moment. He shared the video
and said, "Well, what do you know? What do we know, Blake? What do we know? We know it all seems shady. It all seems neffy.
Yeah, there was someone online on X that came forward as an attendee at the Aspen event. The Aspen event that I said the
video comes from. Okay. And she posted this. Here is the backdrop from Aspen.
Two different rooms. I was there. Never ever would it have come up. Doesn't even make sense that he would have said it at this event. This is not the same
backdrop as the one they are showing. I took these photos. Very very interesting. She also wrote, "And me sharing this isn't to say anything
negative. I'm merely showing what Aspen event looked like versus that video.
Just not that same rooms I was in with the video of him circulating around." Max also answered few questions. First
one, was Erica there? And she said she was not there unless sitting in the shadows. But everyone has to remember
this was just a couple of weeks before he was unalived and she wasn't on the radar to even even look for. I never saw
her anytime I saw him. And then the question was well didn't they say that Charlie said it in Aspen it being I
appoint Erica to be the next CEO. Mag's answer was, "I've heard that, but not sure she said or who started the rumor
of Aspen. I was there and never heard it." Can I say 100%? No. But 99.999% and those backdrops aren't the same. It
was an investor retreat and he was interviewing people. Would not make sense for him to have said it. Oh yes, it was said on multiple occasions. First one to say it was Erica. We remember.
Then we had Daily Mail confirm it. Remember their first clickbait article?
We covered it on my channel. They claimed that group of their journalists were given a private screening of that video of Charlie and they could confirm
with 100% certainty that the video existed. There was one big problem with their claim. They never described anything visual about that video. They
quoted Charlie and donors but never described what they actually saw in the video. I found it to be the biggest clue
that it was all possibly super mega fake. And here is another clue that we are being taken for a ride. This is the headline of the newest Daily Mail from
last night article. Watch leaked secret video of Charlie Kard naming true turning point successor and making eerie prediction days before.
How is it a leaked video if TPUSA released it themselves by including it in a cheesy intro for Erica Kirk at the
women leadership summit? How is it a leaked video? Nobody leaked it. They literally carefully edited it and released it.
Anyway, the article says, "Turning Point CEO Erica Kirk revealed for the first time closely guarded video footage of her slain husband, Charlie Kirk, telling
donors he would appoint her as CEO of his organization if anything should ever happen to him." So, suddenly she
revealed it. She didn't leak it. I appoint my wife to run Turning Point USA if something happens to me. Kirk is featured saying in the minute long clip, "It's not a minute, it's a few seconds.
Erica would do a great job." The footage aired as part of an introduction video of Erica Kirk, 37, as she took the stage
to open the Turning Point Women's Leaders Leadership Summit. I am going to do a separate video on Erica's speech.
There were hacklers, there were passive aggressive remarks, there is a lot we need to discuss, but not today. Today we are focusing on this one clip in the
article Daily Mail confirmed again. Kirk was filmed speaking about the topic at an August 2025 event for donors in
Aspen, Colorado. When one donor asked Kirk what would happen to his juggernaut conservative youth organization movement should something happen to him, he
replied that he would appoint Erica to replace him. And then the Daily Mail reviewed the footage and interviewed multiple Turning Point donors, some of
whom were in the room during the Aspen event. Mags later also posted to clarify. After speaking with some local
Aspen attendees, there was another room presentation which I was not in. So I stand corrected. In the recent clip put
out that this was in Aspen and that was my entire point in the post just that this looked like Palm Beach to me. So,
what she's saying, it is possible that there was a room she did not see.
However, there is still no proof that the video of Charlie was from that room.
There are no pictures, no videos from from that room in Aspen. We don't even know if there actually was another room or or if she's being gaslit with them.
It's always like we're right next to it, you know. Now, they are claiming we released the video. What else do you want now? You're going to say that it's
AI. Well, yeah. You didn't really release the video. You didn't release the full chain of events that happened.
You didn't release the question being asked and Charlie answering the question because Daily uh Daily Mail said that
Charlie in one go said all of these things. Okay, he's like, "What is it?
Let me read it again. I appoint my wife to turn I appoint my wife to run Turning Point USA if something happens to me.
Erica would do a great job. Apparently, it's like a it's in one go. It's it's organic. They said they heard it this
way. That's what Charlie said. And to me, that's the biggest giveaway that probably maybe he wasn't answering that
question. Maybe it's like pieced together. First sentence is he's answering something else and the second
one, Erica would do a good job. It's about something completely different. It could be like, oh, she could have 10 kids. she will do a great job, you know,
could be about anything. But that's not all because there were some more findings related to the slogan behind Charlie building the machine for
victory. Travis Nyo X on X posted
building the machine the theme of ACTC con 2023 fake.
So if you look at the backdrop of the event Charlie is speaking at it says building the machine right here it is
and Travis found this on IMDb. It's again building the machine for victory.
My opening remarks at ACTCON 2023. It was a real event that happened in July 2023. We thought only the audio of
Charlie's intro existed but there are videos from there. The official stage where the speeches were happening at this event. The backdrop looked
different than the one in the last night's released clip. It was blue actually here. This is the backdrop. So
definitely not red and definitely doesn't have machine word on it. And Travis added, "So this pretty clearly isn't on the main stage of ACTCON 2023.
However, I am familiar enough with TP USA conferences to know they have breakout sessions. It's also worth noting that building the machine is not
a slogan TP USA has used outside of ACTCON 2023 that I can find. If you've ever been to a work conference, you
probably have been to a breakout session. Travis also got into it with Blake Nef. We know that Blake Nef can't hold himself from tweeting and digging a
deeper hole for himself, right? So, they were discussing the slogan and apparently the slogan was used also on a
podcast and Blake Nef says he shared Charlie's tweet and he says that podcast episode has that title
because I personally titled it that based on what Charlie said in the speech. Charlie described TP Actions
ballot chasing operation as a machine all the time. C. and he shared the Charlie's old tweet from June 7th, 2025.
We are already hiring up for 2026 and 2028. The machine will never rest.
America's largest ballot chasing army continues to grow. So Travis uh answered, "The slogan from the video
today and con 2023 is building the machine. I'm sure Charlie has used the word machine plenty of times. That
proves nothing." So Blake Blake goes, "That is not the slogan of Actcon 2023.
It's the title of a podcast episode that I wrote." So you see like how they are always next to it. Always next to it.
You request a video, they're like, "Oh, we're going to release one clip." You're telling them, "Okay, this is a slogan that is written on the backdrop. This is
a title of the whole event, ActCon 2023." And he's like, "This wasn't a slogan of ActCon 2023. It's a it's a title of a podcast episode." Okay.
What? But but there is a backdrop. There is a backdrop with it written.
Can someone be clear for once? Because I don't think anyone wants to chase invalid leads. Okay. Everyone wants the
truth here. From the beginning when we asked for the video, why not to release it? you're they were like, "Oh, we're
not going to release it because uh donor's privacy or because you're gonna say anyway that it's AI." Okay, since
you released it now, the 10 s of it, cut in the middle. Apparently, the privacy is not a not a concern
anymore, right? So, release the whole thing. But you will not because you're like, "Well, anyway, now you that you said that it's AI. Why would we release
the rest of it?" It's like they do it on purpose. They do it on purpose. So, we run in circles and we look like idiots.
Anyway, then Travis shared with him what Max posted, her pictures from the Aspen event, and Blake went silent. No more
arguments for now. Okay, as I'm filming this video, I'm sure I'll be filming a follow-up. So, the main point here is Erica said Charlie said he wants her to
take over at an Aspen event. Blake Nef confirms it. Then Daily Mail confirms it claiming they've seen the footage from
it themselves. Then the clip comes out and it seems like it is not from the Aspen event. We have to be fair here
though and notice that Charlie is wearing the same thing in those three images, the two images of Aspen event
and the last night's video. Okay, it's the same outfit. We need to be fair. We need to acknowledge it. It's not like he was wearing many different things always.
But yeah, even so that doesn't erase the rest of the problems with the released video. Okay? And there is plenty. So
before we jump to AI analysis and try to figure out if Charlie even looks like himself in this video, let's assume for
a second it's real, that it is Charlie talking at an event and he really is saying those words. Let's watch that moment again.
The most important relationship in your life is the one that you have with your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. His passion was my passion and now his mission is my mission.
I appoint my wife to run Turning Point USA if something happens to me. Erica would do a great job.
It's it's even cut, you know, and his face. He's like, "Yeah, I appoint Erica.
She's going to do a great job." If this is Charlie saying those things, it actually sounds like he's making a joke.
Like it's almost sarcastic. Also, the clip was released without the context, without the question he was answering again. And my biggest issue, it has a
cut in the middle. Paily Mail article again, I want to hammer it in. Charlie said it as you hear it. Even though it
sounds so unnatural that they had to put some other visuals in between those sentences. Daily Mail and TPS USA want
us to believe that Charlie spoke like a stroke victim and just threw sentences out randomly out of his mouth. But back to the ironic tone. Okay, I wasn't the
only one that noticed. Milo Yiannopoulos tweeted, "Oh my god, they installed her on the basis of an offhand joke during a
Q&A. Are these people actually insane?" There were more comments like this. Here is an example. Also, with the video, it
looks like he's not being serious. Like, it was a flippant remark. I am shocked sometimes how low the bar is for Erica
Kirk and TPUSA, and they still fail at being convincing in anything they do.
This video release is a great example of it. Now, let's move on to the theory of the video being AI. This is TPUSA's
supporters favorite because they think they got their gotcha moment. Nothing is ever good enough for you people. You ask for a full video with context, uncut,
unedited. We give you video without context, shortened, edited, with loud music, blurry with cuts in between. How can you still have a problem with that?
Nissi wrote, "WTF? Is this lol? Instead of releasing the raw footage, they put out this propaganda video where the most
important part is s long, has a cut away, is grainy as f, and his lips don't match up. Give us the full video.
We don't care if it's long. Release it. Here's Charlie's closeup. Guys, you're not ready for this.
Do a great job.
Nothing to see here, guys. Just an ordinary sudden droopy eye. And we know Charlie's face. We have been looking at it for years. probably even more
intensely for the past few months. The shape of his eyes is different. The two eyes are different from each other, but
he doesn't look like anything in this video. Okay, he doesn't have a droopy eye like that. Baron also tweeted. He
goes, "How much makeup was he wearing at this event that it covered his very pronounced mole on his chin? I've looked
through dozens of appearances and can't find one where he's wearing so much makeup his mole is covered. disappearing
mole. To be fair, the image could be so blurry the mole could just vanish. But what was going on with Charlie's water?
I appoint my wife to run Turning Point USA if something happens to me. I appoint my wife to run Turning Point USA if something happens to me. I appoint my wife to run Turning Point USA if
something happens to me. Erica would That's weird. Someone commented that
shaking water is further proof that we need the baller. H I I love internet sometimes. Again, to be fair, Charlie
could have been moving the stand by touching it and the water would shake, so that's not necessarily AI.

However, someone put the whole clip through AI analysis, and here are the results.

Here's a clear post ready analysis you can use or adapt for X analysis of the TPUSA video posted by NO. This 10-second clip is heavily edited and manipulated, not raw footage. Key issues: heavy montage editing, and rapid cuts between Charlie Kirk speaking and unrelated romantic footage of him and Erica, including a kiss scene and her holding a stuffed animal. This is not a continuous recording. Lip sync problems. Charlie's mouth movement do not consistently match the audio. Several phrases appear dubbed or altered. Eye artifact. There is a clear unnatural droop lazy eye effect on his left eye that shifts and distorts across frames. Common tell in AI enhanced or poorly composited video. Added production elements. Dramatic music and polished cuts give it a cinematic feel rather than authentic raw footage from a speech or donor meeting.
Timing issues. The way the line is phrased. I appoint my wife. Sounds rehearsed and final, not like something said in passing years earlier as claimed. [Actually, it's claimed to be weeks earlier.] Conclusion. This is a produced propaganda clip, not an authentic raw footage. The heavy editing, lip-sync failures, and visual artifacts strongly suggest manipulation, AI enhancement, or aggressive post-prouction. If TPUSA had clean originated footage of Charlie making this statement, they could have simply released it unedited. The fact that they released this heavily altered version instead raises serious questions about authenticity. Demand the raw unedited footage.

I don't know, you guys. I'm weirdly unconvinced that this video is any type of evidence. What Candace asked for was an unedited raw version of the video, ideally long enough to get a full context and Charlie's response, beginning till end.
This is not what it was. This was once again slop. We are still waiting to hear from Candace herself. This should be fun and I'll be here to keep you posted.

What are my final thoughts? I honestly think that Aspen event happened and he
spoke at this event. I just think that that wasn't the question. Whatever he was answering there was altered and he wasn't answering the question that the TPUSA claims he was answering. This is what I think, okay, that happened. I'm
not saying it's a fact, but today as I'm sitting here, that's my opinion.

But as usual, I want to know what you guys think. Is the video real? Are people being too crazy about it, trying to find issues with it that don't exist? Or is TP USA lying? Let me know in the
comments. If you enjoyed this video, make sure to like and share it. And if you haven't yet, please subscribe to my channel, turn on the notifications to never miss another Daily Fredo episode.
For even more content, follow me on Instagram and X at DailyFredo. That's all for today. Have a good one.

ChuckGPT - Creating "Charlie Kirk" Appointment out of Thin Air - Ep 124
Baron Coleman
Jun 7, 2026

TPUSA allegedly possesses footage that they believe should end the debate about whether Charlie Kirk intended for Erika to take over TPUSA. They refuse to release it. They release chopped up hot garbage instead.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9W-LhwshI1s