All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 25, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
58:57
Real Deal Special (24 September 2025): Katherine Horton & Bill Binney UNDER FIRE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on a real deal special, continuing my interviews with Bill Binney and Catherine Horton.
Bill had a commitment he could not avoid, but I'm delighted to have Catherine here, especially since I wanted to review the bidding on the Charlie Kirk shooting.
Did you happen to get those links I sent, Catherine?
I got them at hand if you didn't.
If you could bring them up, and I think I've got one more to add, because as I've just explained to Jim before we got live, I'm fighting some other corruption here and I am juggling so many things.
Did you have the information about the guy they spotted who was standing?
He climbed up a little wall and was standing by the side filming as Charlie Kirk was being carried out.
Did you have that footage?
Because I can send you the link to that.
He's also the same guy who seemed to have secured the, I think the SIM card from that camera that looked like a camera that was behind Charlie Kirk in the tent.
Yeah, that seems to be the camera, the footage to which Candace has had access.
We're able to, we got her right here.
I'll just put her up and we can talk about it.
This is rather important.
There's nothing gory about this footage from the back.
The thing that really stood out to me, and I just kept asking him to replay it over and over and over again, is that there's no blood.
There's no blood from the back.
There is no blood.
So I think a lot of people were wondering whether or not that bullet pierced and went out to the back.
I think I vaguely even remember, and Skylar, you can maybe live look this up.
But like, I thought the feds were saying they were looking for a bullet at some point, which is now very alarming to me.
I don't understand that.
How could they have been looking for a bullet?
Because if I'm not seeing, and there isn't, I'm telling you, what happens in the front is not what happens in the back at all.
If I'm not seeing any blood, what are we to take from that?
The only thing that could make sense, if what they're saying is true and that person took the shot from the place that they are saying that individual took the shot from, it would suggest that it was inside of Charlie, right?
And they would know that.
The feds would have known that.
So they would have communicated that they were never looking for a bullet.
Because remember, one shot.
So I'm very confused.
I'm very confused, not by what I saw, but what I didn't see.
So Catherine, I think we have there a conundrum for the official account of Charlie being shot.
Do you have the footage from the back?
Do you have the footage she's referring to?
I wasn't showing the footage, but we do have other reports about what happened where Vivian Lee was explaining how it was done.
She has a lot of links here at the bottom.
But did you get a chance?
Here's what she claims.
And of course, she, like me, is a skeptic.
So how'd they do this thing?
The hand signals trigger the remote activation of the squib.
They had the squib activated on signal and then break and produce a fake wound with some blood.
Or people taking cell phone footage in the immediate proximity, but no one outside the operation was allowed to get that close.
They sent their cell phone footage to the AI guys who added more blood and actually moved his finger to his little finger, moved his ring to his little finger.
They didn't notice the ring problem and sent the doctored footage to the news networks who made sure the whole world saw it.
That way, anyone in the crowd would have seen the phase one squib event so as to think it was real.
And the phase two AI doctored footage was broadcast far and wide.
Definitely a Hollywood Mossadegh-style operation.
The commotion and arrest of George Zinn character was part of the op.
It was done to direct our attention away from the shooting and toward the fake suspect, gave the AI guys time to doctor the footage so it could be sent out to the media for wide distribution.
Once the doctor footage was ready to go, the news no longer focused on the fake suspect.
All attention moved to the fake shooting footage, the hand signs.
First, Charlie touched his nose to indicate that he was ready to start.
Then the guy in white, Frank Turk, touched the bill of his hat and then his top lip.
Then the guy in black put out his right arm and then touched above his elbow with his left hand.
This was a signal to the guy in a brown shirt in the front of the audience to activate the squib.
Right after the guy in black made his arm hands sign, the guy in brown put out his left arm and touched it above the elbow with his right hand.
The remote was in the left sleeve of the guy in brown.
And when he touched his arm, he activated the squib.
Then he ducked back down a little and focused his attention on Charlie.
When he saw the mission had been accomplished, he gave a smile of satisfaction and then took off.
And we have here, of course, a number of indications of the fakery, which I think is pretty obvious.
Let's take a look at some of this and I'll get your critique.
They do it several times.
Not counting gang violence.
Now, going to Vivian, and of course I agree with her about this, that was added after the initial footage, which had virtually no blood.
In fact, I think it may have had no blood at all, but it did have an air squid, made his shirt bounce up, and he fell backwards.
And there was the sound of a shot, which I regard as further proof of fraud because if the rifle had been fired, say, 200 yards away, the sound of the shot would not have been concurrent with the hit.
It would have followed it.
There would have been a delay.
It's like a plane passes overhead.
You hear the sound.
The plane is way distant from where the sound would have led you to look.
So here we have more.
You know, notice the blood seems to never hit the ground.
Look at that.
It even looks like it backs up.
I think it was a rush job.
They really didn't have time.
He holds a microphone way too long.
Finally, realized better let it go.
Versus our shirt and arm that disappears.
What's that thing flying off his ring finger?
Is his ring flying off?
You can see when the microphone slips shortly after.
Can you see that?
What's that?
What's that that's falling off?
I don't know.
It's kind of odd, isn't it?
Let's see again.
We'll get it again.
So I see author here, like myself, believes this was computer generated.
Now, here's the thing: here's the real issue that I have, right?
So it can, first of all, about the AI team meeting time to manipulate the footage.
One of the things that I can tell you is that there was a live demo, not live, a public demonstration of the software.
The intelligence agencies have a software, and also I think there's a company that makes this that can change a live broadcast during the live broadcast to add or remove explosions, anything you want.
So you don't need downtime for the AI to kick in for a live broadcast.
You can, the AI is so fast or can be set up to be so fast that you can actually create it in transit.
As you're recording something, something is already live, you know, superposed or made to disappear as you're running this.
And I think that is commercially available software already.
So it is even possible even when there's no downtime needed.
So my point is that they wouldn't even need the distraction.
Okay.
They wouldn't even need a distraction from that known crisis actor who pretended to be the shooter.
Okay.
So that's one thing.
Then the other thing is that I have a serious issue with chain of custody because the intelligence agencies don't just pull off false flag operations.
They also put out disinformation and industrial quantities of it.
So far, the last three shows, I've only seen this one video, this one source by some random YouTube account, which can very well have AI overlaid.
That is my real issue.
So I would like to compare footage from different angles if it's available.
From the back, I would like to see the footage from the back, from the side, from the front.
There were so many people present.
And I don't think it was a closed event.
I think it was rather a very, very open event.
Yeah.
So I think the whole site wasn't really closed.
When people fled, they could flee into all directions.
It wasn't really a sealed off, you know, environment.
It was an operational university.
It happened.
I mean, maybe it happened in the summer holidays, but at universities, as you know, there's like year-round operations.
It's not like a school that shuts down.
So I am kind of, I'm looking for other footage that can confirm or deny any of these assertions that we make.
Here's something to consider.
There doesn't appear to be blood anywhere.
There's no blood in the back of the tent, side of the tent, floor of the tent.
They carry him out to the SUV.
There's no blood on the ground.
He's got what look like white sneakers that could have just come out of the box.
There's no blood on the sneakers.
And I think that therefore can.
Have the footage for that because I was trying to verify that.
And it's very hard to see because I only ever see the bottom of the sneakers, not the top.
And kind of the way he falls backwards is the blood flows down to the side.
There are multiple videos that show his sneakers are pristine.
There isn't any blood.
I mean, several.
I mean, I could dig them up, but I'm saying if you take my word for it, having seen multiple of these, there isn't any blood.
And, you know, they're coming up with fantastic stories now.
Let me share some more of this, Catherine, because it's really embarrassingly bad, in my opinion.
You got idiot nation test.
Get this idiot nation test.
Surgeon covers up an absurd FBI story by saying Charlie Kirk must have been man of steel to stop grizzly round with no exit wound.
Remember, this is now consistent with Candace saying, if what they're saying is true, then where is the bullet?
And of course, in my judgment, what they're saying isn't true.
But if you assume what they were saying were true, then the bullet, since there was no exit wound, has to be in Charlie.
That's what this guy is claiming.
Conspicuously not releasing the autopsy photos that would show there was no exit wound in the back of Charlie's neck, as the FBI contends.
Trump's FBI has released the narrative of Kirk's pathology as a single 30 odd six round entering through Charlie's throat in the front and lodging in the body, making no exit wound.
I mean, already I'm prepared to gag.
Now, the mainstream media is circulating a story of Charlie as a man of steel and the forensic miracle in the words of Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Colvet, who says he's quoting a surgeon who worked on Charlie and was quoted in the New York Post.
Now, a 30-Ott 6 is a high-powered round that would blow through not only an elk, but the elk standing behind it.
It is a weapon of the kind you need to take down a grizzly bear, which is going to have a skull the thickness of armor plate around it 200 yards, easily penetrates five inches of steel.
Put bluntly, as can be seen in the videos below.
What an idea of the impact of this round can be gleaned.
A 30 oh six bullet would have likely made the head explode and join a splatter for yards in every direction.
Here we have now a video I've not seen before, but let's say so today on Dual Liberty Firearms, we're going to be showing you what a 30 odd six does to a ballistics gel skull.
So we have a realistic human head here made with ballistics gelatin and a resin skull.
And it's got a filling in there.
So hopefully you'll be able to see what happens.
Alright, so now we're going to throw it in about a 10% slow-mo for you.
This is going to look super cool.
Now, what happened was when the 30 out 6 projectile hit the head, I had predicted it would go through the front side and just blow a big hole in the backside.
But what actually happened was the large projectile of the 30.6 went through the skull and impacted all the liquid blood that I had on the inside.
Now, that had created a shockwave inside of the head that had literally blown the head to pieces.
There was not much left to it when it was all said and done.
So, I do have to say that this, of course, was firing in ahead.
We're not talking about Charlie having been hit in the head, but in the neck, but it would have been, it would have been a hell of a mess, Catherine.
It would have been a hell of a mess.
So, okay, so so far, where does the because I completely logged out of this whole Charlie Kirk thing after a while, right?
I've done deep dives into the Trump assassination attempts, and I convinced myself it's the intelligence agencies, and I'm just tracking the trajectory as they're moving forward.
So, with this, so basically, so far, what we've concluded, it's not that bullet.
And the claim, did that come straight from the FBI?
You mean about the official narrative?
Yeah, where does the statement about the bullet come from?
Because as I understood, the pathologist report isn't out, or is it?
Is it public?
Well, let's see, we got a link here.
Surgeon work was quoted in the New York Post.
Surgeon calls Charlie Kirk man of steel reverse miracle factor that largely prevented more from being hurt.
Man of steel, Charlie Kirk, likely prevented others from getting dangerously hurt when he was shot because a bullet miraculously failed to exit his body thanks to his strong bones.
Catherine, this is absurd.
I mean, you got to ignore it.
Yeah, but it is the mainstream media.
It's absurd, huh?
It is the mainstream media.
It's the same mainstream media that claimed that climate change was real and COVID existed.
Yeah, I know, I know, I know, I know.
The surgeon.
The surgeon.
Yeah.
So, okay, but what did the surgeon say I pulled out this bullet from him?
Here we go.
The surgeon who tried to save the mortally wounding turning point, USA, found her, he would have been dead at the scene, described it as an absolute miracle that the bullet, which hit the conservative icon's neck, did not pass through him and strike any of the dozens of people behind him in his final meeting of Utah Valley on September 10th.
Due to, according to a turning point spokesman, I'm usually not interested in delving into most of this kind of online chatter.
And I apologize.
This is somewhat graphic.
But in this case, the fact there wasn't an exit wound is probably another miracle.
And I want people to know, Rod, the Representative Andrew Colvin on next Saturday, after sick conspiracists took to explicit reports of lack of an exit wound.
Well, the whole thing is, in my opinion, a complete farce.
Here's Charlie, a photograph from further back.
I don't see any blood on his shirt.
Meanwhile, I just spoke with a surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital.
He said the bullet absolutely should have gone through, which is very normal for a high-powered, high-velocity round COVID set.
I've seen wounds from this caliber many times.
They always just go through everything.
This would have taken a moose or two down an elk and so on.
But Catherine, pushing this kind of rubbish?
I mean, really, how naive are we supposed to be?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
So does anybody actually have the official pathologist report that he has to sign and where some sort of legal validity to it?
Let me look and see if any of what I have here includes it.
Here's another story about it.
Why did Charlie Kirk not have an accent wound?
It's called Another Miracle.
Meet us to say I can't actually see.
I can see that you started sharing something, but it doesn't really show up at my end.
I'm not able to see it.
Ah, I've had that problem on another show.
Not happy about it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Is it just that particular file?
Because I could see the share before.
It could be that, you know, they don't want you to share one particular piece of information.
Let me do a search for Charlie's.
Yeah.
While you do that, I'm just going to talk about it in the most general terms so that your viewers don't have to wait for us to pull it up.
So chain of custody of evidence is paramount in any case.
But now with AI, and as I said, with software being available, publicly available to modify any footage, even that of a mainstream media camera team where the broadcast is live and it can be modified significantly in transit, you really need to have the powers of the NSA to be able to tell nobody accessed that footage on the cell phone.
Nobody tampered with the cell phone data storage.
Nobody accessed anything.
There was no network traffic associated to any of the phones from which you retrieve the cell phone data.
So it's like a different level, a different obstacle that we have to now cross, right?
So the other thing is that I think so.
Last time we had police body footage, at least that's what I used.
And I'm not aware that the police body cameras have Wi-Fi or Wi-Fi enabled.
So it's just direct download to a disk, which is why I kind of trusted that footage.
And it was also, I took it from Josh Holly's senators page directly, hoping nobody interfered in that, you know, the download and nobody had hacked his website.
So that's the footage I relied on last time.
And I also relied on footage that was in the mainstream media, but I picked out details that were so odd, like the people ducking too early, that I was confident enough that nobody else had spotted that.
So it was legit because they didn't actually, you know, take the time to cover it up.
So anyway, that's what I relied on last time.
This time, I think there's, here's the thing, there could be a motif to just fake the whole thing, you know, create all this emotional, you know, background, bring even more people on board with this.
But then again, what's the benefit when already the whole country is on board with this?
Do you see what I mean?
So it seems like so much effort for what exactly, what are we gaining out of this that we didn't have before?
If it were really the Trump administration and Turning Point or, you know, Charlie Kirk and his ilk, you know, putting on a show, what would be the benefit?
I can't really see it, you know?
Charlie's life.
I mean, Bibi was, why would you even have to um put on the show if there was no real assassination?
Well, because there was, he was going to be.
He was confiding in Candace Tucker Clayton that he thought he was going to be hit, that the Mossad was going to take him out because he'd wandered off the Zionist reservation.
He had made many statements Catherine, that were skeptical about the october 7th account.
He'd said he'd been to the fence.
There's no way you go 10 feet one way and there's a guy with an Ak-47, 10 feet the other, submachine gun.
He was saying it's not Anti-semitic or Un-American to ask questions about this.
He was also saying he thought that genocide was a very bad thing.
The U.S. Should not be supporting it.
He told Trump to his face he shouldn't be bombing Iran.
He was also unenthusiastic about censorship, expanding the definition of Anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israel.
They knew it.
They conducted an intervention in the Hamptons just a few weeks ago.
He had a billionaire, Bill Ackman, and a rabid Zionist woman promoter who are both attacking him viciously.
So Bibi had offered him 150 mil for turning point if he would be more enthusiastic about genocide and supporting the expanded effort, and he turned him down.
So I think Charlie was worried, and legitimately so, and that this was some time in planning.
They appear to have sold.
They had this multi-million dollar ranch mansion, really beautiful.
Last year they sold 2024.
They've even set up a woman to play his wife, who's not the same woman.
The woman who's taken over turning point, the woman who was at the funeral thing, the woman who tears over the hands, which are rubber hands, of a mannequin, is not Charlie's real wife.
It's the one that promoted to replace her.
I have photos of Charlie's real wife.
She's not not the same person.
That's the first time i'm hearing this.
Do you have the images, maybe ready?
Um, because it's really the first time that I hear that the, the wife, is not the.
You know the, whatever miss Miss, whatever U.s state you want, hang on, i'll.
I'll pull it up yeah, because i'm actually doing a show about this uh, tomorrow morning.
So I I have it all set up.
Now let me see what we can do here.
Can you see this?
I can see, I can see this.
I can see this.
Oh, go ahead, you can see this.
Okay, we already know there is no blood.
Candace got what appears to be footage that was authentic, no blood.
Then we got other footage Where we see what happened.
I'll call you back.
I'm on there.
Footage that included, you know, the stuff we've already looked at with the blood that appears to be, in my opinion, added on.
And by the way, I would say there may be this very sophisticated that wouldn't require the delay, but Catherine, how would we know those who were managing this were aware of that or had access to it?
I just throw that in.
Meanwhile, here's where he's being carried to the SUV.
There's a whole lot of this.
There is no blood, no dropping.
This is where Vivian Lee explains her account.
Then we go to this surge in the absurd story of Charlie being a man of steel.
We've gone through that.
Now, this is Airsat's wife making her state on.
And get this, Catherine.
People were nominating her for worst crisis actress ever already, just for this.
So then she goes to this casket.
Now, they do not show the face.
It's a mannequin.
They show her with the hands.
Now, here's a guy.
He went through, he measured on the knuckles of the mannequin hand and compared it with the knuckles on Charlie, and it's not the same on the mannequin scene.
Yeah, we had this last time, but I think also the things to consider is that I think, I mean, Charlie's parents are still alive.
They have a say in what happens to the body.
Now, the wife is an influencer, right?
She's Miss Whatever America for one of the U.S. states, right?
So she is like a publicity girl.
I can imagine that, you know, the mother or the father said, look, you're not going to put on a live show with the dead body of my son.
In that case, they would take a mannequin, you know.
I love it.
Just because for just like a, you know, really kind of frankly off-putting sort of scene, right?
Kind of like just for clicks and drama, it doesn't mean that there is no dead body.
Do you see what I mean?
So it's like that, that definitely may be logically impeccable.
Frankly, in my opinion, it's a stretch.
This is not a real body.
They got the camera right over his shoulder.
The whole thing is fraudulent as could be.
Now, here's a commenter.
If you have time, you might want to investigate a connection between Charlie Kirk and Epstein.
He was originally supportive of disclosure.
Then he reversed course.
His wife became a Miss America, or it may have been Miss USA with no prior modeling experience, while Trump owned Miss America or Miss USA.
She was allegedly involved in casting, recruiting models for these pageants, even though she had no prior modeling experience.
Some are alleging connections to child trafficking rings.
She had something going on in Romania.
Note that Kirk was close to Dan Bonginho, that he reversed course on Epstein after Bongino did.
Bongino managed the Kirk murder investigation, was the inspiration behind Sandy Hook Promise, whose corporate partners include government-sponsored child traffickers.
And of course, it's Sandy Hook Promise that hired Victor Hugo Vaca to attack me.
So Bongino was the inspiration behind Sandy Hook Promise.
Well, that's a long story, but there's a tie-in.
If you look at my Maybe I haven't sent you my lawsuits, my suits against Rumble and BitShoot, but it's elaborated there, the ties.
This is very elaborate, Catherine.
Very elaborate.
And I know.
I'm completely baffled because, yeah, today's the first time I hear a link between Dan Bongino and Sandy Hook.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But I'll send you my lawsuits.
And I'd love to get your assessment.
Maybe that's something we could look at next time.
In any case, here you have Kirk with a phony.
Here you have the difference between the real and the phony.
Here you have the eyes, the difference between the real and the phony.
Here is the real Catherine.
This is his real wife.
And they had to set up a phony so she could join Charlie at an undisclosed location.
I mean, you know, it's really astonishing how deep this goes.
So can you show me the pictures again?
Because at first glance, okay, just when you have the two women next to each other, because things like eyebrow shape, gosh, I mean, women draw on their eyebrows all the time.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Next one, after this.
So nasal shape, eye shape.
I mean, it looks, I mean, to me, it looks almost identical.
Like hairline.
Yeah.
But how about this?
How about her?
Yeah, but you know, that's that's the thing.
I mean, if I look at this is my real problem.
So when we're looking at these things, for example, she has this like telltale dip down in her hairline that you can see here.
You can see it in all other images as well.
So in the middle, it kind of comes down in a little V. That you could see in, yeah, you could see that in the previous images as well.
Here, you can see it on the right and you can see it on the left.
Can you see that little dip down, especially as it's coming from the left?
Yeah.
So there's like natural curls to it.
That looks identical.
Nasal shape looks identical.
As I said, eye shape is very sensitive to mood and the muscles around the eyes and then the eyebrows drawn on.
Okay.
That can mess up a lot.
So things like ear shape are better indicators, jaw shape, nasal shape.
Love it.
Love it.
Great critique.
So far, to me, it looks like the same.
You know, that's my problem.
Including this one.
Yeah, well, here the eyebrows are much thicker.
But I mean, the nasal shape, chin, lips, and the hairline.
Yeah, it looks the same as the previous two.
To me, I mean, off the off the top.
Here we have the two different guys that are supposed to be the shooter.
Obviously not.
Give us your similar critique to these photos.
Yeah, I mean, okay, nasal shape, there's a shadow on it.
So that doesn't look the same.
Here's one of the things, and chin looks slightly different, more pronounced than the top.
Here's my real problem with the FBI.
Look, you will never ever hear an argument out of me claiming that the FBI didn't fuck with the investigation.
All right.
They messed with it from the start to the finish, just like a butler.
And I am 100% convinced that the FBI is deep, deep in on it and whatever this was.
Okay.
There's plenty of evidence for that.
There's no pathologist report.
Where the hell are the bullets?
Where are the photographs of the casings that have markings on?
I want to see it.
There was a shooting just now at the Texas ICE facility.
We have photos of the bullets, right?
Where's the equivalent for this, right?
So I see the same manipulation that I already saw at Butler.
The intelligence agencies are involved.
The scale of the manipulation is vast.
Do I think Charlie Kirk didn't really die?
I don't yet have concrete evidence for that.
I mean, I'm open to it.
In fact, I would be glad if the two were safe.
The other thing is also just because somebody is scared to be assassinated doesn't quite kick all this into force.
Do you know what I mean?
Typically, they wait until somebody dies before they do anything.
So all this thing about witness protection and this and that, I only have ever seen and heard about it in movies.
I never actually saw any real-life evidence of that working effectively and actually protecting people.
You know, the cabal on the other hand, I have heard of them swapping people.
Michael Jackson is one of them.
He's been rumored to be alive at the, you know, the deathbed.
There was the telltale doll, you know, placed on the bed, which apparently is like some COVID cabal symbol that it's faked, whatever.
So, yes, all this is possible, but what I'm really looking for is concrete evidence with clean chain of custody.
Or alternatively, I want to have concrete evidence of people having fucked with it, which is also evidence in itself, right?
And the sophistication and breadth of messing with it typically points at the intelligence agency.
So bad evidence is also evidence in a sense.
I agree.
I made that point a thousand times related to JFK.
The fact that the Zabur film was altered, for example, doesn't mean it's useless as evidence.
It means it's proof of alteration and there were only Secret Service and other government officials who could have had access to it because of the chain of custody.
So they were directly implicated in altering the film.
In fact, it was sent to the CIA secret lab adjacent to Kodak headquarters in Rochester.
And that's where they altered it and came in and substituted for the original on Sunday after the original had been delivered to the National Photographic Interpretation Center on Saturday.
So yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I mean, I'm so many of the points you're making are impeccable.
And the question becomes exactly what happened here.
I'm convinced they were out there to save Charlie's life.
I mean, he knew they were closing in and he lost a lot of reports.
There are a lot of reports about this, Catherine.
Clayton Morris redacted, talks about it.
Charlie Tucker Carlson talks about it.
Candace Owens talking about it.
This guy was a close friend of theirs.
And he was confiding to them that he hated Benjamin Nathan Yahoo and he was worried they were going to take him out.
By the way, you're sharing something, but it's all black.
It's kind of blacked out here.
Oh, no, I'm not sharing anything.
It's just you.
It shouldn't be just you and me.
Oh, okay.
Because there's like something is being shared.
Okay, now it's back.
Okay.
Yeah.
So, yeah.
Here's the thing.
Here's my question.
So if they work overtime, put on something so elaborate to protect Charlie Kirk, right?
Why do I see people being attacked left, right, and center?
I mean, Charlie Kirk was kind of like a private fundraiser.
Turning point, USA was very important, but he's not part of the administration.
Meanwhile, the people who are in the administration, like Pam Bondi, her cornea detached recently.
Christy Noam was taken to hospital with a mysterious allergic reaction.
You know, Rudy Giuliani nearly died.
Why do they work overtime to protect Charlie Kirk, who's okay, has access to a lot of fundraising and money and so on.
But in terms of the money available to the cabal, it's peanuts, really.
You know, why would they put on something so sophisticated while meanwhile doing a piss-poor job protecting everybody else?
You know, it's like it's the protection afforded to Trump, to the protectees is pretty, pretty, you know.
Why bother with Pam Bondi or Christy No, my see Rudy is a special case because 9/11, see, and buying to the Savannah just two and a half hours before a major 9-11 conference that would spam three days was to begin.
So it wiped that off of the page.
Some of the speakers even decided not to speak because of the Charlie incident.
It also wiped the Epstein files issue off the page for the time being, but it's coming back in spades.
You know, I mean, this is like this is yeah, this is um okay.
Here's the other thing.
Um, if they did that, and it's, I mean, so in this hypothesis, the theory would be that Charlie Kirk's life was saved by faking his death and he lives in some sort of witness protection with his wife and some cameo stand-in is now playing his wife as the CEO of Turning Point America.
Okay, now, if the kids are known, you can test the theory because the kids react differently to their real parents and to stand-ins, right?
So, this could be tested in the future.
But, okay, if it's fake kids and so on and so on, all this can be done because money and personnel are available, right?
Okay.
But then, what I absolutely do not understand: if this was done by the Trump administration, who would mobilize the Kash Patel Bongino FBI to put on the shit show, why?
Why did they embody this weird ass bullshit about the furries and the casings with the engravings that to me strikingly read like a death threat against Trump and Melania?
Why would they put that in?
And why would they use the exact same code as the cabal has been using pretty much since the beginning, since Butler and before Butler?
And why does it fit so absolutely perfectly into yet another death threat against President Trump with the Masonic kill order against him by James Comey still active?
It's going to remain active until they shoot at him again.
So, do you see what I mean?
It just doesn't fit because the weird bullshit that went with it is straight out of the playbook of the Illuminati.
See, you and I differ about Butler because I think that was staged that Trump was all in on it.
He has a background in acting, you know, there's no nick in his ear.
But he has a background in entertainment, yes, but the Secret Service agents do not, right?
And if I just look at the faces of those, I mean, you know, the people who actually went up there to protect him, it looked like this was bloody serious, you know.
We just disagree.
You can see the guy going and pulling the report, the photographers over for the money shot when they brought him up to shake his fist.
And the same, well, you disagreed with this.
The guy who looks a lot like the guy was with him shaking his fist is there in Utah, too.
So I have guaranteed that's not the guy in Utah.
I promise you.
And also, there's footage.
I have seen a crisp clear footage.
It's not the Secret Service director.
I promise you, wrong-handedness.
And if you don't look at this reduced resolution footage, but the original of which I have seen it, I remember the face of the guy who stands behind him.
It's not even the same jaw shape.
The only thing that's the same is a rough build of a trained man and the sunglasses.
That's it.
I promise you it's not the same guy.
Wrong-handedness.
Wrong-handedness.
Made that point last week.
I get it.
I get it.
There are a couple more slides here we're throwing in.
Let me track them down.
Here is his mansion worth over, well, five and a quarter sold last year.
I think to set things up, you know, quietly sold.
Pretty nice.
Ask me.
Meanwhile, did you know there was a book published the night before, the shooting of Charlie Kirk?
Exactly.
Now, that is straight out of the Deep State playbook.
Why would the Trump administration do that?
Do you see what I mean?
To really make it look as like planned as possible.
If I wanted to pull something off, I would want to make it look as legit as possible, not make it look as fake as possible.
This does succeed in making it look pretty fake, does it not?
It does.
You know, I am.
But what I'm saying is, if you were trying to put on something fake, as opposed to just, because in the cartel pre-announces everything, I found months before the Butler announcement that I don't think it's Trump's style.
That's why I don't think Butler was fake.
You know, what I did find is the Illuminati card game announcing it, like old, you know, the mafia and old Europe would mark their, you know, soon to be assassinated people.
And this, like having a book out to make the rub it in our faces, like, yeah, we planned it.
The guy's dead.
You know, that is like just straight out of the gory, dark, dark deep state playbook.
You know, it's so sick.
I can see the signature of the intelligence agencies all over it.
Here's a comment of a colleague of mine, sometime co-host Paul in California.
If an event's 100% authentic, why should there be any anomalies or discongruities, right?
The fact that there are many means there's some hanky banking going on, in my opinion.
It's one of the things that they do to play with us.
It's like they're winking at us.
Perfect example of this, the so-called book that was so-called published or released listed the day before the shooting.
Like the day after would somehow make it legitimate.
Lots of laugh, laughing out loud.
I mean, who writes a book in one day?
Even if the book was listed for sale five days after, it's still ridiculous.
Who writes a book about something in a few days?
How absurd.
The reason this is out there, swirling around, if you will, is because they are waving at us.
They put signs at most of these events at Mathis.
He's talking about Miles, who's written a lot and a lot of his stuff is very good, some of it off base, has covered this before.
He thinks they're often signaling to other agency.
This is a stage of improvements.
I proclaim it at Paul in California.
A real smart guy.
Not always right, but I thought he was making some points.
What do you think about this?
Remember, you got the shooter allegedly changing his clothes and then changing back, disassembling the weapon, then reassembling the weapon, jumping down this greater distance than a dozen.
It's more like 14 feet.
I mean, you know, the whole thing is ridiculous on its face, Catherine.
Yeah, but, you know, so was the entire investigation after Butler, because I mean, I actually genuinely thought Corey Comperator was legitimately dead.
You know, I really, really thought so.
I saw the interview with his widow and his daughters, and they didn't strike me like crisis actors.
You know, I just didn't get that vibe.
So I don't know.
Also, the sounds, of course, the sound can be mimicked as well, right?
But the sound that was picked up by the microphones, really, that sounded like supersonic bullets at Butler.
Pretty legit, you know.
So, but yet, okay, you claim the whole thing was staged in Butler already, but I don't know.
If the whole thing was staged, why did I find really intricate, sophisticated announcements already in April pointing directly at Butler in a way that only the intelligence agencies who genuinely want to murder somebody would do?
Do you know what I mean?
Wow.
My opinion is there was a real plot to kill him.
29 million shares of Donald J. Trump stock were shorted on Friday, Catherine.
Yeah, yeah, sure.
But that's the deep state owns the banks.
They short other stuff Monday to Sunday.
That's what you do if you think that the value of the stock is going to drop dramatically.
And with his death, it would drop dramatically.
My take is he got went to the plot and he just flipped it to benefit himself and position him for, you know, his heroic figure, surviving assassination attempt, all fits a certain line that is wonderful for politicians like Trump to promote.
That's been my take of Butler.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's just, I looked at that footage.
By the way, there's still something being shared that just mostly blacks.
I think your viewers are just looking at the black screen.
Okay, no.
You know, it's just, I looked at the Butler footage so much.
I know it almost off by heart.
I analyzed, you know, facial expressions of everybody and the crowd, the Secret Service, they are not trained actors, right?
It looked absolutely legit.
I mean, I could see just concern in their face.
And also, the fumbling by the people who were not really Secret Service, but DHS, kind of fill-in people.
I mean, that was legit stressed out fumbling and fuckups.
If the whole thing would have been staged, would they not have made themselves look less like a bunch of idiots?
You know, because that was one of the most damaging things.
You know, it led to the Secret Service director being at the time, you know, Kim Cheetle being sacked.
It was just such, it was such legitimate fuck-ups.
It looked real.
It's like, yeah, that's government.
You know, it was like, wow, that much was real.
You know, the incompetence.
Security perimeter.
It had a notch for the building where the shooter was low.
I mean, you had people telling the Secret Service there was this guy on the roof.
They didn't do anything about it.
That's consistent, in my opinion, with it being a staged event, in my opinion.
You know, the one thing that I like off the top of my head that was not consistent with that, if that was a staged event and everything was all hunky-dory, why was one of the, you know, Butler snipers looking like shit when there was this press interview with the entire local police being interviewed?
He was one of the snipers and he looked like he's about to throw up.
I mean, he was red in the face.
He just looked, stared at the floor.
It looked so off that I could have sworn that he was the guy who fired the five shots after the first three out of the second floor window, you know, because the five sounded different from the first three.
I thought it got fired from the water tower, but you know, I mean, the footage.
Yeah, the actual sound, the difference between the snap and the boom, you know, when you have supersonic bullets, sounded almost identical to the, you know, within resolutions that I had using the audio analysis software.
So it looked like the same distance, not necessarily the water tower.
But man, you know, as I was looking for candidates who might have fired, a professional shooter might have fired the five shots after the first three.
He was my prime candidate.
He looked guilty.
He looked guilty as F.
He really did.
Like in a stage shooting, why would that fit just so perfectly?
You know, it's, I don't know.
It's fascinating that you and I would have differences about any of this.
I love it.
Meanwhile, this was also very odd.
A reporter asked Trump, How are you holding up after Charlotte Kirk's assassination?
And he says, Very good, I think.
Then he immediately started talking about, I'm building a new ballroom.
It's going to be glorious.
It's going to be the biggest ballroom we've ever had in the United States.
Everyone's going to love it.
And one of the late night comics used this clip.
It may have been Kimball and said, Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's in the fourth stage of grief construction.
I thought that was quite witty.
I mean, he was showing no emotional response whatsoever, Catherine.
None.
I mean, it was just ridiculous if you took this seriously.
Trump was reacting totally and appropriately, totally.
Yeah, again, I can see just this black background.
It's very odd.
Get rid of it.
Okay, now I can see you properly.
Yeah, you know, then again, gosh, he's just giving press conferences all day long, you know, about that.
And it's only so much he can say about it.
You know, that's, I don't know, I would have we had a little glitch there.
Oops.
Oh, oh, sorry, I think, I think the internet connection just dropped.
Am I back?
Yeah, you're back.
You're back.
So if you have the footage where he says that, he does a lot of conversation.
There's only so much he can say.
Yeah, yeah.
And, you know, men have a habit of just masking their grief and just, you know, changing topics.
So I've seen that in my own private family.
They don't really like to talk about it and show emotion in private, but much less at the press conference, you know.
So it's just his way of going, hey, you know, let's move on.
I mean, I don't know.
I always have to go back to microexpressions if I really want to find out what people truly think, you know, how they feel.
He looked pretty aggrieved, you know, after the event.
But again, I would have to, you know, see it.
Also, you know, he looked genuinely aggrieved about the Corey Comparator incident.
That, you know, and going back to your point about Butler, as he came, you know, the Republican convention that was just a couple of days after Butler, as he was walking in, if you look at the footage carefully in the high-resolution setting, you can see that he's on the verge of bursting into tears, which is utterly not Trump.
And it's only consistent with him genuinely nearly having died and the realization that his entire family is there and the entire Republican Party is there and they're celebrating and that he's still alive is kind of hitting him, you know, in this really emotional way that's totally not Trump.
Usually.
So it to me that was proof that there was genuinely an event that shook him to his core that the staged event wouldn't quite do.
You know, if it was just a staged little set like at The Apprentice, I would not expect to see genuine micro expressions of just being on the verge of tearing up from President Donald Trump as he's walking into the Democratic, sorry, the Republican National Convention after Butler.
You saw those micro.
Yeah, I have the footage.
I stored the footage because that was like, that for me was the ultimate proof that settled it between my version and your version.
Do you know what I mean?
I was like, wow.
Let me see if I have any other slides we need to consider.
Oh, here's a guy.
We've already talked about that.
No, we don't need to go into how it took all that off.
Just give me, Catherine, your overview of how what you think actually went down in Utah.
Okay, so my take based on the evidence that I also know is faulty because we looked at the footage where the ring, you know, flips and flops around.
And so I am aware that the footage that we've been referring to is heavily manipulated.
I'm aware that one can even, you know, manipulate stuff in flight.
But despite all that, I still think Charlie Kirk genuinely died based on, you know, the footage that I've seen, based on the reaction of the crowd and how open the event was.
Also, I saw the interview of the guy who was with him in the car and tried to save him.
He was in the back and he was looking down on Charlie and he saw people do CPR.
The way he spoke to me was consistent with saying the truth.
So I can dig that out for next time.
I believe Charlie Kirk genuinely died.
But then on the other hand, I also see a veritable shit ton of manipulation from the intelligence agencies, which is just the same as at Butler, which to me implies they did it.
It was the intelligence agencies who took him out.
And for me, it fits into the pattern of people, bad stuff happening to people that are ever closer to Trump.
And what's written on the shell casing is for me consistent with an announcement that the next attack will be against Trump in Melania.
That's why I stand right now.
Itching on this occasion is so absurd.
It is.
It is.
But you're also, I think, implying that they like to create conflict about what happened.
They like to generate uncertainty.
I've observed on more than one occasion: the objective of a disinformation campaign isn't to convince you one way or another, but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
So I think for us going forward is to take every piece of footage, get everything we can, and then try to systematize it and figure out what's real and what isn't.
And ultimately, press the FBI for things like show us the CCTV, the full video of the CCTV, where we can see this guy walking.
We can see his body movements as he's walking up the stairs and taking the corner and so on and so on.
Because body movement is, you know, is harder to fake than just a still image.
You can recognize people.
Well, Catherine, this has been wonderful.
I'm delighted that we got into this deeper.
I like it.
Love your argument.
You're very articulate and perceptive and make a lot of great points and often force me to reconsider positions of my own, as you have done here once again.
I love it.
So I can't thank you enough.
You give Bill my warmest regards.
Look forward to next week when we'll do it again.
Meanwhile, let me say, everyone, Jim Fetzer concluding my real deal special with Catherine Horton.
In this case, all about Charlie Kirk.
Was it real?
Was it fake?
The issue, alas, seems to remain just a tad up in the air.
Just a bit elusive.
Here's more for you to consider.
Thanks for being here.
Back next week.
▲
Export Selection