Louder with Crowder - 🔴 Charlie Kirk Conspiracies Spread Like Wildfire: What's Really Going On? 2025-09-22 18:06

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 22, 2025 - Louder with Crowder

01:14:02

🔴 Charlie Kirk Conspiracies Spread Like Wildfire: What's Really Going On? 2025-09-22 18:06

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Budget.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's true.
	They're recycling weapons.
	Yeah, they just sort of, when it comes to Intel or false flags, they just like, you know, they're a little bit ham-fisted.
	Forgive them.
	Ham-fisted.
	That's not what they are.
	That was a little underhand.
	That was a little bit just to send some of the Jews away.
	Now, of course, Candace Owens, and this is, again, not an indictment.
	Some people may be genuine.
	Some people may be operating with information that is incomplete.
	And there are some people who may be pushing false information.
	And it may be a little column A, column B, column C. Candace Owens, of course, is one of the more mainstream voices or one who is mainstreaming this idea that Charlie Kirk was taken out by in one capacity or another, them Jews.
	In the Hamptons, and he had more than one event, but he had essentially what was staged, an intervention, was staged by Bill Ackman.
	Because Charlie's thoughts, Charlie's rational thoughts about Israel were a no-no.
	This is not the route that you should be going on.
	And Charlie was surrounded by his friends, his quote-unquote friends.
	Bill Ackman was very upset and threats were made.
	Now, we've already addressed that because Bill Ackman did address it.
	The producers did address it.
	And of course, we showed some of the clips where Charlie Kirk was critical of those representatives telling him that he couldn't even question some Israeli policy as far as government.
	All that we covered in an episode last week.
	Please go check that out.
	But Candace Owens also suggested it could have been, by the way, the Macron's, and she has the receipts to prove it.
	Yes.
	The next receipt will be whether it's red or not.
	As a completely, by the way, completely as an aside here, I don't want to go down the rabbit hole, but who here had a head of state, head of state in the front, Miss McCrone, having to show her snatch in court to prove that she's a woman in a lawsuit against Candace Owens on their political bingo card this year?
	Ooh.
	See, I don't think that's convincing.
	I think it makes me side with Candace.
	Candace might be right.
	Who added the ooh?
	I thought that was you, Josh.
	You know who it was.
	Here's the truth on this conspiracy.
	Like I said, there's really no basis for it.
	Bill Ackman, Charlie's producer, both responded in detail refuting the claim.
	Does that mean, I get it.
	He said, she said.
	Gentile said, Jew said.
	But you have to, again, look at everything that we have, the what we know, the time, the history, the backlog of this person being radicalized.
	Which, and I want to be very clear here.
	This is important.
	This is not a game if we are being hunted.
	And by that, I mean, you're just one step away.
	You're just one viral clip or tweet away from being the next trophy on someone's mantle.
	You guys understand that, right?
	In other words, is it too far-fetched to believe that the left can be radicalized to the point of violence?
	Well, you saw the Summer of Love.
	You saw the attempted assassinations on Donald Trump.
	You've seen this year in and year out.
	So Occam's razor is the left is violent.
	And the left's reality is so warped that, my God, they might even celebrate en masse this kind of assassination.
	I mean, even just look at that.
	This is me talking, opinion.
	I don't see overwhelming celebration from the Jews or people in Israel at all over the death of Charlie Kirk.
	I see it from the left.
	I see more than 50% of the left justifying it in some capacity, according to the recent YouGov poll.
	The simplest explanation is: wouldn't the group of people, many, many tens of millions in this country who were gleefully celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk be most in line with the person who carried it out?
	It doesn't seem implausible to me at all.
	As a matter of fact, it seems heartbreakingly predictable and that we saw this coming in one capacity or another.
	And this theory, to many, is ridiculous to even the point that Nick Fuentes himself, who is not known as a huge fan of the Jews, said this can't be taken seriously.
	Time to wake up, guys.
	Some of this, I'll be the first one to say the conspiratard schizo thing is getting a little out of control.
	And that's coming from me.
	I mean, it's like we are truly through the looking glass.
	When Charlie Kirk is assassinated, people blame Israel.
	I, who fought Charlie Kirk because he was pro-Israel, and being said to, or I'm being said to be covering up that he was killed for this miraculous conversion.
	If Ben Shapiro was taken out next, and God forbid, would Israel be behind that too?
	I mean, that would be equally ridiculous.
	If it was Ben Shapiro on Wednesday, people would be saying, Israel did it.
	Shapiro was about to become a national socialist.
	Like, what?
	It's crazy.
	I don't want to say a little bit of a taste of his own medicine because, you know, people were said to me, like, people have told me that my grandparents were cousins because I'm an inbred Ashkenazi.
	I mean, here's the thing, and this is not to insult the Ashkenazi Jews.
	I do not look like them.
	You don't.
	Generally speaking, nor do you.
	No, neither do I. But when you have Dave Smith, Daryl Cooper, and Nick Fuentes sounding like the voice of reason on Israel, you're like, wait a minute.
	Wait, what world am I living in?
	And this is not to say that Masa doesn't carry out covert operations.
	They do, by the way, so does the CIA.
	I know that.
	And one of the worst, I've talked about this, one of the worst, we'll probably have to do a segment on this, is the French.
	When it comes to espionage, I think that's the reason it's called espionage.
	It's the French word for it.
	They're dicks.
	They started it, yes.
	They're really, really bad at it.
	And you could honestly, if you're going to say, hey, an international agency being, you could argue the French would have more of a vested interest in destroying the voice of someone who is anti-socialist in this country has been descending into socialism for many, many decades.
	You could make that case too.
	I want to be very clear.
	As well, Miss Erica Kirk, Mrs. Erica Kirk, please don't hang me on if I say miss.
	Mrs. Erica Kirk is going to be discussing these claims on the show with Alex Clark at TPUSA.
	I believe that's later this evening.
	I think it's 6 p.m.
	It's called Apothecary, I think, the show.
	So Miss Erica Kirk will be there addressing this.
	And I also know that many people out there, there's nothing, they will say, well, she's compromised.
	She has to say this because no matter what she says, I think that her word counts for a lot in this.
	Yeah.
	Especially in tandem with TPUSA producers, organizers.
	I would give that more weight than people online who've clearly already gotten one or two facets of this story wrong.
	This brings us to conspiracy number two out there.
	And this is one that you've seen, the reassembling and disassembling gun.
	This has been out there.
	And just to be clear, the clip I'm about to show you, this person is someone who I've watched a few times, is usually very good.
	I don't believe that this person is being dishonest.
	I want to be clear, I don't want to get into some kind of urinating contest.
	I just think that, like many of you, they have some information that all of us sort of assume to be true.
	And then once you do some digging and search, you find out it's based on nothing.
	But this idea that there is no way the shooter could have assembled the gun on the roof, then disassembled it, gotten off the roof, and reassembled it before throwing it into the woods because the screwdriver was left on the roof.
	So this is the disassembling, reassembling gun, and it's used as a linchpin for some of the conspiracies out there.
	Here's a clip and then a collage.
	So what the FBI is also telling you is that he reassembled the rifle before he dumped it in the bushes.
	As he's fleeing the scene of a murder, how did he reassemble the rifle if he accidentally left his screwdriver up on the roof?
	And you're seeing this all over X, people echoing this.
	This one is really simple.
	No one, and I haven't seen this from the FBI.
	No one has said that he disassembled the rifle right after the first shot, that he reassembled it.
	As a matter of fact, can we roll that footage again of him jumping off the rooftop?
	The story, whether you believe it or not, the story that has been told is that he assembled the rifle, put it back together.
	There's some debate over whether it was a scope or actually the rifle itself.
	Kind of can be separated into two main components to simplify this.
	I know there will be some gun autists out there who will argue, but you know what I'm saying.
	it looks like he jumps off this roof with a rifle in a towel that seems to be fully assembled and there's nothing unreasonable about that i can fast forward yeah Yeah, fast forward to the zoom in part, please.
	It's coming up now.
	Okay.
	So you guys see that there?
	All right.
	But I am finding, and you guys can let me know if there's something official from the intelligence community, because again, I've said they've done a horrible job.
	If they're putting that out there, then they deserve to be called on it because that makes this whole thing far less believable as a story.
	I'm not seeing anywhere that he disassembled, reassembled it on the roof, and then disassembled it again.
	Which actually means I want to jump to another conspiracy because it ties into that.
	So if you guys can follow me here, it is the outfit change.
	So we'll call it number three, but it's actually number four.
	Because in combination, these two have been used to suggest, well, how did he do all this changing outfits, assembling a gun, shooting, disassembling the gun, changing an outfit on the roof, then jumping off, changing outfits, reassetting.
	But no one's saying that.
	This is a game of telephone where people hear the perverted, the bastardized version of telephone and then go, well, that doesn't seem reasonable.
	And I agree with you.
	If you believe that that was the story or the timeline, yeah, what you're being presented with, a falsehood, would make sense.
	So the next conspiracy, number three, is that the shooter changed outfits so many times, but there's no footage.
	Let me read this.
	This is the magical outfit changes.
	Yeah, there you go.
	This is a post on X. This is how stupid they think you are.
	Charlie Kirk shooter wore one set of clothes to the shooting, quote, changed clothes on the roof before he fled, quote, without being seen on camera changing, and then changed clothes at home after he fled, just before he hanged, I think means changed his clothes again.
	So let's look at this.
	This would mean he wore one set of clothes to the shooting.
	Let's count this.
	Give me a ding.
	One outfit.
	Changed clothes on the roof before he fled.
	Two outfits.
	Without being seen on camera.
	Then change clothes at home before he fled.
	After he fled.
	After he fled, sorry.
	Number three, just before he changed his clothes again, four.
	Okay.
	Where are they getting that?
	Well, so someone put in quotes, which is not an actual quote.
	No, none of it's a quote.
	None of it's a quote.
	So four outfit changes.
	Unless they're quoting themselves.
	Yeah, here's the thing.
	According to what I have seen and the footage, there are only two outfits.
	And the only change that would have needed to take place would have been between that outfit number one, 8.07 a.m. and 1149.
	And then maybe one outfit change, if that Dairy Queen photo is proven to be correct, within the span of seven hours or so.
	But we're only really looking at this record here and seeing two changes.
	And they justify this theory from this clip, Utah governor, who I believe misspoke, just as I did earlier, as we often do, saying, yeah, you know, the one outfit and then the other outfit changed, you know, on the roof, saying the different outfit on the roof.
	Watch this clip.
	When he's first spotted on campus, he has different clothing on, and then he changes clothing on the roof and then changed back into that clothing at some point so that when he was when he was apprehended, when he was arrested, the clothing matched the clothing he had on before the shooting here at UVU.
	So again, play that again.
	I'm trying to be gracious here.
	That just seems like someone said, you need a different outfit there on the roof.
	Play it again.
	When he's first spotted on campus, he has different clothing on, and then he changes clothing on the roof and then changed back into that clothing at some point so that when he was apprehended, when he was arrested, the clothing matched the clothing he had on before the shooting.
	No.
	So apprehended was the next day.
	Right.
	At his parents, the next day.
	In other words, he's just saying he could have changed back to the clothing that you saw that morning before the next evening.
	And he says, change clothing on the roof.
	Sounds like what he's saying to me.
	It's not a direct quote saying we know that he changed his outfit on the roof.
	He's saying you see the different outfit that you saw when he was on the roof.
	Versus the earliest that we have at 8 a.m.
	So and it's very clear that that's what he's trying to say, just to give you some other data.
	We played that, but when we saw him on that same ring camera at about 1149, 1150, he was in the same clothing that he ended up taking the shot with.
	It seems very, yeah, we can't confirm exactly, but let's play that again.
	Yeah.
	This is the clip Limp Shooter V2.
	Let's play that.
	So you see, this is him walking at 1149, 1151.
	Right?
	There he is.
	Looks to be in the same clothing.
	Looks to be in the same clothing because it's all black.
	Pants.
	Right.
	Relatively flowing pants, whatever you want to say.
	And then show clip shooter jump V3, which again, yeah, please doesn't look to be any different of an outfit.
	And certainly does not look like the outfit that he was wearing at 8.07 a.m.
	Which was like shorts and I think a different colored shirt, too.
	So unless you are taking that clip of that governor saying that, as literally he changed in outfit on the roof, you only need to understand for the official story, whether you accept it or not, is that at 807 he had one outfit and he changed outfits at some point between 8.07 a.m. and 1149 a.m.
	Until he carried out the shooting and ran away.
	Yeah.
	Which is very reasonable.
	By the way, that would be me every day because if I go to the gym, I'm going to change an outfit.
	Were you about to say something, Noodles?
	They just sent in they have the limp walk video isolated on the left versus the two that actually came from the school camera.
	Okay.
	So again, same outfit.
	Yeah.
	Same outfit.
	Him walking, ring camera footage, same outfit, him getting to the roof, jumping off the roof.
	And here's what is important.
	You would have to make an intellectually inconsistent leap to say, no, no, no, I believe 100% that he changed outfit.
	That's the story that he disassembled, reassembled, and changed out.
	How could he disassemble the rifle on the roof, change outfits, and jump off that fast?
	Well, it doesn't look like the rifle was disassembled when he jumped off, and it doesn't look like his outfit was any different than he walked up with a rifle in an outfit and jumped off in the same outfit with a rifle and a towel.
	Believe me, it pains me.
	I don't trust our intelligence agencies, and I think that the FBI has done a horrible job in communicating this, and they could put a lot of this to bed.
	But all of that honestly seems like the most reasonable course of action for someone doing this.
	Yeah.
	And he has plenty of time to do all of this.
	That's why it would be a problem is because he doesn't have enough time to do all these things.
	If it is disassembling the rifle after the shot, taking time to change clothes and do that multiple times.
	He has plenty of time in this timeline to do everything that he did.
	Plenty of time.
	Yes.
	And again, if you look at shootings or you look at people carrying out crime, the first thing they do is change outfits once they're away from the scene of the crime.
	Yeah.
	So seven hours seems like a reasonable amount of time to put on some basketball shorts, whatever the hell.
	All right.
	Here's the next conspiracy, number three.
	And by the way, we're going to stay wide with this and then take your chats on Rumble Premium.
	Mug Club is Rumble Premium.
	You can click that button and join.
	We're not able to do any of this, if not for you.
	I hope you understand why we started late today.
	It was very important that we get this right.
	Oh, sorry, it's conspiracy number four.
	I'm sorry.
	That's right.
	It's number three on our list, but we changed them.
	Yeah, because the outfit and disassembling kind of ties together.
	Conspiracy number four, the disappearing bullet.
	And you see this from a lot of people saying, there's no way this was not a 30-06 from a rooftop sniper.
	There's no way that's the case.
	The bullet is coming in from somewhere in this direction or somewhere in this direction.
	What it peace to be.
	The bullet coming down, and it does line up with the actual gunshot itself.
	I would say it's a smaller caliber than a 30-alt 6.
	A 30-alt 6 would make a much bigger hole.
	It hits bone, and it projects itself outward.
	No, I'm not even disagreeing that in general that would be true.
	Right.
	It's not an uncommon caliber for hunting.
	I mean, I have plenty of relatives who've hunted with 30-00-6 and killed many deer.
	And usually it leaves a very large exit wound.
	Just as surely, I mean, relatives who will tell you that sometimes bullets do weird things, and sometimes there isn't an exit wound, or sometimes the entrance wound, it looks like the deer was hit by a car.
	I was there one time.
	I was shocked.
	My uncle shot a deer, and they said, woo, what did you do?
	You run it over with your truck?
	Because it was just, he just hit it at a weird, soft issue angle.
	So this wasn't helped at all by the surgeon who worked on Charlie at the hospital.
	And there was, I believe, someone who was a producer releasing this on X saying, I have permission to do so, where he said his bone was so healthy and the density was so, so impressive that he's like the man of steel.
	It should have just gone through and through.
	It likely would have killed those standing behind him too.
	He was talking about how it was a miracle.
	First off, if it's a miracle, then you can't, you know, it defies science and reason.
	But again, this doesn't seem like super responsible.
	Yeah.
	It's difficult.
	It just needs to say that it's there, you know, that they had the bullet there.
	And I think what he was trying to say is that, you know, that other people could have been killed behind him if it had gone through the tent to the back.
	There were people standing back there.
	They said, so it could have gone back there and killed people.
	It's fine to say that, like, that it didn't exit, but you don't have to go into that.
	But they have the round?
	It doesn't apply by the way.
	He said he found it under the skin.
	He said he did?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So he said he did.
	Again, last report.
	Again, these are the things where it's like, these aren't official reports.
	That's the problem with things on social media where they're not necessarily verified.
	But he said that he found it under the skin.
	I saw that in the report.
	I don't know if that's really official.
	Because it could also be a fragment.
	Right.
	Right?
	It could also, there are a multitude of explanations.
	And you even talked about this, how, again, you saw the original footage.
	Yeah.
	When people say, oh, if it's a 30-odd six, it guaranteed would have decapitated him.
	Well, that's silly.
	Yeah.
	It wouldn't be guaranteed to decapitate him.
	No.
	No, it's not a guaranteed decapitation.
	I think it's probably unlikely to decapitate him.
	But, you know, rounds can do all kinds of crazy things, depending on how much it's, you know, how many times do you hear a doctor say, oh, it was millimeters away from killing you.
	You were millimeters away from surviving.
	Right.
	They could do a lot of different things.
	And when I first saw it, honestly, I thought it came from the back.
	So it looked like an exit wound.
	Because it looked like an exit wound.
	It did look like an explanation.
	But not seeing anything on the back kind of suggests that it went in right here.
	Right.
	And like you were talking about, let's say, you know, a nick, right, would be this.
	But with a 30-hour dispensation, considering how much damage it could do, if it's less than a nick, but let's say just hits the side of the tissue, not the spine, right?
	That could cause one large hole in a gape.
	In that case, you would expect to find the round somewhere else to have gone through.
	But if he did have, you know, some strong milk-drinking bones, then could he get that?
	fragment is left behind or or if he did have some kind of a plate right that could change the we don't know it doesn't change Change the velocity for sure.
	Or if it hit, let's say, for example, we know that we've done this.
	It could have hit one of the posts of the canopy that he had, right?
	That can, I'm not saying it would stop a bullet, but that can change the velocity dramatically.
	And there have been far more bizarre cases of bullet behavior than this.
	Even though this is the one thing I would say, seems unlikely for it not to have an exit wound.
	And I won't say seems unlikely, basically, the damage was so severe, guys, if you watch it.
	No, it wasn't a decapitation, thank God.
	But it was so graphic, you'll never unsee it.
	It was immediate blood loss that would lead to instant death.
	Yeah, unless the entry wound was somewhere back here, I would expect that that would be like basically two, an entry and an exit wound making one big hole because of the limited space that it did, that it did hit.
	Yeah.
	And so we don't know that.
	But here's something that we do know.
	Here's the truth is that there have been many, many, many witnesses.
	So you would have to believe that many of these people are on the payroll as well, because this has then been used to act as a springboard for conspiracies of, of course, second shooter.
	I've even seen some so crazy as it was an inside job where someone had a detonation device on his log on his lav that shot him in the neck.
	And by the way, I'm not just talking, like this is, you're talking about millions of people have seen this.
	I've seen people saying, look, they're clearly doing hand signals to take part in an inside job.
	Like you can't address all of them.
	But here's the truth.
	There were many, many witnesses, and not a single one described potentially the shooter at another angle, right?
	They described the shot as a single shot sounding like a bang or a firecracker.
	One account, Isaac Davis, a student there, told the New York Times, it was definitely noticeable, but it sounded almost like a firecracker.
	I do think here this is where the actual report, the medical report, will be of significance.
	Yeah.
	And we don't have it yet.
	And you can say that you won't trust that medical report.
	Okay, fine.
	But I certainly wouldn't trust someone who has no medical report and anything beyond the footage that you have access to.
	Yeah.
	Well, the thing that I've wanted to ask people is like, I understand maybe you have some difficulty with some of the information coming out right now.
	Sure.
	I do too.
	What's the alternative theory that you have evidence for?
	Not just the fact that you're thinking something else could have happened.
	Right.
	You know, Stu Peters was in that collage of people that said Israel killed Charlie Kirk.
	I mean, he didn't mince any words about it.
	I'm like, okay, well, what evidence do you have that that is true?
	Like, you're making a claim, support it.
	And they're not saying that this assassin didn't do it, that there was other people.
	Yeah.
	They're saying specifically that Israel killed him.
	And I'm like, okay, well, why?
	What happened?
	Here's also the irony for me.
	If people are saying that, these are often the same people who were vehemently against Donald Trump hitting the nuclear facilities in Iran where there was no known collateral damage, right?
	The most effective.
	Well, because we're doing it for Israel.
	That was the whole thing.
	But that's my point.
	If someone says Israel killed Charlie Kirk, that's a declaration of war, and we bomb the shit out of multiple locales as it relates to Israeli government.
	Just so you know, if Israel had anything to do with the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I would be front and center saying we have to declare, not they're not our allies, declare war against Israel.
	Comment below if you'd be in that camp.
	Franz Ferdinand style.
	There you go.
	And yeah.
	And so it's just funny to me that people who claim to want peace and that we don't want to fight wars for Israel are making a declarative statement that in any circumstance would be a declaration of war.
	Yeah.
	I don't see how you'd get around that.
	And the other thing is that Netanyahu came out and apologized, not apologize, sorry.
	They're saying he's trying to cover up by coming out and saying, hey, how bad it is that Charlie Kirk was shot.
	And they're like, well, why would a world leader come out and do that?
	And it's like, well, I don't know.
	Maybe he's got some people going, hey, they're blaming us again for this.
	And he's like, listen, we didn't have anything to do with this.
	This is a very sad day.
	Maybe Charlie Kirk visited Israel and it's well documented through video and pictures.
	They're supposed to have had direct communication.
	And he's had communications with those.
	In other words, it makes complete sense.
	It's also not crazy to think that one of our quote-unquote greatest allies would speak on this.
	I mean, they tried to get a moment of silence.
	I can't remember who did it.
	The UN tried to get a moment of silence for Charlie Kirk.
	It didn't happen, but other world leaders were obviously weighing in.
	They tried to do it in our own halls, in our own, our own house.
	And they say, no!
	Remember that?
	Well, they wanted to do it.
	That's a direct quote.
	Great impression.
	They didn't want to do a verbal prayer or something.
	NO!
	Something like that.
	That was their official response.
	It was a prayer issue because they got a lot of non-Christians on the left side.
	Yeah, I don't care.
	That was the longest filibuster ever.
	It was just some cackling bitch going, NAH!
	NO!
	Here's the final conspiracy out there.
	And this one I kind of get.
	The planted text messages, right?
	The planted text messages.
	And this is where people are saying that the feds clearly planted a curated text exchange between this shooter and this blatantly homosexual, gay, trans lover to just try and wrap this all up in a nice little bow.
	Okay, I will say these text messages are suspect at best, but that doesn't mean that it's the feds or the Jews.
	This is not something, by the way, that is uncommon where people go, okay, let's get our story straight, right?
	So that you don't take any of the fall.
	That's right, right.
	I don't know if you're going to believe I didn't know you were my roommate.
	Okay, we got our text message said, and I'll just make it clear.
	Right.
	That wasn't invented with breaking bad.
	It was reflected of things that have happened many, many times in real life.
	So let me read you some of the texts.
	This is from Tyler Robinson to gay, homosexual, trans boyfriend Lance Twiggs.
	I am still okay, my love, but I am stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet.
	Why did I do it?
	I had enough of his hatred.
	Some hate can't be negotiated out.
	If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, sight unseen, I will have left no evidence.
	Only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel.
	Remember how I was engraving bullets?
	The effing messages are mostly a big meme.
	If I see notices bulge UWU on Fox News, I might have a stroke.
	The point is, it seems like it also could be weird goths at a Renaissance fair.
	It's true.
	Did we get an update on that stroke situation?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I hear you smelling burnt toast.
	I'm hopeful.
	Me too.
	I want him to stay around for a while.
	Here's the truth.
	Yes, these are very suspect, but these exchanges were not needed to establish a motive.
	If anything, it seems that the exchange might have been fabricated by this to protect his gay, homosexual, blatantly trans male lover.
	There are other text messages not being mentioned, by the way, like this one.
	I'm a female.
	Yes.
	Come on.
	You got to get all the facts before you start coming up with theories.
	I don't know if you'll hold up all that well to interrogation, Gerald.
	Although you do like harsh lighting.
	I'll be fine.
	Hey, really quickly, let me tie these two things together here, right?
	So this line of text messages seems kind of odd.
	It could be something that's, you know, I don't think any of us looked at that and said, yeah, totally normal conversation between two gay lovers.
	I know it seems like a Todd Sawyer book.
	But yeah.
	So there have been kind of these innuendos that maybe there was a larger group associated with this, or at least they knew what was going on.
	And maybe they're trying to protect their, like a Discord server.
	There's a lot of talk about that.
	Do you think the FBI statement that we all looked at and go, why would you say that?
	Do you think that was to make them feel safe?
	Like, hey, this is just one lone nut that we really haven't tied to any left-wing groups.
	Do you think that's to make sure that these guys don't think, hey, we're onto you?
	Because I can't think of any other reason that the FBI would release a statement like that right now saying, well, we can't find any evidence of him being aligned with any left-wing groups.
	How do you say that with a straight face?
	I just think they're very imprudent and beneficial.
	That's probably the same thing.
	And look at Cash Patel, where he tweeted out, you know, the, I think he said at one point, the shooter in custody then said the suspect has been released.
	There was a switch of it.
	We're like, well, hold on a second.
	Right.
	You didn't just say, in other words, there could be a suspect who is not the shooter, but a suspect involved.
	They have not been careful with their language.
	No, and that guy was super, like, that's another thing.
	Well, it wasn't even that guy.
	It was a different one.
	I'm not talking about the old man.
	I'm talking about there was another one where Cash Patel released it.
	I think that statement is kind of, I mean, kind of true, though.
	There's no group necessarily that they know.
	I mean, I think it's getting convoluted and misunderstood.
	It is, but misunderstanding.
	I mean, I think Reddit politics is a group because all of them celebrate the murder.
	Honestly, to me, that's enough to qualify as left-wing violence.
	Some kind of affiliate.
	If a couple of guys in hoods who, by the way, would vote for a socialist if he was white, if that's considered right-wing violence, I think people on the biggest political message board on the known internet world celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk should count as a group.
	Hey, have you been taking part in this group?
	Have you been celebrating death in this group?
	Then, yeah, you know what?
	We're going to consider you part of a left-wing extremist group.
	Yeah, meetups.
	Yeah.
	Well, and so that's another thing that we don't know that I want to make sure.
	Because honestly, now that I think about it, the two things that I need answers to, I think, the most, right?
	I have no problem with a lot of the other things because I think there's plausible explanations.
	The caliber and what happened with the bullet and whether there was an armor that it deflected.
	I think that question needs to be answered.
	Yeah, if he was wearing body armor, a medical report will help us understand that.
	And also, what's up with a guy claiming that he was the shooter immediately after?
	Because people are saying, oh, that was just to try to give him time to get away.
	That's what he said.
	No, I think what he said was he was trying to draw attention to the shooter or something like that.
	Well, no, he said that he was trying to give the shooter time to get away.
	He was not there as a supporter of Charlie Kirk.
	Another neighbor of his actually spoke with Fox News right after it happened.
	The guy that we had on, I forget his name, Austin or.
	Yes.
	Yeah, he came on.
	He was the one that went over, saw that, went over and basically tried to get in front of the camera himself to kind of stop that.
	But the guy had said, yeah, it's a friend of mine.
	And he's, yeah, he's sure he's a little angry.
	And sure, he's on a little medication.
	Yeah, he's a little crazy, but I don't think he would do this.
	Listen, I don't know how crazy, like, you could be crazy.
	I don't know that the first thought of anybody who's anti-Charlie Kirk and even wanted to see that happen is to yell as it happens and say, I shot him.
	Oh, it is for sick people.
	Maybe, I just don't think it'd be the very first thought.
	Because, I mean, you're standing there, you're angry at somebody.
	Let's say I'm angry at you and I'm looking at you and somebody shoot you.
	I don't think the first thing that I would do is go, it was me.
	It was me.
	So that that guy could get away.
	It seems I think you would.
	How fast did the guy stand up and said, I am Spartacus?
	I don't know.
	That's part of putting this thing to bed is to kind of understand the timeline a little bit and make sure that we get the facts straight on it.
	Well, I do want an answer to that because I think a lot of people are running with that as a theory.
	I agree with you.
	And so, look, we're going to go and take your chats and continue kind of sifting through this.
	So please send us your chats, your questions, and our research team will help answer because we've been pouring over this all morning and obviously all throughout last week and trying to compile this as thoroughly as possible.
	Check out all the references.
	Click that button if we've done you enough of a valuable service that you want this to continue.
	Join Rumble Premium.
	Rumble Premium is Mug Club.
	Mug Club is now Rumble Premium.
	You get everything at free.
	100% more show, The Friday show, and all of the other content.
	What you're supposed to do, but just, you know what, Toolman, just we're going now.
	Mug Club, let's go.
	Go.
	Go!
	What's up?
	Did you say there's something on CNN right now?
	Oh, gosh, Colin Allred.
	They're like, can a Democrat break with history and win in Texas?
	No.
	He already lost.
	He got his butt kicked by Ted Cruz, I believe.
	He was the last candidate to lose to Cruz.
	He's a weird look.
	All red with embarrassment.
	Is he running for one of the new districts that was created?
	Actually, hold on.
	I'm going to move this one.
	There's a new district?
	New.
	New in France, but not in America.
	No.
	Not fun.
	Dang, Gerald.
	I'm going to move this so I can.
	Don't hit that light.
	I'm not going to hit the light.
	Don't hit the light light.
	Hit it.
	You can hit it.
	Don't hit the light.
	Do it.
	All right.
	I don't like that light.
	That way I can check out CNN as his stuff.
	Trying to prop him up.
	Running.
	Aw, I dropped my hand.
	He has a major Democrat upset in Texas.
	That isn't going to happen.
	Earlier, you guys are going through the theories and stuff, and they had somebody who interviewing Trump out in the lawn, and he said, I think Pam Bondi will go down as the greatest DOJ in age or AG in ages.
	I don't know what his problem is because he is completely tone deaf.
	No one likes her.
	No one thinks she is good at her job.
	Maybe she does have the way.
	And he's really on it, and we missed it, and that's why she's there.
	I feel like we were ahead of that, right?
	When you guys said, do we want to cover the Bondi confirmation?
	I said, no.
	Not really.
	I said, I really don't because I want to hope for the best and I don't want to crap on her.
	But I think if people know why it is that I dislike her, she's going to go in.
	You know, I don't want to hamstring her going in, but this is exactly what I feared.
	Yep.
	It's worse than I feared.
	I mean, you just look at her connections to the rhinos and to the Bushes and the Lindsey Grahams of the world or, yeah, Lindsey Graham, not mention McConnell.
	It's just like what she did in Florida and dealing with Epstein.
	In other words, she is the smoke as far as where there's smoke, there's fire.
	People go, I don't trust Pam Bonnie.
	And it doesn't mean that the theories are correct, but you have every reason to not trust Pam Bondi.
	And I've been saying that from the beginning.
	Yeah, I don't know why that is a huge misstep for President Trump.
	And I don't think, listen, I don't think Matt Gates would have been any better for different reasons.
	I think it would have been better controversy the entire time.
	Different.
	It would have been different.
	I think some people would have been arrested, though.
	I do too.
	I think he probably would have actually done something.
	He would have been stronger in some of the areas she's weak on, but I think in other areas, he would have just been a mess.
	I think Pam Bondi desperately wants to maintain her career in Washington, D.C. And so that will moderate your behavior to not piss anyone off too much.
	And I think she has no understanding of what a conservative is when she did her whole hate speech thing.
	She's never had a conversation with an actual conservative in her life.
	And I mean that.
	I mean that.
	She never has.
	You wouldn't make that mistake otherwise.
	No.
	You wouldn't.
	And I mean, this is like several, several, several years old conversations.
	This isn't something that just came around the last couple of years.
	Correct.
	You know, you can go back 10, 15, 20 years at least.
	So.
	All right.
	Well, is there anything that you guys want to add?
	But let's take some chats.
	And by the way, of course, Josh doesn't let me say.
	Army Ranger who knows a little bit about shooting guns.
	And when he talks about that and he talks about, yeah, bullets do weird thing.
	We're adding our expertise.
	They don't decapitate people, though.
	No.
	Typically, I mean, unless it's a 50-cal round shot at a close effect of range.
	Or Rambo.
	That last one where he was mowing people down on the rifle.
	Anything you see in Rambo is totally real.
	Totally wrong.
	Yes.
	No, no, real.
	Let me shoot a minigun real quick with my bare hands.
	Jump out of a helicopter, hit every branch on the way down, and just walk with a limp.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And he ran away.
	This also isn't the magic bullet theory either.
	That's one of those, you know, that theory for me is beyond my ability to go, yes, that seems plausible.
	Now, I will admit that I am not, you know, I'm not an expert and I can't scientifically walk through that process, but bullets turning in midair and going in like 74 different people and breaking bones and coming out completely unscathed doesn't sound possible to me.
	That's not what we're saying here so far.
	No, there are some things I don't understand.
	Sure.
	I understand what I've seen and, you know, in experience as far as results of shootings.
	What I don't know is the science of calibers.
	And because I go into a gun shop to go buy rounds to go shoot at the range, and I don't know what the difference is in a lot of these different.
	Oh, they're all 45, but these are labeled different.
	Yeah.
	Like you had the, what was it?
	The 32.
	32 HNP.
	You're like, hey, if you see any, you grab some, and I'm like, this 32 auto?
	Is that the same thing?
	I don't know those that are.
	Right.
	32 ACP, 32 long, 32 H and R master.
	So I don't know if there's a 30 out 6 round that is a typical one that you'd find in a store or one that somebody reloads themselves.
	That's something that might have a different velocity range on it.
	Very different.
	You can have people hand load and literally blow up their gun, or you can have people hand load and get less than half of velocity of the gun.
	I don't think this guy's hand loading rounds, but maybe it's an old rifle.
	Maybe it's an old round that was hand loaded by somebody else 30, 40 years ago.
	Maybe the black powder sucks.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, I don't know either.
	It's a very powerful round, and I understand what people are saying that it would be very damaging.
	But to me, and I understand the no exit wound, but that's not what people have said.
	People have said, there would be blood everywhere.
	Why is there?
	And show that picture.
	And I think that's misleading because there was blood everywhere.
	Yeah.
	There was blood everywhere.
	It's horrific.
	It's one of those things that I saw, like, you know, on X that day.
	It was everywhere.
	Right.
	As soon as that came out and I saw about half it, I immediately was able to get past it before I saw all of it.
	But what I did see was awful.
	Yeah, the vibe definitely shifted here in the office when, because the first one everyone saw was far away.
	And then we go, is that a little bit of blood on a shirt coming down?
	And then, you know, I was like 10 minutes later or whatever when someone's like, hey, this is a close one.
	It's like, ah, the vibe was like, yeah.
	We both said, I think we both said that.
	We're still hopeful and we're still praying.
	Yeah.
	I think we both were like, yeah, I don't think he, I don't think so.
	We said something to that effect.
	And you made a good point, though.
	And of course, we've not forgotten about Zarutska that in that video, people are going, wait, at this point, that was not bleeding yet.
	That was me.
	And I go, because I've seen stab wounds in real life, and I didn't see anything coming out.
	I was like, the neck, I feel like the neck.
	I've never seen a stab wound to the neck.
	So I'm like, I don't know.
	And she goes like this, and she's like looking up and then kind of looking down.
	And that's all after she'd been stabbed, presumably, two to three times.
	Yeah.
	And we didn't see anything.
	Right.
	And then she falls to the ground.
	And then a little bit later, you see a little bit of blood.
	And then eventually you start seeing the cascading amount of it in the very graphic video.
	Yeah.
	So it doesn't happen right away.
	Right.
	So that's kind of a silly thing to go out and be like, oh, well, there's no blood here.
	So you just chill on the science real quick.
	People who've read too many Sherlock Holmes.
	Yeah.
	She's also seen an Afghan dude.
	Afghan dude got shot in the shoulder.
	He was just standing there.
	No bleeding at all.
	Just a little bit of blood around it.
	Yeah.
	Just standing there and we were giving him care and stuff.
	What was it a laser blaster?
	No, this is what the, you know, and somebody could probably fact check me in the comments, but what our medic had said was like, yeah, these people are so malnourished and they're so dehydrated that they get shot sometimes.
	Just go straight through.
	Yeah, just go straight.
	And then the body's not pushing white blood cells to the area.
	The body's not pushing blood blood cells.
	And Irina got stabbed directly in the center of the throat, whereas where Charlie got shot, it was the jugular and the artery.
	You know, that's that would explain part of it, I would assume.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's just, it was just awful to see.
	And again, hopefully we're trying to get to the truth of it.
	And I think there's a lot of white noise there.
	Some of it is deliberate and some of it is just people don't know any better.
	And I am affording as much grace as I can to people on our side because I also understand when you're upset, when there's been a grave injustice committed and you want to see justice served that you may sometimes jump the gun a little bit.
	So I understand it and this is not a condemnation of you guys.
	At the end of all this, I'll be very clear in what does deserve condemnation because people who have a platform and are supposed to inform you, they are held to a different standard.
	They are absolutely held to a different standard.
	And that does bother us here, especially as people, because we've been accused of fake news for jokes.
	It's like, if we make a factual claim on this show, you can verify it.
	And even today, we make mistakes.
	We made the mistake.
	We just said today.
	Yeah, we said the family was there because that's what everybody said.
	It was so unanimous in the initial reporting that we had no reason to question it.
	That was what was told.
	It seemed like such a shocking thing.
	It seemed like, well, that's not something that would, we didn't even second think it.
	Right.
	No, when they said there, they were actually being accurate and saying, well, they were there.
	They just weren't at the event.
	Right.
	They weren't.
	But then that even went to people saying that the daughter wanted to go to daddy.
	In other words, because people hear it and they add more to it.
	And by the way, the people adding to it, they're probably not even being misleading on purpose.
	They heard it.
	They absorbed it.
	And then that just grows and grows.
	And you see that all the time.
	And it was a heartbreaking thought to think of it.
	Of course, too.
	Heartbreaking.
	I'm so glad that's not true.
	Me too.
	Yeah.
	This entire thing was a tragedy that could be a little bit worse in a couple of different ways.
	So I'm glad that they were at least spared that.
	Yeah.
	Let's grab some chats or noodles.
	All right.
	First chat from Kaylin Bean.
	Does the lack of time stamps on the text message chain add to the validity for the claim the feds planted the text message?
	No.
	Thank y'all for everything you do.
	No.
	When I text, I mean, you can definitely, like, if you're doing it in a row, you're not going to see like that initial timestamp that's giving you like when that thread started.
	You have to push to the left to kind of see it if it's an iPhone.
	I don't know if you're going to.
	Yeah.
	It also depends if it goes through iMessage or through.
	Even then I could change those.
	Yeah.
	I could change those times easily.
	So I mean, I can tell you if I were to grab my phone right now, there are sometimes like, well, why doesn't this show the time?
	Like, I'll see, it'll say a date.
	And then when I transferred phones, there were some old texts that were listed as the most recent text that were from like years ago.
	And then the more recent texts weren't there.
	So stuff like that happens all the time.
	But yeah, there are settings where you can also make it so that it doesn't give you timestamps.
	So no, I don't think so.
	Here's the thing.
	If it's you have to separate between atypical or uncommon and completely implausible.
	And then you also have to separate atypical or uncommon for you.
	Right.
	Because there are a lot of people out there who don't have any receipts as far as when a text message is read.
	It's a setting on your phone to have it auto-delete every 30 days, right?
	So atypical, uncommon versus impossible or implausible.
	And then in the atypical or uncommon, is it just for you?
	Because there are people who live in a world, for example, investigative journalists, who have as little documentation of some communications as possible.
	And I would imagine they probably wouldn't want to be super transparent if you're committing an assassination.
	Next chat.
	All right.
	Next chat from Wheel Impressive.
	Why is it so inconceivable that the shooter's texts aren't real?
	I didn't say they.
	I didn't say that.
	I said it's the most reasonable one that it seems suspicious.
	But sorry.
	We got to read the rest.
	He had a full ride scholarship and was likely a midwit who, while radicalized, talked a big vocabulary.
	It seems like a double negative that they meant to say.
	Are you messing around with us here, Wheel Impressive?
	I think they're asking, like, why do we have a hard time believing they're real?
	I didn't say I have a hard time believing they're real.
	I said they could just as easily be from them to establish a backstory.
	That is just the one out of all the conspiracies, that is the one that they don't seem like normal text messages between two people, but people behave very abnormally when they're trying to get a story straight.
	So it could be them trying to get a story straight.
	Or I also, I understand how someone could look at this and say, that's weird.
	That's not how people talk.
	That's the point that I'm making.
	It could be a guy going, hey, these might be my last things I say.
	Yeah.
	They are weird, though.
	Yeah.
	They're definitely weird.
	Yeah, it could be, but I also know people who try to speak that way to sound eloquent.
	Yeah, I know people like that too.
	They'll use the word individual.
	Yeah.
	Like there was another individual.
	Like, what are you, oh, female?
	Are you going to meet some females tonight?
	Yes.
	This one individual wanted to start a fight.
	Dude, just say guy.
	Yeah.
	It was superlative.
	I don't even think you're using that right.
	I must.
	What?
	Next chat.
	You mustn't.
	Next chat from Alice.
	Next chat from.
	That affects me.
	Sorry.
	Sorry, Nicholas.
	We're making your job very hard.
	Next chat from L Upton.
	The most bizarre conspiracy theory I've seen by gay tards on X is that it was an AI-generated hoax to blame trans culture.
	I don't believe that, of course.
	Have you all heard that one?
	I saw some of that effect, but here's the takeaway from that.
	The left is thrilled to see you guys jumping the gun and saying the Jews are conspiracies.
	Anything that takes the heat off of the Frankenstein monster they created.
	Right?
	We all have to objectively agree.
	The best thing for the left would be to be able to claim this person is not one of us.
	And those out there who are jumping to misinformation or making, drawing these conclusions from some spotty information, you are doing a favor to the left.
	That is irrefutable.
	It's also too obscure, I think, if that was the intention.
	Yeah.
	If the intention was to make you think it was the responsibility of the trans community, then I think that you would try to imply that this person was trans themselves.
	Right.
	I suppose banging it.
	Yeah, as opposed to just having gay sex with a woman.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, one does.
	Well, one does.
	I must engage in sodomy with a woman with a picker.
	If my wife uses a strap-on, is that gay sex with a woman?
	I don't think the thing is, it is changing the dynamics.
	You're the one being entered.
	You're the one being entered.
	I'm still good, right?
	Finger, remote control, you're fine.
	Strap on, no.
	Next chat.
	It's a universal remote.
	Does that matter?
	Starts changing the base on your sound system.
	It's a PlayStation 5 controller.
	Does that matter?
	Just beat Grand Theft Auto.
	All right.
	All right.
	Next chat from Mr. Nevermind.
	Question for Crew.
	Opinions on the Amazon book that was published a day prior to the shooting.
	Alex Jones reported on it and has me genuinely concerned.
	I saw it, but I wasn't able to verify that this was a real.
	I'm pretty sure you could change the date after you publish something and change the cover arcs.
	Yes.
	Something totally different.
	That's what I saw, and that seemed to be the most reasonable explanation.
	What did it say?
	It was basically latent.
	It was called the death of Charlie Kirk.
	Yeah, the shooting by Charlie Kirk.
	It was called the shooting of Charlie Kirk.
	And I understand it had like one review or something like that, if any at all.
	And it was like the day before.
	And that would be very easy to do for someone who wants to, again, can someone bring that up that the anti-strategy of divide in Conquer that they want to divide the right?
	There was a report on that.
	If someone could bring that up where they said they want to divide and drive a wedge between the right.
	And so this would be really effective if we actually unified and agreed that we are facing a threat, that we are being hunted by not radical leftists, the modern left.
	If we could all come together and agree on that rather than fight over the Jews or whoever it is, we would be far more effective.
	So again, you have to use the logic part of your brain.
	Would the left prefer it if we divided over this and created factions than recognizing the actual threat that seems most reasonable because they were celebrating it?
	Like for crying out loud, people make, and I get it, dancing Israelis, 9-11.
	I understand where you're coming from.
	Dancing whole half the country, guys, call it 20%.
	Next chat.
	All right.
	This one was titled, Here's the Big One.
	Chris Hodge 76.
	Is all this engineered chaos preparing the world for the mark of the beast?
	Oh, boy.
	One digital ID, total identity and access control.
	They don't want your consent.
	They want you to beg for it.
	Let me just answer.
	Let me ask this.
	How, keep that up, please, Noodles, for a second, because my brain hurts.
	And I don't, and again, I'm being gracious.
	Let me ask you this.
	How would assassinating Charlie Kirk, which would galvanize the right, obviously the largest concentration of Christians in the world will be the American right who oppose digital IDs, identity, access control, all that?
	Like, in other words, we are the strongest guard against that.
	How would assassinating an important figurehead to galvanize the right lead us to you think it's going to lead us to all getting Bill Gates microchips or getting Tramp Stamp 666 tattoos?
	I don't understand it.
	I don't understand how you get from this horrible event to the beast and the mark of the beast when we would be the most likely to fight it.
	And they've given us a fighting spirit.
	This has put fight in all of us.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I'm trying to make the loosest possible connection in that, okay, well, if there's chaos and you want to try to find somebody, you want to try to identify the shooter, if they all had tags, we could see very clearly where people were at the time of the shooting.
	There'd be no questions.
	But that's so loose and thin.
	Listen, I wouldn't look for that.
	I wouldn't look for that for the mark of the beast stuff.
	It's not, yes, they want you to beg for it, but read, you know, and this gets into how you view eschatology, kind of the study of the end times.
	But if you view it kind of the way that most Protestants do, it's not going to be something like this that causes that.
	The chaos in the world is going to be at a level at which you cannot even possibly understand.
	That's the kind of stuff that makes you go, yeah, this is a great idea.
	We're going to abandon all principles whatsoever for freedom or speech or anything and do that.
	But I will say this.
	I will say this.
	I understand the idea that the spirit of chaos is one of evil because we serve a God of order.
	So people throwing out conspiracies and accusations with no basis in fact, well, is their spirit more aligned with a God of order or a beast of chaos?
	You be the judge.
	Next chat.
	They did send in the Antifa quote if you wanted to.
	Oh, let me see it.
	Yeah.
	So they said it's from the Corvallis, Oregon branch.
	So one possibly useful wedge issue on this context is Israel.
	Anti-fascists must work to find more creative ways to counter this political moment.
	Yeah, to counter this political moment and try and drive a wedge.
	Yeah.
	So divide and conquer.
	And that's well, no, that's what the left does.
	That's what they do it out in the open with identity politics.
	They're trying to turn the right into a subfaction of identity politics.
	Right.
	Just to be clear.
	And unfortunately, there's just too many useful, willing idiots out there doing the job.
	And we're not talking about people who criticize the government, the largely secular government of Israel who have taken us for granted in many instances.
	We're not talking about that.
	That's entirely reasonable.
	We're talking about people saying the only logical conclusion is that the Jews killed Charlie Kirk.
	Next chat.
	All right.
	Next chat from Mulgara85.
	How do we go about responding to people who say the shooter was a groiper or whatever?
	What?
	I know Keith Olbermann was saying that.
	To be fair, he is a faggot.
	You answered your own question.
	That's true.
	Again, here's the thing.
	You would have to disbelieve the mother.
	You would have to disbelieve friends, the father.
	You would have to disbelieve the record, including, I guess some people, maybe there's some chats that we haven't seen, but there, again, have been communications that can be verified.
	You would have to disbelieve the texts, all of it.
	You would have to disbelieve all of that and then present more compelling evidence of this person being a Groiper, for which there is none.
	For which there is none.
	There's tons of evidence countering that.
	Tons.
	As a matter of fact, all of it.
	There is none to support it.
	And so instead of saying, like, and not that you're saying this, but instead of people on the right going, oh, actually this, which by the way, you're getting now because some people who are fans of Nick Fuentes feel like he turned on them.
	Right.
	So they're trying, the Groipers themselves are trying to prevent us, going, we're now ex-Groipers, so let's destroy the reputation of the Groipers.
	That's the problem with trolling just for fun and having no anchor to the truth whatsoever.
	And I mean that.
	You see that a lot.
	You see that a lot, unfortunately, in this movement where people are chasing clicks.
	There is no evidence of that.
	I don't know why for somebody who all the evidence points to, he believes that Charlie Kirk was hateful, which of course he is not, he would therefore automatically be identified with a more hateful group, quote unquote.
	Well, and the Groupers, I don't even think would have much of a problem, if any, with Charlie Kirk other than his position on Israel.
	But you could see.
	Oh, no, they did have a huge problem with Charlie Kirk.
	Well, no, I mean, let me make the case.
	You could see his position on Israel at the very least moderating.
	And so if that was the main sticking point with them, his position was moderating.
	There was plenty of evidence of him going, hey, listen, the people around me right now, the people that I talk to every day, there's not a lot of support for Israel.
	And anytime we try to bring that up and have a conversation, when he brought Dave Smith on to debate the guy at the TP, like, I don't think they would have been peak pissed off at him right now.
	Think about this for a second.
	Think about this.
	The story that is honestly clearly most likely a radicalized trans person.
	By radical, I just mean a leftist trans person who's mentally ill, gay.
	Sorry, gay with a trans lover, right?
	On camera, carried out this assassination.
	There's plenty of evidence of it.
	Okay, that's the most likely.
	Outside of that, and you have people who will die on this hill, you have people who 100% believe it was the Groipers, and then others who say, no, no, no, no, it was the Jews.
	Come on, guys, use your head.
	Next chat.
	Next chat from Hamiltank.
	Question for the crew.
	What about the five or six X accounts stating Charlie will be killed the day before it happened?
	Well, again, some of those have been faked, just to be clear.
	Some of them, the ones that are more alluding to something big may happen, I think those people are being investigated.
	In other words, we don't know right now if people knew about it.
	We don't know if anyone did.
	That is a possibility.
	That's not a conspiracy because even those in intelligence have said we're looking into that.
	But I will tell you this.
	When I would do stand-up shows or the one time a change of mind was announced beforehand, you would find tons of comments like that.
	Like, oh, it's going to be a big day on campus.
	Oh, there will be fireworks.
	It's going to be lit.
	If you see all these other events that Charlie Kirk did, you look.
	Right.
	You'll find messages like that.
	It's still saying, you know, a broken clock is right twice a day.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	I mean, people make predictions, bold predictions all the time.
	Yeah.
	All it takes is for it to actually happen and for people to go, oh, see, somebody knew.
	They knew something.
	And by the way, if the clock only keeps military time, it's only right once a day.
	And I found that out because I got an idea.
	If it only keeps military time, it's probably wrong all the time.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Probably.
	Well, I found out the hard way.
	I got one of those natural wake clocks that does the sunrise.
	Yeah.
	And it kept going off at night.
	Really?
	And then I realized because I put, I'm like, I put it in the right way, AM PM for the 11th.
	Then I found out that the alarm is a 12-hour cycle, but the actual clock itself is a military 24-hour military time.
	So you can only set an alarm between midnight and 11.59.
	But you can only set the daily clock.
	You have to go like 17.30.
	So anyways, it messed me up for many days.
	That was like me.
	It's a shitty clock.
	Next year, I got confused.
	Screw you, Phillips.
	Next, literally.
	It's completely their fault.
	I haven't liked you since Clockboy.
	Can't wait to see the response.
	Yeah.
	Like, hey.
	All right.
	First, we lose Radio Shack.
	Now we lose Crowder's endorsement.
	We can't do anything right.
	All right.
	Next chat from Bolt Blaze.
	I'd love to hear some debunking of white supremacy even being right-wing.
	Yeah.
	Hasn't David Duke endorsed like the last three Democratic campaigns?
	So did Robert Spencer.
	He stayed home.
	That's where he stayed.
	Yeah.
	Democrat Party.
	Oh, and by the way, to tell you about how awful these people are, white supremacists who want to destroy the right, David Duke one time faked, or at least reposted on X, a fake interview with me saying like, gas the Jews, kill the, he said, oh, Steven Crowder is way too radical for me.
	And there were pictures of me with a swastika, just to be clear, neck tattoo right here.
	And back then in the days of Jack Dorsey, and it was, they were attributing quotes to me as a neo-Nazi.
	And I said, hey, by the way, this is like, this is actually like dishonest.
	It's slandered.
	And this is a fake interview.
	They said it wasn't a violation of their policies on X. So those people, those neo-Nazis, there is no one who white supremacists hate more than the right.
	Let me tell you why.
	Take the extreme version of people who want to say that you're paid by the Jews if you simply say, I don't think it's very reasonable to say that Charlie Kirk was killed by the Jews.
	That same dynamic, who do you think the white supremacists are more mad at?
	The Democrats who out in the open are identity politics or the people who they view as the huge failures, the Republicans who have allowed it to proliferate, right?
	They hate Republicans.
	Also, if you look at neo-Nazis, they do, actual neo-Nazis, not just white supremacists, they do adhere to the ideals of the Nationalist Socialist Workers' Party, where they believe that all of our social safety nets and benefits and welfare programs would work.
	And we would be able to help Americans if not for the drain of brown and black people.
	This is not a secret.
	It is well known.
	The most notable white supremacists out there have endorsed Democrats, hate Donald Trump, and their actual ideology is still that of socialists.
	It just doesn't work with minorities.
	So anyone who just says white, it's like when they say fascism is right-wing.
	I guess Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin were not fascists.
	Like, no, no, they're communists.
	Yeah, but it meets both.
	It meets both.
	The problem is it was defined that way.
	Right.
	By the way.
	It was defined whenever it was defined.
	I don't know when fascism was defined, but I can't think of any time earlier than World War II.
	I don't know when the word was defined, but in the definition, it says a right-wing.
	So it's like it's a right-wing version of Mao and Pol Pod and communist dictators.
	The Nazis versus the Stalinists, it's a family feud.
	Yes.
	That's really what it is.
	They're far, far closer together than they would be with the United States.
	And at that point, you know, Britain.
	Yeah.
	Richard Spencer, not Robert.
	Oh, sorry.
	No, I'm sorry.
	Robert Spencer is actually a great author.
	Great author, great author.
	He wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Crusades.
	I apologize.
	Richard Spencer.
	Not me.
	I don't.
	Go down with the ship.
	Come on, guys.
	That's an easy mistake to make.
	Robert, Richard Spencer, basic white guys' names, they start with an R, and Spencer is a last name.
	But I deserve it.
	Next chat.
	All right.
	Next chat from Taylor Rain.
	Question for the crew.
	People like being entertained, and conspiracy theories are, if nothing else, entertaining.
	True.
	Is this the main reason for these conspiracy theories, or is there something else going on?
	It's a good question.
	It's a little of both, in my opinion, is they are entertaining.
	I also think that people have realized that many conspiracies in the past have proven to be true because a lot of people don't trust anything, certainly as it relates to our institutions.
	And I would say rightfully so after COVID.
	And then there are people where it's okay.
	And I don't want to just pat ourselves on the back here or the research team on the back here.
	What we do today, what we did, is very difficult.
	It's very difficult.
	It requires a lot of legwork.
	And it requires not only a lot of, okay, bringing in aggregating facts, it requires looking at them critically and in a perfect world in a way that is consistent.
	Consistent logically and consistent ideologically to draw a more likely than not conclusion.
	Conspiracy theories, the ones that always point one direction, it absolves the consumer of all of that.
	Right?
	It's like, okay, so how do we get to the Jews?
	Or, all right, how do we get to insert whatever boogeyman here?
	How do we get to the blacks?
	How do we get to, in some cases, the answer is yes.
	In many cases, it's not.
	So it's a lot easier.
	In other words, the people doing that, I guarantee you, if you look at their timelines, they have jumped on many, many leads that were false because they don't want to have to think critically.
	And for me, I will tell you this, none of these things, let's say any of these were true.
	It does not shatter my worldview.
	Let's say, let's say that everything else was planted.
	It was fake.
	The ring footage and TMZ is in on it and all the witnesses there are in on it and everyone at TPSA, TPUSA has a paid Jewish show.
	Okay, let's assume all of that.
	Let's assume there's no track record.
	There's no background.
	There's no father, mother who say this guy was radicalized.
	There's no video game communities.
	There's no chat.
	Let's assume that all of that was for years backfilled by the Jews.
	All right?
	And then let's assume that Charlie Kirk was becoming more and more critical of the Jews in general, not the Israeli government or their policy, but in general was turning toward becoming more of a groiper type.
	And so he was assassinated by Mossad.
	Let's assume all of that.
	In no way does that shatter my worldview at all.
	It is not incongruent with my worldview.
	Okay, wow, that's awful.
	And that's a declaration of war.
	If all of those things are not true, it shatters the fundamental worldview of people who want to blame everything, not some things, everything on the Jews.
	So we don't suffer the same consequences.
	The truth does not create the same consequential ripple effect for people who think critically and do their due diligence as it does for someone who needs the same villain every time.
	In other words, they have nowhere to go from there.
	So what do they do?
	They go into the next one.
	They go on to the next one.
	And hope you forget.
	We go the same direction we've been going.
	It doesn't change anything.
	There are new villains and bad actors all the time.
	Now, that's absolutely true about those creating or starting the talk of these conspiracy theories.
	But the question is a good question.
	People do like to be entertained.
	Sure.
	And a lot of people out there, they fancy themselves a shaggy and Scooby-Doo.
	Right.
	Ooh, it's a mystery.
	I want to try to figure out, oh, that makes sense.
	It's all these oh moments, you know.
	But if it's always the oh that leads to one thing and you find out that one thing isn't true, oh my god, you have a really that's a tough reckoning with your own brain.
	We don't have that.
	We really don't.
	I really want the truth and I've told you what I believe to be most likely.
	People telling you 100%.
	People say it's 100% it's Mossad.
	Change one thing.
	Let's say it is a foreign actor.
	Let's say it's the French.
	Let's say it's Qatar.
	Because Charlie Kirk was very critical on them and China.
	Why are they not in the mix if we're talking about that?
	I tend to think that life is way less exciting than we'd like it to be.
	Yeah, in many instances.
	Yeah, and when it comes to something like this, I lean way more towards, yeah, it's just some messed up trans-loving kid who hated who believed everything the media told him.
	Yeah.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	And by the way, who is more likely to be radicalized?
	Someone by the Israeli government or someone to be radicalized by all of mainstream media, most online media, digital platforms, Hollywood.
	Right?
	Let's be clear.
	And his girlfriend.
	Boyfriend.
	Yes.
	I know, I know boyfriend, but to him.
	Yeah.
	It's his girlfriend.
	How many dumb things did you do 22 or younger for a girl?
	Not that one.
	No, not.
	Yeah.
	We get it.
	You prefer a bigger Adams app.
	Yeah, push aside a penis as I was trying to kiss my girlfriend.
	But we've all done dumb things.
	Where do you kiss your girlfriends?
	Yeah, where do you got to get close?
	Yeah.
	Please push aside a penis.
	He's only had a couple, but I know.
	That's okay.
	We love them anyway.
	I think you're missing the point.
	Yeah, the point.
	Yeah, I think you're missing the point.
	The point is that we've all done dumb things for a girl.
	And, you know, Romeo killed himself or he was, I don't know.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	There's plenty of examples.
	I don't think Mark Anthony.
	You think you went down, Josh?
	Mark Anthony.
	Mark Anthony?
	Yeah.
	Mark Anthony gave up his empire.
	Yeah.
	Mark Anthony.
	Yeah.
	Not the guy who sells shoes at Kohl's.
	Okay.
	Next chat.
	Are you thinking of Mark Anthony?
	Yeah, I'm talking about Mark Anthony, not Mark Anthony.
	The one who was with J-Lo for a while before she went back to Ben Affleck.
	Next chat.
	And then Ben Affleck was smoking a cigarette.
	Oh, my love.
	I know.
	Next check.
	I'm talking about Mark Anthony, the guy that could have conquered Egypt but had sex instead.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	Correct.
	Yeah.
	And she was a filthy whore, that Cleopatra.
	Next chat.
	Next chat from Jonathan Zimmerman.
	All right.
	Where do we get the info about the assassin in Minnesota who killed the Hortmans?
	Everything I find shows that he's a crazy far-right winger, and I can't seem to find your guys' sources.
	There's a post online.
	Maybe we can just bring it up after the Pierce Morgan hit where he made them publicly available.
	The guy said that that wasn't the reason, and he blamed Tim Walls in his own note.
	And this was a guy, by the way, also more context, was trying to get attention any which way he could with all types of controversial actions.
	So this was the natural escalation.
	There was some infighting too with him in the Democratic Party.
	He was appointed by Tim Walls.
	So just because someone may be pro-life or may have voted Donald.
	Let me ask you this.
	Everyone here at Conservative, right?
	Let's say someone here smokes too much PCP, comes in and shoots me in this chair.
	Gerald is most likely, let's be honest.
	Come on.
	Dang it.
	Let's say he does it.
	Does that mean it's political violence because he voted for Donald Trump?
	No.
	No, and if it was, then we consider a lot more things to be political violence.
	Yeah.
	We would consider that guy on the bus to be political violence.
	We would consider any gang shooting.
	We'd consider any, you know, personal vendetta.
	The truth is, if you were to do violence carried out just by party affiliation, meaning just by the registration or how they vote, it'd probably be 90% Democrat because the gang violence.
	The murders, yeah.
	Yeah, it probably would.
	So, uh, yeah, and we provided those sources there publicly.
	He's sending the letter now.
	He's saying that he was saying he was part of a Tim Walls organized hit.
	He's he's crazy.
	Those are the actual words from our Horton.
	I always forget the guy's name, but the Hortmans, yeah.
	Horrible person, awful act.
	Yeah.
	No one celebrated it.
	Period.
	No one spat at the memorial.
	What are you looking at?
	No, I have the info if you wanted to.
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, bring it up.
	And we made this publicly available.
	Recently there was a pro-spy project that Tim Wall.
	This is the guy writing that wanted done.
	And Keith was also aware of the product.
	Tim wanted me to kill Amy Klobuchar and Tina.
	Tim wants to be a senator and he doesn't trust to retire as planned and thinks she is going to stay on the last minute with Amy gone.
	Tim would get one of the gen and to be it makes this there's insanity.
	He was so he's yeah, he was saying Tim Walls wanted him to kill Amy Klobuchar.
	I don't know.
	This guy is obviously mentally ill.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, mentally ill.
	And it didn't seem like he wasn't going out there and saying right-wing or even conservative talking points.
	It was more of like this crazy rambling of like Tim Walls wanted power in a different way than he had it or somebody else did and he was trying to help facilitate that.
	Yeah, he was just mentally gay.
	Yeah.
	Well, this is this is literally the people they'll want you to believe that's right-wing violence and say that Pulse nightclub shooting was right-wing when it's literally ISIS.
	So like, I don't know.
	Yeah, where does yeah, where does Islam fall?
	On the ISIS certainly wouldn't fall.
	Yeah, I would, because I would classify them as I guess as religious fundamentalists.
	Yeah.
	Is Islam right or left-wing?
	Well, Osama bin Laden endorsed John Kerry.
	Well, that's one guy.
	I'm the time.
	And Al-Khanda did too.
	They threatened us and said, if you don't vote for John Kerry, then we will blow you up.
	Same thing.
	If you vote for McCain, we are going to blow you up even more.
	They constantly issue those threats.
	They always want us to vote Democrat.
	They always do.
	But also, the New York Post, it looks like, reported on this.
	And so this is July 12th at 2025, like this year, obviously.
	It's pretty clear.
	It's a Jay House interview.
	It didn't involve Trump stuff or pro-life.
	Yeah, that's from the New York Party.
	I mean, how do you, how did this get away with it?
	Let's say.
	Let's get the hands of the world out there get away with going on and saying, well, what about the Hortons?
	What about these guys?
	Let's at the very least say, okay, let's say that's gray area.
	Okay, you know what?
	You guys, and here's the thing.
	They already registered that as right-wing violence.
	That's already in the Cato chart in the Economist chart.
	I don't know about the new ADL.
	It's even worse.
	So let's say, all right, put that on our ledger.
	Why is we got a Trump supporter here?
	Bang, bang, not.
	That's clearly more outlined than this.
	It's not even close.
	And why is burning down buildings, Wendy's, CVSs, police precincts, why is that not political violence?
	I would 100% classify the Hortman murder as political violence, but why not burning down a precinct?
	Yeah.
	How many deaths during COVID?
	During that COVID, sorry.
	The love.
	Summer of love.
	It was during COVID.
	That's why I confused.
	But how many deaths?
	I think it was like 30.
	Actually, you know what?
	I'd be very curious.
	The Dallas PD assassinations.
	Oh, good.
	Did they register that as political violence from the left?
	I don't know.
	Maybe we can look into that.
	It's really tough because the crosstabs are really hard to get through sometimes.
	We've already gone through some of it and found some really interesting things.
	Yeah, Waukesha was not.
	Yeah, Waukesha was not.
	Trump supporter not.
	They got pronouns, not pronouns, but they.
	They did say that the Dallas shootings were listed as political volumes.
	Okay, well, there's, listen, look at that one.
	Does that name sound familiar to you?
	Yeah.
	Aiden Hale, Audrey Hale.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They weren't going to include it, and they would never have included it if not for the work that the investigative journalists did here.
	They even made a note in Cato to say, even though this one's borderline, because the MNPD says it's not.
	Well, they said it's not because they want to cover their ass because they lied to you.
	By the way, I can say that because I've said it.
	They said they would sue me.
	No word yet.
	Final chat.
	All right, final chat.
	And they were trying to point out that it was Aiden instead of Audrey.
	Anyways, thank goodness we got the name right.
	Yeah, because that's the important part, you idiots.
	All right, final chat.
	Final chat from Nicole.
	Do you think by having eight plus hours of high-ranking government officials proclaiming Jesus proclaiming Jesus that we will see an insurgence of Christian nationalism?
	Yeah, I think I've known a lot of people who say that, you know, I read my Bible for the first time.
	I went to church for the first time and churches were packed.
	I think that's a great legacy for Charlie Kirk to have left and for his family to see.
	And I know, I mean, I have no doubt that Mrs. Kirk will make sure that their children knew who their father was.
	By default, I mean, people have used Christian nationalism as though it's a bad word.
	It's not.
	What it means is that this is a Christian nation and we take great pride in this nation being a Christian nation.
	And you know what?
	Think about this for a second.
	Let's say that every so Christianity, yes.
	Christian nationalism, I would also say yes, but not in the way the left defines it.
	Christian nationalism means that you can get 200,000 people at a stadium, a record number of people, an overflow, to get together, sing hymns, celebrate the life of a man who was assassinated in cold blood,
	and the evil, fundamental, hateful Christian nationalist's wife, Miss Erica Kirk, can talk about forgiving the killer.
	So if that's some Christian nationalism, guess what?
	I think a lot of Americans are saying, all right, sign me up.
	Now, I'm different.
	I do believe in forgiveness, but I also want to be really clear.
	Protect yourself, protect your own, because that's Christian nationalism too.
	It's a nation, a Christian nation, if you can keep it.
	Sorry, we went long.
	We're going to send you on, I believe, to Russell Brand today.
	And we'll see you tomorrow.
	Let us know if this was helpful.
	That's what I know.

▲