Candace Owens Reveals the Latest BLOCKBUSTER Charlie Kirk Assassination Facts
|
Time
Text
If you've been watching me, and I thank you, by the way, I thank you immensely for this, you've probably figured out that this Charlie Kirk thing is really of interest to me.
You probably picked up on that.
And you probably picked up on the fact that I really think a lot of Candace Owens' work, independent work, in getting to the bottom of this, because she reminds me so much of the people that I have admired throughout my career, people who have an indefatigable interest in the truth.
People who are mavericks and revolutionaries who said we don't care about what the official story is.
We're going to tell you what we believe to be true.
And I also want you to think about this.
Notice how in the case of Rob Reiner's murder, the press and the media have no problem going over every little bit of detail about what Nick Reiner was smoking and drinking and what parties they were.
Because why?
Because it wasn't important.
There was no political aspect to this.
But with Charlie Kirk, forget it.
I mean, just forget it.
It's a different story.
And that should make you say, wait a minute, what's the difference?
The difference is that there is a cover-up, the likes of which you can't believe.
And Kash Patel is not going to get to the bottom of this, or Pam Bondi, or anybody in the Trump administration for a variety of reasons.
And we don't really, I can't tell you why, we can guess.
But this looks exactly like cover-up.
Not that the government was involved, but that the government and law enforcement agencies are obstructionist.
They're not helping.
And the reason why they're not helping in doing their job is they're covering up for somebody.
Not that they were responsible per se, but let me ask you something.
You've heard of the difference between LIHOP and MIHOP.
LIHOP, L-I-H-O-P, or MIHOP, M-I-H-O-P, is let it happen on purpose or made it happen on purpose.
You know, misfeasance, malfeasance, or non-feasance.
See, there's a lot about 9-11 that was LIHOP.
The government knew things were happening.
They let it happen.
And you could also argue they let it happen because they arranged it, but we don't know.
I'm not going to tell you something as fact because I suspect it or I'd kind of like it to be true.
What follows here is a careful reconstruction of the known facts, the unknown, I sound like Rumsfeld, the known facts, the unknown facts, the unknown unknowns, but the known facts and verifiable data regarding and surrounding the Charlie Kirk assassination.
And this is based solely on documented statements, witness accounts, law enforcement actions and reports so far.
And with a deliberate effort to distinguish verified evidence from inference or suspicion or unresolved discrepancies or speculation.
See, that's what's critical.
That's what's important.
And much of the information that we have is because of the dutiful and absolutely incredible, exemplary investigation done by people like Candace Owens and others.
God bless her, because if it wasn't for what she is bringing to the fore, nobody would be talking about this because they want you to memory hold us.
But we're not going to let it happen.
You see, the public, you have been presented with a series of official narratives and explanations that do not in any way align medically, physically, physically in terms of the rules of physics, procedurally, legally, logically, systematically.
And when you examine these things collectively, they raise really serious questions about competence and coordination and credibility.
And that has to be addressed.
So remember, I don't care what anybody thinks might happen or what they think is happening.
I only care about what's evidentiary, what can be proved.
First, the medical narrative.
You know, there's a story.
JFK had the magic bullet.
This is the magic bone.
And I'm not trying in any way to make up, I'm not, believe me, I'm not mocking in any way Charlie's horrible, horrible murder.
But there's a quotation or a phrase that's been circulated publicly claiming that some surgeons said that Charlie's neck or the incredible almost superhuman density of his musculature or skeletal structure, that his diet and his nutrition somehow stopped some .30-06 high-powered rifle round that would normally pass through a...
large animal.
You know a steer.
And this, this quotation, didn't originate from the surgeon.
It is believed, in fact.
Again, I again laud and refer you to the incredible work of Candace Owens and her referencing the sources for that which she impugns and and impeaches in terms of testimony.
But multiple sources close to this treaty physician state unequivocally, he didn't say anything like that, never.
What the surgeon did, they believe, convey was something a little bit more.
In fact, not a little bit, but more interesting was that the projectile appears likely to have been a frangible piece of frangible ammunition, meaning a round designed to disintegrate on impact into particulate matter rather than to pass through and through or ricochet or whatever it's used in a variety of different means.
Lucian Sarti, one of the suspected assassins of Jfk, believed he was badge man.
Many people believe, they believe that he used a frangible bullet which was his MO.
So the reason why that's important is that distinction matters because public statements later claimed that the bullet ricocheted or veered, which directly contradicts the defining characteristics of frangible ammunition.
You can't have not a ricochet per se, but sometimes a through and through.
Frangible bullets are great, for example, and around if you're a mall police officer or if you're in a home and you want to make sure that if you're in an apartment and you were to use a weapon in self-defense, you want to make sure that that, again, you could miss totally, but that that bullet upon hitting something hard shatters.
It's actually safer, but it's also more devastating, far more devastating.
The same effect that a 22 round, a smaller round, has in a lot of headshots, which is always the ammunition, the ammo of choice in close-quarter assassinations and dispatches.
Now, the contradiction is not conspiracy or conspiracy theory.
It is a factual inconsistency.
And by the way, subject to debate, refutation.
Please, if somebody listening finds, no, no, that's not true, come forward.
Because the experts, the people who know this, are among us, mere mortals, the same experts that will be called to testify in the event this were to go to trial.
Now, furthermore, there's no credible explanation that's been offered for why these verbatim quotations were attributed to anyone, much less a surgeon.
And by the way, you also have this thing we always refer to of HIPAA standards, the HIPAA violations, especially in a high-profile homicide investigation.
You have to ask yourself, so much of this doesn't make sense.
Who dared put out this lunacy that because of Charlie's musculoskeletal integrity?
See, when you start lying about little stuff, people say, oh, you just might like lying about everything.
Now, the second part, hospital conduct.
By the way, doesn't this sound familiar?
Doesn't it sound like Parkland Memorial?
Doesn't it sound like the magic bullet?
Doesn't it sound exactly?
Charlie was transported, it is reported, alive to the hospital and taken into surgery.
That is provided as established.
Now, when his life could not be saved, according to the evidence that is being adduced now and revealed now, standard medical procedure would permit the surgeon to, in essence, clean the body up or prepare the body to make it presentable for next of kin and also kind of, I don't want to be too, too specific about this, but sometimes,
in many respects, in order to prepare the body and to assist later on for embalming, sometimes, excuse me, believe it or not, they will put a sash or some type of a device to keep mouth together as rigor sets in and a lot of things to prepare the body.
But also just to clean up the blood, to make it shocking to begin with, but to make it perhaps more, every word I say sounds not cosmetically appealable, but less of a shock, okay?
And that is considered standard operating procedure.
Well, that apparently didn't occur because it is reported that federal officers present at the hospital, again, federal officers?
Why did the feds always show up at hospitals involving certain cases where the narrative they want is not occurring naturally?
But anyway, these federal agents identified as such, these individuals, were present at the hospital and apparently blocked the surgeon.
Again, this is Parkland Redux, blocked the surgeon from re-entering the operating room and restricting access to the body.
Why?
Why?
Charlie Kirk?
President Kennedy, I can maybe understand, but what?
This is not routine medical or law enforcement protocol.
In an active manhunt?
Only after the surgeon, it is reported and alleged contacted a high-level authority, did, again, people identified as federal officers stand down.
Why?
That sequence is not speculative.
It has been reported independently by multiple sources, including hospital witnesses.
Again, witness interviews and establish facts that you're not going to hear anywhere, especially on cable news, who are sworn to produce and just disseminate the official narrative.
Next, the crime scene and weapon recovery.
This is fascinating.
The area where the firearm, where the murder weapon, the rifle, was ultimately found, had already been searched by experienced officers using standard grid methods and standard protocol and SOP by bomb detection dogs and by teams who are trained to scour areas in grid patterns and the like.
Now, it was provided, and again, Candace recently did a wonderful explanation.
She missed her calling as a prosecutor.
She explained that bomb dogs, dogs that are trained specifically to detect gunpowder, explosive residue from recently fired weapons and the like, their detection capability, of course, far exceeds anything in our olfactory range of sensitivity.
Those dogs apparently found nothing.
Remember that case, what was that?
Making of a murder woman, the Netflix case where they went in, they never found the particular item, and then on search number three, up, there it is.
Remember, people who cover things up are not necessarily very good at this.
Sometimes they're sloppy.
Do not absent yourself and do not abandon your sense and your appreciation of the absurd.
Don't think that if you have a question that somehow you're unable to ask that question because you don't have what?
Some FBI certificate?
No.
We're grand jurors.
I keep telling you this.
If something doesn't make sense to you, it's not going to make sense to a juror who ultimately is going to have the same.
I mean, this is informal, but you don't have to have a degree in medical science or OBGYN to realize a woman is pregnant or somebody's dead.
There are some things we're able to figure out.
Again, harkening back to 9-11, we understand basics of Newtonian physics and gravity, where we can apply common sense to things even though we know nothing about demolitions and witness and the building destruction and the like.
Anyway, back to the story.
So only after these identified federal agents arrived, did they direct three relatively inexperienced officers to search the same area again after this crew had been there with the dogs, with everything, I'm sure drones and I'm sure techniques that we don't even know about for security purposes.
But these new folks came in.
These three relatively inexperienced cops say, why don't you go and you have a crack at it?
Search the area again.
And they, lo and behold, located the weapon.
Does that make sense to you?
As we say in the South, that dog don't hunt.
That sequence doesn't prove misconduct per se, but it does undermine what many would say is confidence in the integrity of the search process and the alacrity of the searching parties themselves, especially given the failure of higher-grade detection methods.
I mean, who would have thought, okay, we got bombs, dogs, we got professional, hmm, what do we see?
No, let's bring in these three rookies, give it a shot.
And I'm not even bringing up again, and I've exhausted this, how in these text messages, Tyler is talking to his gay boyfriend.
Don't give me this trans business, you know, the furry friend who says, by the way, can he go back and get that rifle?
That was Granddad's shooting iron, which again makes, none of this makes any sense, especially a series of text messages that scream of ChatGPT using words like vehicle.
But I digress.
The next point, if you're keeping track at home, the canine scent tracing.
You know, it was reported that a different police dog was used.
And again, hats off to Candace.
A different police dog was used to trace a scent path that was allegedly linked to, or actually used to link, I should say, the rooftop to the ground.
See, unlike standard procedure, the dog wasn't provided with a confirmed target odor, you know, such as the recovered weapon or anything like that, or clothing or something.
Instead, a condensed scent trace was reportedly used.
Officers involved in the manhunt have described being directed erratically by federal personnel, again, and sent on searches that appeared redundant or unnecessary or misaligned and certainly not consistent with established protocols.
So these dogs going back can tell, well, there was movement here from the ground to the roof.
And then you have this grainy photo.
Anyway, there's so much.
You see, this case makes sense.
By the way, none of this occurred in the Rob Reiner case.
Clear-cut.
The sun did it.
Here, nothing makes sense because the people who go in to change the facts to sometimes obscure investigations don't go back to refer to what they've done to see if there's a logical sequence resulting.
You see, what I'm trying to say is that testimony that we're talking about comes from law enforcement professionals, not online commentators, not some kid in the basement wearing a wife beater and, you know, covered in Cheeto dust, tapping away.
Again, count all of the hmm.
Next point, the vehicle evidence.
The car used to transport Charlie to the hospital while he was bleeding, while he was in trauma, was initially treated as a crime scene.
Good.
Access was restricted under the facts and until federal clearance was given, which is good.
Personal items were removed, and after that, instead of being impounded for forensic examination, the vehicle was towed to a nearby lot and within a short period of time was sent for cleaning and auction.
Interesting, this was a rental vehicle, and standard practice would permit the rental company to reclaim it after some kind of forensic processing.
Instead, instead, apparently, the owner allegedly ordered it removed permanently from circulation.
We don't want to deal with this.
That decision may have been motivated by sensitivity or liability concerns.
Who knows?
But it resulted in the loss of potential physical evidence.
Let me go back to, again, JFK.
Did you know that the car, the death mobile, the assassination limousine was left in the open?
Anybody could walk by the roses, the bloody seat.
It was then, did you know, did you know, and this is the most important piece of evidence of the JFK.
Let's assume this is the car.
And let's use this bust of Trump.
Let's say this is a car, and that this was the windshield.
They found, apparently, a bullet hole around coming into the windshield or the windscreen for our UK brethren, which completely destroyed the notion of Lee Harvey Oswald from the back.
That fact alone presented evidence of a conspiracy, meaning two or more guilty people involved in some kind of an illegal, nefarious confederation to bring about something criminal.
The only way to explain the bullet coming into the windshield of the JFK vehicle is to say there were two people.
Do you know they took that car immediately to the Ford motor, it was a Lincoln, Ford plant in some factory, had the windshield removed?
Do you know they also put that vehicle back into circulation?
I mean, the indignity of it.
So this is so reminiscent.
It's like it's the same MO.
And the only way this is going to come out is if people like Madam Owens and others bring this to your attention.
And for all of us to demand an independent inquiry, a kind of a Russell tribunal independent of this.
Okay, next point.
By the way, I gave up numbering them.
I don't know what number this is, but next point, an unresolved report from law enforcement sources seems to allege and indicate that a white Toyota RAV4, by the way, that was also the car that was using that, making a murderer.
Anyway, Avery, remember that?
Anyway, that a white Toyota RAV4 was stopped shortly after the shooting and that the driver allegedly displayed some type of federal badge or credential or something, resulting in immediate release.
Now, this claim has not been formally confirmed, but it is not implausible, and it should be verified and verifiable through body camera footage and the like, radio logs or traffic stop records, if anybody's bothering to keep track of this, which I doubt.
And the failure to address or deny this and other similar allegations leaves a material question unanswered.
At every stage of this case, every stage, the issue is not hidden masterminds or elaborate theories.
The issue is process, incompetence, statements conflicting, evidence handling being bungled and mishandled, deviations from standard operating procedure, SOPs.
Federal involvement appears unusually pervasive at moments where local law enforcement and medical professionals would ordinarily retain control.
Why is this of a national interest?
I mean, it was a tragedy, but did you see the feds moving into the Rob Reiner?
By the way, there is evidence that Rob Reiner worked with, among others, organizations like USAID and American Intel in a variety of reasons, which I'll talk about later on.
So there was a government connection there, but the feds didn't come.
Why do the Fed show up unless it is alleged they may have something to do with it or a reason to cover up the evidence or a reason to prevent somebody from finding out what actually happened?
Now, public messaging has relied on assurances rather than explanations, and critics are met with dismissal, of course.
Oh, shut up, move along.
What do you know?
This instead of documentation.
And in a court of law, which is a former prosecutor and lawyer, I know a little bit about, none of this would be argued as proof of a grand conspiracy, but it would be argued, it certainly would be argued, and it would be appropriate to argue this, as a pattern of irregularities, failures, negligence, botched procedures, and unexplained interventions that demand quick clarification.
See, evidence must be weighed differently than inference.
And inference must be separated from speculation.
But when evidence, listen to me, when evidence conflicts with the official narrative and there's no corrective transparency, skepticism, as we have, is not radical, it's responsible.
It's necessary.
It's obvious.
And the standard here is not belief.
It's accountability.
You see, the unanswered questions remain, my friend.
Not because of rumor, but because they haven't been resolved by the facts placed on the record.
And thanks to Candace Owens and others for bringing this to our attention.
Now, I'm going to say this again, and I hope you don't find this to be problematic.
It takes independent people sometimes to make us aware of the reality.
The most important event ever in the JFK assassination was the movie JFK.
Not the Warren Commission, not the Zapruder film, by the way, which came out in like 75 or something on the Geraldo Rivera show Good Night America, whatever.
No, no, it was a movie.
It was a movie.
The Dorothy Kilgallen case has been resurrected.
We're going to get to the bottom of that one day, by virtues of independent authors.
If you listen to the great JFK analysts and reviewers, so to speak, of the facts, historians, they're all civilians, not the federal government.
And every now and then somebody will say, well, we're going to release the, they're not going to release anything.
It is up to you.
And it is up to, and again, I say this unabashedly, it is up to the incredible work of Candace Owens and others.
And they're going after her to try to dispute her.
Now, do you know why everybody's coming after her?
Now, do you know?
Is it really about TPUSA?
Is it really about Erica Kirk?
Is it really about her showing a lack of respect for the family?
No.
This looks exactly like a government or some quasi-government organization or something doing everything in its power to thwart and to interrupt any type of cogent and accurate explication and explanation and exposure of the truth.
And I'm going to tell you again, what we want is the truth.
And you never have to apologize to anybody or ask permission to want to expose the truth.
We don't need to ask the government for permission to be skeptical.
So my friends, I thank you.
Thank you for your support.
Thank you for liking this video.
Thank you for these incredible comments.
Again, I'm overwhelmed by how supportive I told you for a long time, I don't read these comments because, you know, why bother?
Sometimes they're rather nasty, but you've been spot on.
Let's continue with this, my friends.
Keep, if you've not listened to us, please subscribe this.
By the way, one day when you get a chance, I've got to tell you stuff about the Reiner case that'll blow your mind.
Blow your mind.
But we'll get that later on.
I don't want to have too many issues at one time.
And I don't even thank you, my friends.
And again, a special thanks and a sense of exalted appreciation to Candace Owens for being the only person here who seems to care.
So support her and thank her for that.
She's incredible.
And we're taking her lead.
We had Alex Jones before.
Now we've got Candace.
Think about that.
Sorry, my friends.
I've got some questions for you to answer in the comment section.