Julian Dorey Podcast - #458 - "COVERUP!" - Charlie Kirk Investigator UNLOADS on Rigged Case | Baron Coleman

Episode Date: August 3, 2026

SPONSORS: 1) RIDGE: Get 10% Off your entire order & take advantage of Ridge’s Annual Sweepstakes by going to https://www.Ridge.com/JULIANDOREY #ridgepod 2) AMENTARA: Visit https://www.amentara.com/go/JULIAN and use code JDP22 for 22% off your first order. JOIN PATREON FOR EARLY UNCENSORED EPISODE RELEASES: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey CLIPPERS DISCORD: https://discord.gg/8QmWEKJ3BT (***TIMESTAMPS in Description Below) ~ Baron Coleman is a trial lawyer, investigator & YouTuber. He is one of the most prominent commentators on the Charlie Kirk Case in the world. BARON's LINKS - YT: https://www.youtube.com/@realbaronpodcast - X: https://x.com/baroncoleman - IG: https://www.instagram.com/realbaronpodcast/ FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY IG: https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://x.com/juliandorey JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP LISTEN to Julian Dorey Podcast Spotify ▶ https://open.spotify.com/show/5skaSpDzq94Kh16so3c0uz Apple ▶ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trendifier-with-julian-dorey/id1531416289 ****TIMESTAMPS**** 0:00 - Baron most requested, Why did they k*ll Charlie Kirk, Coverups 11:32 - Erika Kirk, TPUSA & Trump 21:39 - RFK, How Baron would fix government, Constitution 33:38 - Post 9/11 Awakening, Tim Dillon, Baron’s first job 44:21 - How Baron became a lawyer, Baron’s first trial, Financial Crisis 53:56 - Baron becomes H1V Legal Expert (STORY), H1V “Establishment” 1:04:41 - Populism & Knowledge, Baron’s first show 1:17:36 - Baron remembers moment Charlie Kirk shot, Charlie’s earnings, Google Trends 1:34:17 - Tyler Robinson & Lance Twiggs, the .30-06 problem, Andrew Kolvet 1:48:14 - Testing .30-06 rounds, Charlie’s turn on Israel, Erika Kirk Optics 2:06:19 - Everything went wrong, What made Baron shift on Erika Kirk 2:16:29 - Internal Problems at TPUSA, Charlie Kirk’s Security Team, What K*lled Charlie 2:27:21 - Discrepancies in the footage, Bullet vs. Other Means 2:36:59 - Fragment Photos, The 5 Day Kirk Hearing, Tyler Robinson on campus 2:48:13 - Pure Spec on the roof, Tyler’s Family, Joseph Scott Morgan Pod background 3:05:15 - Signals, The Cameraman, Paving over Crime Scene 3:15:51 - Proof Problem, could k*llers go free, Baron’s security 3:26:58 - JSM x Baron Pod coming CREDITS: - Host, Editor & Producer: Julian Dorey - COO, Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ - In-Studio Producer: Joey Deef Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 458 - Baron Coleman Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Aaron, you're the most requested guests I have maybe ever had in my life. I've never seen so many people DM me and comment to have you on. So thank you for being here. I appreciate you having me. I had no idea. I had no idea. You told me that when we talked on the phone and I thought, why? I mean, I think, listen, you have covered this case three to four times a week for hours at a time since,

and we're talking about the Charlie Kirk case, obviously, basically since right after September 10th when he was killed. it is obviously a case that to say it's a mess would be putting it lightly and there have been a lot of narratives put out there that people are right to question. And I think because, like in speaking with people before I was really, really familiar with you, because of the depth that you have gone into it and looked at it as a litigator, which is your background. I think people have a lot of respect for that. And they're like, hey, we've seen so many times before where major cases happen and it's clearly just to swipe it under the rug. and years later people still talk about it, like what the fuck. And now we're living through it and people don't want to make that mistake again. You're talking about like JFK?

Of course. That's the number one example, but plenty of them. MLK, which is down south by you as well, you know? Yeah, RFK, even cases people don't think about it, like Ronald Reagan getting shot. But probably a cover-up. Really? Oh, yeah. Yeah.

What makes you say that? I don't know as much about that one. I'm not prepped to talk about it, but, the anyway, yeah, it's a cover. I don't want to get myself any more trouble than I'm already in. Why do you think they do this over and over again

throughout history? Like even after they, not just kill people, but cover it up so blatantly in so many of these cases you just mentioned. Because they can. They can. There's no one to stop them. What are we going to do about it?

Even if they came out and said, yeah, we killed Charlie Kirk, get over it. What are we going to do about it? I mean, most people are going to go back to work the next day. They're going to go to their kids' volleyball game. going to pay their mortgage, they're going to pay their power bill, they're going to watch the Braves, and they're going to wake up the next day and do it again. So why would they worry about it? There are no consequences. They've proven time and time again, they can get

away with it, so why bother? But have they ever admitted it? Like with some of the other ones, they've never outright admitted like, yes, we did this. Well, they, like Operation Northwoods, they admitted they were going to do it, blow up an airliner. So yeah, yeah, I mean, they have admitted things in the past. And nobody rioted over that. Nobody tried to overthrow the government, nobody voted anybody out of office. Life just went on. Everybody woke up the next day and went to work. Hey guys. If you're not following me on Spotify, please hit that follow button and leave a five-star review. They're both a huge huge help. Thank you. Yeah, sometimes I wonder about that because like the Northwoods one is a great example. But again, it was like they made it way later and it was like,

oh, we're just planning it out. Whereas it's like, think of one where it's not one person, maybe like 9-11. And there's a lot of fishy stuff happening there. obviously, let's just say in that world, they admitted like, oh, by the way, wasn't what we told you. Maybe we had something to do with this. I do wonder if you'd be wrong about that. And some people really would be out in the streets considering all the other socioeconomic issues that the country's having right now. I just, I don't believe they would. I honestly don't believe they would. And it's, you know, take Charlie Kirk, for example, you know, we don't know who killed Charlie Kirk, how or why. The government's giving us a narrative that it was Tyler Robinson alone on the

Oseys Center rooftop with the 30 out six. And most people look at that and say, hey, that doesn't make any sense. That doesn't add up. I was talking to a student from UVU the other day, and he's involved in the TPSA chapter. And I said, how many people in that chapter believe that Tyler Robinson did it? He goes, oh, it's probably 80-20, which I thought was pretty low. I figured it'd be closer to 100%. TPSA's been leading the charge that Tyler Robinson did it.

And then I said, what about the regular students? You just walk around on campus. Have you ever talked to anybody else? He said, yeah, I've talked to a lot of people. And I said, what do they say? And he said, nobody believes he did it. Believes he did it at all. Yeah, nobody believes Tyler Robinson did it.

And I asked him why, and he gave me reasons why. But what, you know, UVU students aren't outriding in the streets. They're not skipping classes. They're not demanding justice. They're just waking up the next day and going to biology. So why do you do what you do? I'd like to find the answer. I think it'd be really interesting to take a case like this that's been crowdsource

investigated, run it all the way down to the end and see where it goes. It's really never been done in real time. As far as like a major assassination goes, like for a public figure. Yeah, for a public figure. Like, you know, you had the Karen Reed case. People talked about it. Last night on my show I covered Adnan Syed. But that was 22 years later that people ran that down. Right. That was like one of the original podcasts. Yeah. Well, it was one of the original big true crime podcast. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that case was crazy because he was an unknown guy and it should. showed like I saw I saw your intro on that I think two nights ago on the live but like you know is an unknown guy I remember that case very well to where he was riding away in prison for a long

time and then literally just because that one lady I forget her name but decide to do that podcast series and like bring it in a conversational way the people it ended up changing the outcome of the case which is pretty crazy to see the power that that had early days of podcasting yeah her name's Sarah Konig it was a serial podcast and she deserves an award I mean she She changed that, not just that one kid's life, but she changed the power structure when it comes to podcasting. Because all of a sudden, average people on the street said, you know what? I've got a computer. I've got spare time.

This case doesn't look right. So maybe I should open my computer and start looking at property records and looking at maps and looking at timelines. And, you know, that's the last thing you want if you've covered up a crime successfully. The last thing you want is hundreds of thousands of people opening up browsers every day and going, what can I find today? Yeah. Do you think it's because the context you were bringing it up obviously was related to like all the shit people get for looking into the Charlie Kirk thing. But do you think it's also crazy that, you know, a guy is killed extremely publicly who also happen to be well known that people just seemingly don't want to action. They want to close their eyes and be like, you know what?

He's dead. That was horrible. Let's move on. When in reality, there could be something way deeper to it? If you're asking me, do I think there's an incentive for the average person to look away? I think there's a huge incentive for the average person to look away. The consequences of Charlie Kirk being killed, well, it's a binary decision. It's a binary choice.

You have two choices in this case. You can have Tyler Robinson alone. And if it's not Tyler Robinson alone, it is one of the largest conspiracies to murder someone in the history of the world. It is a multinational conspiracy. It is a multi-organizational conspiracy. And it goes to the very top of every organization. It's not a situation where you can say, well, maybe TPP USA got together and decided to kill Charlie Kirk. Well, TPSA can't get the crime scene covered up.

TPSA can't get the Utah County Sheriff's Office in the Washington County Sheriff's Office to commit to a story about when Tyler Robinson turned himself in. TPSA can't get the FBI to show edited footage in a certain way to make it look like Tyler Robinson did it. TPSA can't get multi Tyler Robinson impersonators walking all over campus in maroon shirts. So it's not a situation where any one organization could pull it off. This is a massive organizational effort,

a massive multi-organizational effort. Or it's Tyler Robinson. And so I think a lot of people look at that and say, I don't want to understand the consequences of that. I don't like the consequences of that. So therefore, I'll just accept Tyler Robinson did it and I'll move on with life. Do you think there's a possibility that he did do it?

Yeah. You think that's possible? I'm open to the fact that Tyler did it. Probably more than other people covering it. I don't think it's likely. I think starting with the gunshot wound, you have very serious issues that I, frankly, almost refuse to accept. Injuries that now in the last couple of days have come out

that seem entirely inconsistent with the 30 out six wound to the neck. but I'm open to it. I'm open to being wrong on the nature of those injuries. I'm open to being wrong on the fact that it doesn't look like there's a 30 out six on the roof on the video footage we have. But maybe there is. Maybe he was holding it some weird way. What I'm not open to is people refusing to investigate, people looking the other way, people just accepting what the government says, saying, well, the government's spoken. Well, the government spoke on 9-11.

The government spoke on JFK. The government spoke on RFK. The government spoke on Martin Luther King. All of those aren't what we were told. And so don't tell me just to accept the government's narrative. If you have a reason to accept Tyler did it, that's fine. So let's examine those reasons. And then they start throwing out reasons.

Oh, there's DNA. Oh, there's this. There's that. Okay, well, I have a problem with each of those issues. And we could take them, you know, I'm sure we'll talk about it. We're going to do it. I figured we would. It's just a little preview right now.

Yeah, yeah. But if you're going to tell me, oh, these are the reasons. Here are the five stock answer reasons that I believe Tyler Robinson did it. And then I have a question on each one of those reasons. And you say, okay, we're done talking about it. Go away. You're evil. That's crazy. That's nuts. It's crazy.

Yeah. You know, Ridge. They make amazing power banks, luggage, premium everyday gear, and wallets. And this year, for the sixth straight year, Ridge is back with their legendary sweepstakes. And this time, it's bigger than ever. From July 24th through September 8th, two lucky winners will get to choose between a Lamborghini Huracons, Starado, a Ford, Tennessee Velociraptor, a souped up Ford Bronco, or $100,000 in cash.

Y'all know I'm going with that Lambo if I have the option. But with any of those four, you can't lose. There's only 1,500 Lamborghini Heraconstarados that even exist, and Ridge has give you an offer to own one. It's a naturally aspirated V10 and has 610 horsepower. You imagine driving that thing around? And the Hennessy Velociraptor also has an insane 558 horsepower twin turbo. It's basically an American muscle car built into an all-terrain truck. Finally, the custom-built Bronco is coated in scratch.

Ratch-resistant Kevlar armor and riding high on massive 37-inch off-road tires. The best part of all, you can enter completely free at ridge.com. And if you want to boost your chances, you can earn additional entries by picking up Ridge gear during the sweepstakes. Whether it's a power bank, wallet, luggage, or something else you've had your eye on, you'll learn extra entries with your purchase. You've heard me talk about the Ridge 2.0 wallet before it's their most refined wallet to date and designed to pair perfectly with their new tracker card. So are you ready to upgrade your wallet and make you ready to upgrade your wallet and make

even your ride. For a limited time only, head to ridge.com, link by description below, and use code Julian Dory at checkout for 10% off your order and a chance to win Ridge's biggest sweepstakes ever. No purchase necessary to enter, but every dollar gets you more entries. So once again, that's ridge.com, link by description below and use code Julian Dory. After you purchased, they're going to ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them I sent you. When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want.

like all the way stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet track your cha-chings from every channel right in one spot and turn real-time reporting into big-time opportunities take your business to a whole new level switch to shopify start your free trial today i just i mean i've seen so much shit that it it's hard to be surprised by things anymore especially just even if you looked at the last six I could go way further than that, obviously, but even the last six years alone, it's really

hard to be surprised by stuff. But I was telling you this on the phone, when they had the fifth day of that preliminary hearing, and I guess that was the day where they played the security cameras footage in the courtroom. They didn't release that publicly at the time and all that. We were, Dief and I were about to go on air for our weekend episode. And about five minutes before, the video of Jack Posobich talking to the camera saying he just saw the whole thing. I watched Tyler Robinson walk up, line up the trigger, pull the trigger, do the whole bit. Saying it with a very straight face, very good acting, Jack. I got to give

me that. But, you know, he goes through this, and I've never liked that guy at all. But Dief pulled up the video and I'm like, okay, I mean, there were 200 people or whatever in the courtroom. I don't see, I don't see how he'd lie about that, but I don't know. Is an Epstein Biner's guy, we'll play it. So we played on the episode, right when we get off the episode, Twitter's like, no, the prosecutor, here's a video of the prosecution saying that video doesn't exist. No, that's not what happened. There were other people in the courtroom. Here's what they said they saw. I'm like, can we even get any monocum of like truth here from fucking anybody at this point? It's just wild to me that people would be that brazen to do that. It's not though. If you're trying to plant the narrative,

you have to have co-conspirators planning that narrative for you. It's interesting to me that Erica chose to take to court with her. You know, she was given, I don't know, 10 seats, 15 seats, whatever. She could have taken family. She could have taken friends. She took social media influencers. She took Brandon Tatum and Jack Posobic and Graham Allen and like that's how they got in. Oh, she brought them. Yeah, they didn't have to camp out overnight. Everyone else in that courtroom was either media had an allotted media slot, a member of Tyler Robinson's family or had one of their slots, a member of Erica's family or had one of her slots or they had to camp out overnight. Jack Busobic wasn't camping out overnight. He showed up in a Ferrari.

Josh Ferrari. pays well, I guess, be a spokesperson. I mean, you might be able to make a living being a paid hack. I don't know. I've never tried it. Here's the difference, though. In 1964, 65, in the years after JFK,

TV was brand new. There was no internet. The government just saying, shut the fuck up, this is what happened. There was a lot more of an opportunity to do that. Now, with the power of people having one of these in their hands at all times, just to capture everything, the idea that you could walk out of that courtroom and not think that there's going to be a million

people fucking a lot more than that as would turn out refuting what you said based on other people who were in there who can have the same power to come out there and say what they saw that's where I'm like it feels like the Truman Show a little bit yeah I think they feel like they have so much money and power behind them that they can just roll over and crush the little guy crush the little guy's voice so you know Brandy Webb Billy Sissliani they were both in there um those were of the girls that came out and said, we just saw a blob. You know, it could have been Bigfoot, it could have been a blob, it could have been a fat Chinese guy, it could have been Tyler Robinson. We just don't know. You can't tell. But they don't have millions and millions of

influencers. I mean, millions and millions of followers. They don't have millions and millions of dollars behind them. What TPSA has behind it is basically the full weight of the federal government right now. They are just a another, they've become another winged. of the government, just like Heritage Foundation is. They're just another Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation 2.0. And Charlie Kirk had a mission. It was to take economic libertarianism to college students. Charlie's gone, and that mission is completely gone. It's gone. It's completely gone. All they're doing now is taking whatever mainstream, mainline Republican talking points exist, and they're just pushing it out to the boomer class that's watching Fox News. That's all they're

doing. And the question is, why do they even exist? What's the point of an organization that's doing that? We have organizations that do that. We have Fox News. We have Heritage Foundation. Why do we need TPSA to do the same thing? Right. When you talk about them being a wing of the federal government, I think you make a good point. There's a lot of these kind of think tank type places that'll be attached at the hip to the government over time. And now in recent years we're able to actually see that. But what about all the people in government within the federal government who are like from the left side of the aisle and don't like this current administration and would have every reason to try to subvert it. Why don't they subvert

TPSA, for example, more, given the fact that they don't really have any leg to stand on anymore? I think you're falling into the trap of thinking there's two teams, and I don't think there is. It's a uniparty system. There's a very narrow band of accepted thought, and as long as you're in that band, they're going to let you say whatever you want. You can't get over here, and you can't get over here. But if you're, as long as you're in here, we'll play like there's two teams in here. We'll let you put on different jerseys. We'll let you go out and play games. We'll let you argue over abortion. We'll let you argue over tax cuts. You know, do you want to give a 2% tax cut to millionaires or a 1% tax cut to millionaires? That's your call. And you guys can get

really down and dirty and you can call each other names, but don't get out here into the populace wings of the left or right. Stay out of that. And that's why, because they're on the same team. They're all on the same team. I think you're right about that. I do agree. But I got to ask because, you know, they're obviously an organization that was like associated with one candidate getting in there. And I think to add to your point there as well, we've seen that with like Trump coming in. He campaigned on X, Y, and Z and has done A, B, and C instead.

And it's kind of proven. It's like if anyone was going to be kind of an outsider, even though he was a billionaire, it was like, all right, that's the guy. And now he's surrounded by people that seem to be prototypical. like swamp creatures. And it's his fault. I mean, it's his fault. He had two terms.

The first term he came in, he basically staffed his entire administration with people who despised him, who hated him, who were on the team. And so all of his populist rhetoric was for not. He wasn't able to implement any of it, if he even wanted to. Then he gets beaten down, kicked out.

Joe Biden comes in. reverses everything he stood for, everything he tried to accomplish. And then Trump runs again, and I was very skeptical of Trump running again, opposed him initially. Why were you skeptical? Because he didn't do anything the first time. You know, there was no border closure like he promised. There was no turning the government back over to the people like he promised. If you go back and listen to his original inauguration speech, if he would have accomplished that,

I would have been the biggest supporter of Trump term two there was. But he didn't accomplish any of it. Instead, he put people, like I said, in the intelligence communities that hate his guts. He put people in the Defense Department that hate his guts. He put people in his own White House, the chief of staff that hates his guts. And then he turns around and says, ah, the whole system, I can't get anything done. Well, yeah, you put these people in here who are causing you to not be able to get anything done. And so I figured he would do the same thing in the second term.

I had no idea he was going to do what he's done. so far. What he's done in Trump 2.0, this second term, is the biggest betrayal of campaign promises, probably in American history. I can't think of a single president who has done more to betray the people who voted for him, who put their names on the line for him, who hosted him on their programs, who campaigned for him, than Donald Trump in this term. I can't think of one. I think you're right about that. We've been saying it's like opposite day, every day, with the things he'll say. I mean, even though. some of the lines about the war like, no, I don't think about the average American at all. I just

need Iran to not have a nuke. I mean, roll the tape from like October 2024. He's literally saying like you can just reverse that line, like the Eyes Wide Shut song. Like that's what he's saying. And yet he went in and did this stuff. And it, you wonder, because it's a good point, he surrounded himself with a lot of the wrong people in term one. Then he goes on Joe Rogan right before the election and that was something he actually admitted to. He usually doesn't like admit to any. He usually doesn't like admit to any fucking weaknesses, but he's like, I think I hired some of the wrong people. But then comes in and does it again and lets them move his red line on everything. I still, there has to be something else there to me.

I don't, it could be a litany of things, but there has to be something else there. Well, he took a lot of money from people who have policy preferences that are in direct opposition to what he campaigned on. That's true. And so that never helps you accomplish your mission. But no, he went out. and hired a bunch of flawed individuals. And I'm not sure how to get around this problem.

You know, if you're president, I'm not sure how to get around this problem because you've got to survive the Senate confirmation process in order to get some of these really high-end appointments. And the Senate confirmation process is not going to be kind to someone they can't control. And, you know, you look at, you know, the intelligence committees, a lot of those people are not going to be kind to having an appointment from somebody who truly is independent and actually cares about the average American. They're just not going to be.

So they're not going to prove that person. I think you see it right now. I hate to mention particular. Actually, I'm not going to. I think you see it right now with some appointments that Trump has wanted to make that have really been pushed back hard on because people in the Senate look and say, we can't control this guy. There's no way we're going to let this guy.

So Trump immediately abandons it and then goes to one of their people. And those people are working against him. Or they're working against us. They're working against us. And they're working against his campaign promise to work for us. Yeah, I think an example of one of the people that obviously got a lot of pushback back at the beginning was RFK. And I kind of wondered like how that did end up getting through because there was so much

opposition. but then you see him come in and it becomes like a very one-dimensional focus, which I appreciate you looking at food. I'll take something over nothing. I do want to say that. But like he was going to look at a lot of different things. And now he's not. So it's like you kind of box in. You're like, here's a great white shark, but he's in a little container. He can't swim in the ocean. Yeah, he's not really been able to go after vaccines. He's not really been able to go after food dyes and food colorings. He's not been able to go after anything. I mean, he is totally, He was totally boxed in.

And he started abandoning that in the confirmation process. So you knew right then whoever was shepherding him through the process was saying, look, you're not going to get in if you say what you really believe. You're just not going to make it. And so even during the confirmation process, there was a conversation people were having like, you think he's really changed his mind on all this stuff? Is he just saying this, but he'll get in and actually do the right thing? No, he's not.

And I think he's probably a generally decent person. He really believes the things he's been saying. saying for the last two, three decades. But you just can't play the game and keep your job. Obviously, something like this is not fixed overnight by any stretch. It's kind of a generational thing where we've built up so much decay in the system that has allowed us to get to this point where 90-year-old people can hold office for 60 years and fucking keep getting paid by the same people. But if you could wave a magic wand and fix it over a 20, 30, 40-year period, How would you do that?

Like the money in the system and how candidates could actually then do what they campaigned to do. That's how I should ask it. So, gosh, I've never been asked that question. I think it starts with the judicial branch. I might be biased that way being a lawyer. But the Supreme Court is beholden to the same factors I was just telling you about with other presidential appointees. The difference is they have a lifetime appointment. so that there's a little less pressure after they get through the system.

They can kind of change if they want to. But in order to survive and get on the Supreme Court, for example, you have to go through the Senate confirmation process. If you walked up there and you said, I believe Article 1, Section 8 is too broadly interpreted. It's the Commerce Clause. I think the Dormant Commerce Clause is a joke. Both of these doctrines need to be completely reversed. We need to take the Constitution back to the bare bones of what it was originally intended

to do. excuse me, you wouldn't survive the appointment process. And so I think we maybe need to radically reinterpret what advice and consent means from the Senate in order to allow the president that we elect to have freer reign to put the right people in those positions. The president wins. He's the one who campaigns. He's the one who goes to, in theory, all 50 states. He's the one who makes all the campaign promises. We're going to do this. We're going to do that. and then the Senate really gets to decide which of those we're even going to entertain,

which of those we're even going to allow to be, again, within that little window we're allowed to play in. If we want to broaden that window, it has to start with the court system. We tell our kindergartners and our fifth graders that we have three branches of government, and they're equal and they hold each other accountable. We don't.

We have a tyrannical judicial system that can override anything that the Congress and the president do. They can throw out any law. they want for any reason. They can make up stuff on the fly. They can add laws that don't exist. And there's nothing the Congress or the president can do about it. They're just completely beholden to the system. And so I think it starts there. But that the fix to Congress, I think also could fix the appointments. Because if you could, I mean, the fix the Supreme Court also could fix the appointments. Advice and consent should not be, we're going to drill you. We're going to put you

through the Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork treatment. We're going to embarrass you. We're going to research everything you've ever done. We're going to turn your life upside down. Advice and consent should really be, oh, he's been a lawyer for 30 years. Fine. Put him on. We're just making sure we're not putting the dog catcher on the Supreme Court. That's what it should be. And it's not. It's not. It's a radically different process, I think, than the founder's intended. And I think it's designed to protect the system, not to protect us. When did you reach that conclusion? Was that like during your legal career or was it even earlier in law school when you were studying how it's set up? So I had one of the most brilliant people I've ever met was my First Amendment teacher, my second year of law school.

Her name was Susan Williams. She's a professor at Indiana. She is absolutely brilliant. We disagreed on every political topic you could imagine. She is a radical leftist. I am a pretty far of center right. He just give a little smile back. He's heard me say a lot more than you have. But no, I'm pretty far of right, pretty far of center to the right. And I was even more so in law school. Really? Oh, yeah.

I was still young. I was in my early 20s. I was libertarian-minded. You know, we don't really need rules and structures and governments. And most of this stuff should be. You know, I was kind of one of those cut the, cut the, federal budget by 90% we'd probably be a lot better, you know, get rid of the Federal Reserve and everything will work itself out.

Well, there's an argument with the Federal Reserve. That's certainly, that's sketchy to say the least. If you don't mind a 15 to 20 year economic collapse and reset. Yeah, well, that's the problem. Now we set it up. It's like a fucking time bomb. Right. But when you're 23, 24, you're not thinking of those things.

Right. But we went through this First Amendment class and we get to the very end of the course. and we are and we're diagramming the First Amendment. It's just the whole semester is one clause of the Constitution, just, or one section of the Constitution, just the First Amendment. And we're diagramming it.

And I have this giant two double-length poster board, and I'm writing in little bitty font, and I've got the whole thing filled up, and there's arrows, and there's this, and there's that. And so as I'm studying for the final exam, in law school, you just get one grade. You get the final exam, that's it. There's no quizzes.

There's no test. They don't care if you show up. It's just what do you get on this one test? So I wanted to make sure I got it right. So I make office hours with her. I go to my appointment. I show her my poster board and I say, what do you think of this? Is this look about right?

And she's looking at it. And she goes, yeah, you know, I think you'd be fine if you followed that. And I said, can I ask you a question? I said, the First Amendment's like a couple of sentences. Isn't it kind of ridiculous that we have all of this? And she said the Supreme Court doesn't tell us what the Constitution says. the Supreme Court tells us what we as a society today wish it said. And it stuck with me.

And it got me rolling down that road. The Supreme Court doesn't, or the Constitution, First Amendment doesn't tell us what to say. It tells us what we as a society interpret it to say. So the Supreme Court looks at the Constitution and they say, hey, where are we today? Well, today most people kind of favor gay marriage. So let's read it into the Constitution because we wish they said that. The Constitution doesn't say that a second grade teacher can't silence the political speech of a second grader, but we kind of wish it said that. So let's read that into it because

we as a society have evolved to a point where we don't think second grade teachers should be silencing the political speech of second graders. So why don't we go ahead and read that into it? and they do radical things to bind their decisions on individuals that, frankly, are not in the Constitution. And so I remember in law school thinking there's got to be a way, or at least it would be better, if we could pull back this structure, completely get rid of this structure, and just go back to the words say what they say. And if the words don't bind the municipal government of Toledo, Ohio, then they don't, then the Toledo, Ohio has to figure out a way to either bind themselves

or they won't have a government oversight. They won't have federal government oversight on those certain areas. I mentioned the Commerce Clause earlier. You know, if you grow your own wheat in your own field and you feed your own cows with it, the federal government can stop you. They can come to you and say, no, you can't do that. They can? Oh, yeah, absolutely.

The Supreme Court is, that's good law in the Supreme Court. there's a case right on point on that. It's a good law. Good law means it's not been reversed. Okay, got it. So, yeah, like, well, I don't want to go through specific examples, but there are a lot of, frankly, egregious things that this country's done that are considered still good law, like the Japanese internment camps.

Those have never been reversed by the Supreme Court. Those were okayed by the Supreme Court, and that's still good law. What did they base that on when they okayed that? So that would have been back in 1942 right after Pearl Harbor. Yeah, I'm not an expert on the Korematsu case, but it's, it's, I know it's not been reversed. I know that right now, we probably wouldn't go that route as a society, but there's nothing in the law that says you can't. And, you know, that radicalizes a law student. That radicalizes a 22, 23, 24-year-old kid.

Now, if you're... It radicalizes you. Yeah, it does. It's radicalizes. Like that's the kind of thing that set me on the path to sort of this political act of his mindset. I didn't really have one prior to that. I wasn't, I listened to a lot of talk radio in college, like while everyone else was listening to the coolest music out, I was listening to AM radio. That doesn't surprise me.

I was kind of that guy. I always wanted to be in talk radio. I used to drive down the street when callers would call in and ask a question. I would turn the radio off and I would answer it as if I was the host. I was practicing. So you're one of those guys that's like, yeah, we have to honor our kids. commitments to the good people of Iraq? Like, you know. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I bought into all that initially. You know, I remember where I was the night they started bombing Afghanistan and Iraq and

in response to 9-11. I was, I bought into the whole thing. You know, it was probably six, seven, eight years down the road after 9-11 before I started thinking, hmm, right. Something's wrong here. I've been microdosing something new lately, and it's not what you think. A lot of people refer to it as nature's wine. The mushroom I'm talking about is Omnita Muscaria. You know, the red one with the white spots that you've seen in every video game and folktale ever. But here's the thing. Unlike psilocybin microdosing, Ammina doesn't push you into a psychedelic headspace. It's more of a gentle nervous system reset. It calms you down without making you foggy, helps you focus without the jitters, and makes you sleep way deeper without the hangover. A lot of people are using it as an alcohol

alternative or a f*** replacement because it gives you that relaxed, warm feeling without the downsides. No paranoia, no next day brain fog, no dependency issue. You can take it in smaller doses. You can take it in smaller doses throughout the day to lock in on what you're doing and really get into that flow state. I personally like taking it before I go to bed sometimes when I really need to wind down. Helts me get deeper sleep, gives me vivid dreams, and I don't wake up without any hangover and I'm ready to go the next day. And the brand I trust for this is Amantara. They're the real deal. Clean sourcing, no synthetics, no sketchy additives, and they actually educate people instead of just pushing product. Amantara has 500 milligram capsules and gummies. Beginner friendly,

legal and actually works. So if you want to try Amantara for yourself today, head to www. www.amantara.com slash go slash Julian. That link is in my description below. And use discount code JDP 22 at checkout for 22% off your order. Once again, that's www.amantara.com slash go slash Julian link in my description below. Use code JDP 22. In fairness to you, most people did. Most people did. Yeah, but why? I think, you know, I think at the time I'll refer to what Tim Dillon says on this, where he talks about how when things were good enough and everyone could, you know, buy their home, go through life, follow the plan, live decently, have their family, go to college, the whole bit. They were willing to shut their eyes more and take the propaganda and just be like, yeah, sounds right. And then once those things started to degrade, and he has a very funny rant about this, it's way better explain than me.

But like once those things started to degrade, i.e. now you get to the generations we're at now, whether it be Gen Z, millennials, and even Gen X, people started to go, wait a fucking minute. And to me, like a line in the sand is 9-11 because look at every single, there were things that happened in the buildup to that, to be clear. But like, look at every single thing, socioeconomically, culturally, this happened since then. So would you think it was more of the early 90s when people started waking up before 9-11, but they were willing to put up with it? Or do you think it was after 9-11, 4, 5, 6 years later? Maybe the housing crisis in 0708 where people were like, this isn't working. Something's not right here.

And what the hell happened in New York? Right. So I wasn't alive in the early 90s, so I can't really answer that part. What I can say is that I do remember, like as a young kid on, even like on YouTube, I think, in the early days, you'd start to see six, seven years later people making documentaries on like this wasn't what we. were told. And then to your point, when the housing crisis happened and people lost their money overnight and everything, they got mad. And we saw the political ramifications of that. You watch Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party come up at the same time. Populous, hard left, hard right, whatever you want to say, you know, they had the same problems. They had different solutions, but they had the same problems.

And at that same point, people started looking at the narratives they were fed more, in my opinion. I'm sure there were people looking before that, but more to where they'd even look at 9-11 in events like that and be like, yeah, there were no WMDs in Iraq. Why do we think it was just a couple planes hitting the buildings? Yeah. You know? I think the no W&Ds in Iraq was a real wake-up call. You mentioned Jack Posobok earlier walking out with just bold confidence saying, oh, I saw it.

I saw the gun. I saw his face. I saw the pull the trigger. I saw him kill Charlie Kirk. And then we, you know, when people realized that he didn't, I mean, it's kind of a wake-up call. We watched Colin Powell with real authority, stand up there and explain why he knew there were WMDs, and here are the trucks that are carrying it around, and here are the facilities, and here's the intelligence that we have that tells us this is existing. And then, you know, 10 years later, they go in and then like, yeah, they didn't really have anything.

I do think that was kind of a radicalizing moment for a lot of people. Yeah. And that goes to your point, by the way. It's like that didn't put people in the streets once that was like all but admitted or actually straight up admitted with some documentation. as well. Everybody woke up and went to work. Yeah. And that's the key. Everybody keeps waking up and go to work. I had a conversation with somebody yesterday, and we sort of talked about the same thing. And he asked a version of the question you asked, not really the way you did. But, you know, if you're trapped in the debt cycle, you know, you got a mortgage on your

house. If you don't go to work the next day, you can't pay your mortgage. You get kicked out. Your kids play a couple of sports. If you don't go to work the next day, they've got to come home. They can't, they can't do that. Maybe you're in a decent school district, and then you don't go to work the next day. You're out of that school district, and now you're moving somewhere where your kids aren't going to get as good of an education. That fiscal pressure to remain in compliance is real.

It's very real, and it starts with the cost of housing. It starts with the monthly mortgage stroke. And as long as you're paying a $2,000 mortgage, and $1,800 of it is going to the bank, and 200 is going into the house, you stay trapped in that cycle. You can't get out of it. You're basically there forever. Yeah. Yeah, we've seen that with a few different things in society.

But leading up to the part where you had this professor in college who had a totally different political set of beliefs, but like the way you were able to look at the First Amendment, really open your eyes. You said you were already at that point, like really like radical libertarian. What in your childhood, like what made you? outside I listened to AM radio in college. Like, was it earlier than that where you're looking at things like the Fed and stuff like that and saying, you know what, this is all bullshit? What caused that?

No, I don't think it was the Fed. It was just a philosophical underpinning that, you know, you look at history. You look at the first people that arrived in America. It was sink or swim. Yep. And what it created was the hardiest stock of people that ever lived. The hardiest stock of people. The heartiest stock of people.

Yeah. Because in order to get here, if you were going to show up in America in the 17th century, your survival rate might be 50% for a year. You might not even survive the trip over here. Yeah, I think that's high. Yeah. And so you had to give up a life of comfort in Europe. It might not, you know, not comfort by the way our current standards, but 17th century comfort.

You had to give that up. You had to have some reason to want to do it. political freedom, religious freedom, whatever it is. So your philosophical idea led you to risk your life just to make a voyage that might be a couple of months. And then you show up on the shore and there's nothing. There's no safety net. There's no infrastructure. There's no roads, bridges, libraries. There's no grocery stores. You get a bow and arrow, maybe a gun. You, you know, you hunt, you fish, you farm, you figure out how to make community. You go meet some people who have your back when you're sleeping,

and you'll have their back when they're sleeping. And you either survive or you don't. And so what we ended up with is you took the bravest people of that society, and then they came over here, and only the hardiest of the bravest survived. And so their kids were the kids of the hardiest and bravest people of at the time was sort of the most advanced society, which was sort of the Western European model at the time. So you, your first generation, your second, third, fourth generation, Americans on into the late 18th century when the revolution happens, those are a different type of people than were left in Europe at the time. That's right. They absolutely were. It's indisputable. Even the people who came here not by choice,

the slaves that came over, they might not survive the journey. Oh, yeah. They came over into hellish conditions when they arrived. You know, it would have been easy to succumb. It would have been easy to quit to give up. That meant death. So it would have been easy to die. But they didn't. And they survived.

And so when they finally gained their freedom, they were the heartiest stock of people. And so the society mixed and mingled. And it, you know, obviously had its ups and downs along the way. But that was sort of the birth of the American dream. And if you look back at where I was. was growing up in the mid to late 90s, and you started looking around and thinking, oh, my gosh, you know, we ride it over a 3% T tax. And now, you know, you live in California, more than half your paycheck goes to the government. Plus, then you've got to pay taxes on everything you

purchase. Then you've got to pay taxes on when you die, you've got to pay taxes so that your kids can inherit what you've already been triple tax on. And it's, it's that sort of a mindset. Because the answer was always if you don't have this type of government, someone might suffer. And I'm thinking, yeah, but our whole society was built on the fact that someone might suffer. That was the great, grand American experience is that you might suffer. You probably will suffer. But if you're good enough, you're going to make it. If you're strong enough, you're going to make it.

You might have to catch a few breaks. But you'll make it. You can come here and you can make it. And by the time I was in high school going into college, into law school, the mindset of the country had completely shifted to, you know, let's slow everything down for the absolute. weakest members of society. I'm not saying the weakest members of society should be cast aside and killed. That's not the point of the story. But it was sacrificing that Americanism is what I felt like it was. And so it was kind of a, I was predisposed to be radicalized. Let's say that. Now what made you want to be a lawyer? I never wanted to be a lawyer. I wasn't sure what I wanted to be.

I got out of college and I got a job with the state in the Department of Revenue, the property tax division. I was basically data entry. Oh, you were one of them? Yeah. Coming after it? You have a gun? Come after us for our taxes? No.

Quite the opposite. I was in a cubicle under a fluorescent light with no windows and a giant building with thousands of employees. And every Monday, all the DMVs would have mailed in all their paperwork and I had to put it into the computer. So let me get this straight. you were radicalized on the fact that they used to ride over 3% taxes and now they're giving up half their paycheck, but then you work under fluorescent lights to find the people who aren't paying that fucking tax. Well, I was recording car taxes, but yeah, yeah, sort of. Right.

Yeah, no, I mean, it's how easy it is to succumb to the system. Now, to be fair, I worked there seven and a half weeks and I quit. I quit at lunch. I walked out at lunch and I didn't go back. Not in protest. I had gone to my boss and I was basically just, just doing data entry. Had a college degree and I was doing data entry.

And I went to my boss and I said, hey, you know, the internet exists. It was in its, it was in its nation form for most people. Most people weren't using it all that much. This was 2002. Okay. But I was like, hey, we got this thing called the internet. These people are putting this data into a computer. Why don't we just put a system so that when they put it in on their end,

it goes into the system that I'm entering in on my end. And then I don't have to do it. He's like, well, then what will you do? And I thought, well, surely you can find some better use for my talent, my massive talent, than punching, you know, numbers on a keypad all day. And he said, well, let's just, let's just, we'll think about it. Go back to your desk. And I went back and I thought, gosh, this isn't, this isn't for me.

About that time, the department lawyer came by. And he noticed I was kind of underworking. And he was like, hey, will you help me? I was like, sure. and so he gave me a couple of code books and he's like I need to look up these code sections and I need you to kind of tell me in these code sections what do you think how it applies to this thing over here and just put a post-it note on there when you find it and then we'll talk about it I was like okay it was the best day I'd ever had to work any job I'd ever had

why'd you love it it was a puzzle it was a I love puzzles I grew up doing puzzles I like playing puzzle-type games. I liked reading the Choose Your Own Adventure type novels when I was in fifth grade. And it was a puzzle. It was a, hey, this is what we as a society has decided how we're going to manage and structure ourselves. And these are the words we're going to use. And if you can go through and figure it out, then you can apply it over here. And it was good. It was intellectual. It was a break from from just punching numbers in. Hey, you know, this county had this much. This county had this much. Do you do, do, do. It was, it was fun. For me, it was fun. And so I did it. At the end of the day, we sat down and talked about it. And I just said, how do you become a lawyer?

And he was like, well, you go to law school. I was like, all right, duly noted. And so I thought my, I don't know, is that like a master's degree? Is it like one extra year of school? I had no idea. I knew nothing about law school. never even considered it. So I started looking into it. And I realized it was a three-year program and it was expensive and it was hard to get into. And you had to take a test and it kind of measured your logical thinking capacity and your reading comprehension. I was like, I don't know. You know, it seems like a hassle.

So I went and talked to my wife about it. And she was like, you know, if you think you want to try, try. I was like, all right. So I kind of started looking into it. And then a couple of weeks later at work, I just had enough. And I left at lunch and I just didn't go back. married though already and now you give up the paycheck and you're going to go to law school yeah but i hadn't decided to go to law school yet i went back and started working at a restaurant

as a busboy i was just like i'd rather make sixty dollar tipouts at the end of a shift than walk back into that building i couldn't do it yeah i just could not do it again i couldn't do it another afternoon much less another day um and i had a friend who was a manager of a restaurant and i was like give me a job doing anything he's like all i got the busboy position i was like i'll take it you'd be the coolest bus boy of all time today imagine like going to a table it's That Charlie Kirk shits bullshit Give me your plate But anyway

So I started looking into it And I signed up for the test And I took it And I did all right And I gave my wife a number I was like if I get this number on the test I'm gonna go And I got above that

So I applied and got in and went Did you have kids already When you were going? No So you didn't have kids No we didn't have our first kid Until the May

Or excuse me The November after I graduated in May Got it And he kept going hadn't stopped since. Yeah. Very good for procreation over here. Yeah. For sure. I've got I've got eight kids, but we haven't had one in five years. So the spiket may have been turned off. The spikets turned off now. Is that like official or just like accidental? Oh, no, it's, it's, we've taken no active steps to prevent anything. Okay. We're Catholic at heart.

Clearly, clearly, clearly. So you go to law school, you do the three years there, and this was what was interesting. We had a chance to talk about this on the phone, but I've been talking with some friends this week, some who know you really well and know your story, others who hadn't heard of you and were looking at some of your clips, obviously, because you were going to be coming on the podcast at some point. But where did you start in your legal career? Because where you ended up is pretty wild. But where did you, what type of law did you begin with at a law school? So when you're in law school, a lot of people say, I want to go on. I want to be a criminal defense lawyer. I want to be a mergers and acquisitions lawyer. You don't really get a choice. You know,

you go and you can, you take the job you can get. And that's if you want the biggest, best, highest paying job you can get. And so during your end of your second year, you start interviewing for the big jobs. They have on-campus interviews. You apply. You do all this stuff. And the only jobs I was getting offered were basically carrying briefcase around jobs. They were the higher paying jobs in the bigger markets.

You know, I went to IU, so Cincinnati, Detroit, Indianapolis, Chicago, Midwestern type stuff. And I didn't want to do that. Like, I wanted to be in a courtroom. I took a lot of trial advocacy classes. I took a lot of public speaking classes in college. I was horrible at public speaking when I first started. Really? Horrible.

I was a nervous wreck anytime I had to open my mouth, talk to somebody. Look at you now. Well, I don't have my cough button, so I'm like that. Yeah, but what the fuck button. I'll hit that every time. Yeah. I'll hit that every time I cough. There you go.

But I wanted to be in a courtroom. And so I started applying to sort of smaller firms because I was talking to a professor, and they're like, look, if you go to one of the big firms, you're just going to be carrying a briefcase, you might be reviewing depositions, you're going to be doing a lot of paperwork. You're not going to be in a court for a decade or more. So why don't you look at smaller firms?

They don't pay as much, but you'll get more experience. And I found a really small firm and had four or five lawyers. But when I interviewed, I told the guy straight up, he's like, what do you want to get out of this job? And I was like, I want to try cases. I want to be in a courtroom. He's like, I can get you a trial in 12 months. He's like, we try cases all the time.

I was like, I love it. Let's do it. So I was taking depositions, you know, six or eight weeks after I got there. Whoa. Solo, you know. Solo. Yeah. Like, that's Mrs. Tanner.

This is what she's alleging happened. Review the case. Go take her deposition. That's kind of nerve-wrath. Six to eight weeks into doing the job. Yeah. On the record, that's what nerve-wracking. I mean, smaller cases, but yeah.

Still. And it was mostly car wrecks and little things like that. But it was good experience. It was good experience getting in there and figuring out how a case worked from the beginning to the end, you know, that you're actually preparing for your closing argument while you're taking your deposition. Everything's building to that closing argument, even though 95% of the cases aren't going to trial, maybe 99% aren't going to trial. Then I tried my first case about nine months after I got there and I fell in love with it.

Like I was hooked. That's all I wanted to do was what you love about it? It was theater. It was performance. I was not a theater kid. I didn't watch a lot of movies, but something about that struck me. I remember preparing for the closing argument. The key to this whole case was this woman is lying about her injuries. And we had her on the record lying and we were going to hit her over the head with it. And it was not going to look good to the jury. And it was going to be fun. And so we're building up to that. But then it's time for the closing. And the senior partner there is like, all right, here's what you're going to do. He goes, when you get your closing done, you're going to lean out over the jury box. You're going to stick those arms wide open.

He goes, and you're going to whisper, this ain't her first rodeo. He goes, that's your money line. That's the line that's going to win the jury. Write that down. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've actually used it twice. No, no, it's a script writer. Oh, is he? Oh, dude, it was, this was, it's theater.

All, especially civil trials. They're just theater. Everything's already known. Both sides have disclosed everything. You're just going in and acting it out for a jury. And so I did it, man. I was nervous. I practiced in the conference room a hundred times.

I was like, they're never going to buy this. He's like, it doesn't matter. He's like, you're going to get caught up in the moment. You're going to nail it. And so I went through my whole closing, and I had my exhibits, and I was this side and this side and check out line 13 of her deposition where she lied about it on stand. And then I thought, all right, here we go. And I leaned out over that jury and I put my arms out just like we'd practice.

And I was like, this ain't her first rodeo. And the jury, you know, the seats start swinging and their eyes get big. And I thought, my God, I'm hooked. Like I can't, I want to do this every day the rest of my life. Can't believe they bought that shit. Yeah, we won that case. It was five minutes. I thought they.

Five minutes? Yeah, five minutes. They didn't even get the pizza. No, no, no. No, they didn't even, I don't even know how they had time to elect a foreman. I was in the bathroom. Like, they walked into the jury room. I actually had that jury verdict framed into my office in my very first jury verdict.

And it was a defense verdict in our favor, and I have it framed. But I walked into the bathroom and someone knocked on the door and they're like, hey, the jury's back. And I was like, oh, they must have a question. You know, because it was seriously like five minutes. And walked in the courtroom and they came filing back in and gave a defense verdict for our client. And I thought, oh, this is easy. Law is easy. Why do people act like this is hard? And so I was hooked, man. I just wanted to try cases. And so I stayed there for, I don't know, 18 months or so. I was licensed in Alabama at the time. I thought I might want to practice

in sort of the panhandle of Florida because that was sort of our area. So I went and got my license in Florida as well. You got to take the bar again down there. They don't accept reciprocity in Florida. So I went and took the bar down there. And after I had a Florida license, I didn't realize this, but around town, word gets around and you become more marketable. So I had other firms kind of call and saying, hey, you ever thought about doing this? You ever thought about doing that? And so there was a guy that was working for a firm that only had really one client. It was a large bank. And he was like, and they're, I mean, they were based in the bank's headquarters. And he was like, you ever thought about doing foreclosures?

foreclosures. Yeah, and I was like, I don't know, man. What year is this? This was 2008. Hot time for that. Well, that's why they were scrambling, trying to find more foreclosure lawyers. He was like, look, we'll give you the whole state of Florida. The whole state.

Yeah, he's like, just under your wing, build the whole department up, just go. Just figure it out because we've got a bunch of them and we don't know what to do. And it's better if we handle it than give it to someone else. You just foreclosing on Florida men as a job? I'm not jealous of that. So Florida has judicial foreclosures. So everything has to go to court. Okay.

And a lot of people knew the, in 08, it was becoming very fashionable to fight them and delay them because, you know, you're not paying a mortgage during that time. And so I was there for a while. And then that bank folded. That was one of the casualties of the foreclosure crisis. They were very property heavy in Nevada and Texas and Georgia, which were three of the worst hit states. And so I saw the inevitable end coming and left there and thought, hey, if the Florida license is more valuable, I'll just move down. there. So we moved to Bocca Raton, Florida, and I got a job at a malpractice defense, medical malpractice defense. You were a Catholic in Boca Raton? There were a couple of us. There were a few of us

there. Actually, they had pretty decent Catholic churches there, several. And they had a Catholic monastery around the corner from where we lived, and they had an Opus Day center, the male and female center there. And so they're the ones that like whip themselves and shit, right? Yeah, I'm not in it. So I don't know. That's the, that's the rumor. But it's usually a sign you've got a pretty conservative Catholic area if they're present. And actually went on a retreat there and it was really fascinating. You can't talk about it though. No, you can talk about it. I mean, it's just spiritual lessons. Again, I'm getting a look like a lot of rest. Yeah, don't piss off the security guy. He gives me the wrong look and we have to leave.

But no, it's, you know, that was sort of the evolution of my career. It was all sort of on the civil side. And while I was doing the medical malpractice defense, we had an HIV case. There was kind of a long story, but a guy who got in a car wreck and he ended up HIV positive and he was trying to blame the hospital for giving him tainted blood. Well, he got in a wreck and he got HIV positive after that. That was his story, yes. Okay.

Whether we believe that, I don't know, but that was his story. that no risk factors it had to come from the hospital. And so when you're doing medical malpractice defense, you have to become an expert in every area that you're working on. So if it's compartment syndrome in the thigh, you are the world's foremost expert in compartment syndrome of the thigh for the purposes of that case. Solve the puzzle.

Yeah. Yeah. And so I started working on that case, that HIV case. And I learned a ton about HIV testing, about the history of HIV, about HIV itself, what it is, what it isn't. and start talking to experts to prepare for depositions. And while I'm doing all that, there's a story. I think it was on MSNBC or Fox News or something,

but there was this woman in Central Florida who had been diagnosed with HIV. She was having sex with a partner, didn't disclose it, and she was facing 30 years in prison. Because she gave him HIV. Well, you just assumed that. He actually didn't sero convert. He was HIV negative, but it doesn't. matter. The crime is having sex without disclosure in Florida. It's a patchwork of crimes across

all 50 states, but each state has a specific statute. And serial conversion is not a part of it in Florida. So I reached out to his lawyer. I reached out to her lawyer. I figured out who her lawyer was. I just reached down and said, hey, you know, this may sound weird. I do civil work. I don't do criminal work. I don't know if this will even work, but I have a defense in mind that might actually work for your girl. And he was like, tell me about it. So we set up a time, sat down for a couple hours and talked about it. And he was like, you want to come trial with me? And I was like, sure. So we got an expert. We showed up to trial. And the prosecution is looking at it. They have this open and shut case, right? They have a test in their hand. What more do they need? And we show up to trial and

they realized they're completely unprepared. And I kind of made an offhanded comment to the prosecutor when she asked, you know, what do you going to have an expert do? And I was like, well, we're going to get him in under 702 and we're going to, here's where we're headed. And instant, they gathered and came back and like, we'll cut a deal. Wait, what's the 702? That's just declaring someone an expert. Okay. Getting them in, you know, different from a treating physician.

Wait, why'd they make a deal that easily? Like, what were they so afraid of? Because our expert was going to challenge the diagnosis, and they didn't have anybody there. They didn't even have a records custodian to bring the test in. Challenge the diagnosis that she had HIV? Yeah. So you didn't, you thought it was possible she didn't have it at all? I didn't say that.

Okay, but you're saying you could argue that in a court of law, that there's a realm of possibility that's reasonable doubt that she didn't have HIV. I didn't even say that. I felt like we had a defense that could make it impossible for them to prove it, or make it very difficult for them to prove it. When you were studying HIV before this case came up because you were looking at it in reference to the cases you were trying, as someone who then became an expert on it, like what do you think were the most, misunderstood, publicly accepted points about HIV at the time?

I think the number one misunderstood point that I came across was that it's easy to catch. That if you have sex with somebody a couple of times, you have a very high likelihood of getting it. The studies don't bear that out. They don't. No. There have been studies that have followed discordant couples for years. Discordant meaning one's positive, one's negative. some of them had protected sex, some of them had half-time protected, half-time unprotected, some of them had all protected, unprotected sex. You had straight couples, gay couples.

Years. The statistics on those studies are shocking. It is a shockingly difficult thing to sexually contract, shockingly difficult. And that's probably the most misunderstood component of it. And all of these criminal laws are based on the fact that it's easy to contract, that it's almost like getting shot with a gun. Like, your likelihood of dying is pretty high. And that's probably the most misunderstood part of it. So you go down, you try this case, they make a deal.

She was facing 30 years. You said they gave her, like, five days probation or something? Yeah, so. That's the whole of the deal. We were getting ready to pick a jury on a Monday, and they were like, look, there's an HIV education class on Friday. We will enter into a probation period for her that as soon as she finishes one of those classes, the probation will terminate. And she can go to the class Friday. And so that was it.

She essentially got five days probation. They went from 30 years to five days probation. Yeah. And so that's when I realized, hey, wait a minute, we have something here. Like, we have something. We can take this and market it and get criminal clients. But that was to me a down the road thing. I wasn't something I was considering in the moment.

And I started getting phone calls from people because they saw the outcome. There were a lot of people facing similar criminal charges, and they were watching these other cases to see what might happen to them, what defenses they might be able to raise. And I started getting phone calls from clients and from lawyers around the country. Like, hey, how did you do this? What's the secret sauce? What's the magic?

And so as I would talk to them, it was illuminating to hear their reaction. Like, this is not something they'd ever considered. This defense was not something that had ever crossed their mind. they were going to go in there and argue just a basic, they didn't have sex or he had told her. And he said, she said, and it doesn't go well for the HIV positive person. And so as we started challenging the test, we started having a lot of success initially. But then there were a lot of groups that found out we were doing it, a lot of HIV interest groups that did not like the fact that we were doing this defense. Why?

I can't get into their head and know precisely why, but the reasons articulated to me were that it was undermining the confidence of HIV testing, that it was allowing bad people to do bad things and get away with it, that it was challenging the HIV establishment. One thing I did not know going into this was the HIV establishment is huge. The HIV establishment. Oh, it's massive, massive. What do you mean?

Like, the number of scientists whose entire jobs rest on the HIV status quo. The number of virologists out in the field. The number of medical doctors, clinics, pharmaceutical companies, professors, people in government. You have this entire structure that's designed around HIV, which is a disease that that afflicts relatively. few people compared to other diseases that don't have the same type of structure around them. You know, on a per patient basis, the amount of money spent on HIV versus the amount of money spent on cancer is shocking. It's absolutely shocking. Like a lot higher. Oh, I don't know the numbers, the current numbers off top of my head. But let's say it's like $32,000 per patient versus like

600. Whoa. I don't, I don't remember the numbers off top of my head. But in terms of research and study and everything else, I mean, it's, it's shocking. So, it's a similar psychology in your mind to like creating an industry out of stopping homelessness and then you create jobs that are fucking 300k a year that people don't want to stop so they have no incentive to stop homelessness and the homeless and the homeless rate stays the same is that what you're saying about HIV effectively with the establishment close but yeah yeah wasn't fouchie was like really involved with the early h i had to go there he was he was we was solving it i i like to tell people I hated Fauci a decade before anyone else had heard of them. So you knew all about that.

Oh yeah. Like A ZT and all that. Oh yeah. Yeah. A ZT was, I don't want, I'm going to get in so much trouble. Fuck it. You're here, you're in Jersey. It's not having trouble. Yeah. A ZT killed a lot of people. A lot of people took AZT thinking it was their lifeline and it just destroyed their immune systems, destroyed their livers and destroyed their life. And you found out all this when you were becoming an expert on nature. I don't want to say expert. I don't, I'd decry that. But very well spoken person on the subject matter. I became pretty knowledgeable on it. Yes. I read every

textbook I could find on HIV, talk to every expert I could talk to, deposed or cross-examined dozens and dozens of experts on HIV. I never one time met a treating physician who knew anything about HIV at all. Really? Yeah, none. They knew nothing.

They knew that there was a test that existed and there were a few drugs they could try. That's all they knew. They knew nothing about it. Holy shit. Most of the experts didn't know much about it. They knew they knew almost nothing about it. They couldn't describe it. They couldn't describe the means of infection. They can't describe the cause of CD4 depletion, for example. Like they just, I'm thinking, what do you guys study all day? What do you do? What do you do to support this 30, 50, 70 billion dollar business? Right. You guys don't know anything.

I actually went back the other night in red an old deposition I did with the top HIV expert in Indiana on a criminal case I was working on in Indiana. And it was, this was more than 10 years ago. This may have been 12 years ago. And I went back and looked at the deposition. I read the whole thing. It was 300-something pages. And I was awestruck at how little this woman knew.

At one point in the deposition, she says, I don't even, maybe I'm not the expert they need. Maybe they need to get someone else. She kept saying, I'm not a bench scientist. I'm not a, you know, I'm not a treating physician. I don't know. I don't know. I'm like, what do you do?

So, but yeah, it's this whole industry has popped up. And it's ferocious. It destroys people who challenge it. It absolutely chews them up and spits them out and destroys them. You seem to be a guy, and I mean this as a compliment, you seem to be a guy that when you cease anything that doesn't make sense where an accepted narrative has just been, for lack of a better word, accepted, you want to be the dude to go stick your finger on the coffee.

and hold it there until it fucking starts to burn. I'm a populist at heart. I don't like establishment narratives that are accepted without true understanding. I think people should understand what they believe, and the establishment narratives should be supported with both fact-based evidence and a logical explanation. When you do all, I mean, you've done how many depositions in your career? Hundreds, maybe thousands? Not thousands.

Not thousands? More than 100. More than 100. How would you, like, because again, that one was 300 pages. So I'm trying to, that was probably hours. Maybe four or five hours. It was about six or seven hours. Yeah.

Okay. When you go to prepare for these things, did you have like a specific psychological way you wanted to work yourself towards questions? Or did you like to do it a little bit more free-flowing, knowing that you had a full grasp of the information you were going to be asking them about? Yeah, I never had notes in front of me because I had a strong enough mastery of the subject that I didn't need the notes. You know, I ordered every HIV test kit from every manufacturer memorized the label. And so it didn't matter what test ultimately the person got. I was aware of

what the test was and what its limitations were. There's always a limitation section on these test kits. I knew what disclaimers they put in there in terms of all of them disclaim. Well, I shouldn't say all of them because I haven't looked at them in years. But at the time, all of them disclaimed the ability to diagnose HIV. And that was always a shock for the treating physician to learn in a deposition. That they diagnose somebody based on a piece of paper that disclaimed the ability to diagnose somebody. That's fucking nuts, man. That's fucking.

Sometimes I do think about not to take a shot at the entire lawyer industry. It is an important industry. But like it's so big that there's so many little things that go into it once you get so many people in a room. Like I worked at a bank when I was out of college and I used to joke they'd just put fucking a thousand lawyers in the room to argue over one line that then they'd legislate across all fucking 40,000 people at the company, including people to do nothing that has to do with that line. And sometimes I wonder if you just like took lawyers and made the population 50% overnight if maybe we'd have a little bit more freedom and leeway and efficiency to be able to figure some things out. There are rent seeking lawyers. Rent seeking lawyers. Yeah.

Yeah, there are rent seeking lawyers. It's a known hazard in the community. But there are also some of the best people I've ever met are lawyers. Some of the smartest people, some of the kindest, most giving, most loving people who sacrifice their own sanity for their clients. And it's not all of them, but it's enough of them that it reflects well on the community. I'm not a lawyer who bad mouse lawyers. There are bad lawyers. They're bad garbage collectors. They're bad accountants. They're bad mechanics. They're bad car dealers. They're bad everything, bad podcasters. But they're also the best people on earth in every one of those professions. And, you know, just because someone deals with a bad one doesn't mean everyone's bad. That's right. And I think it's something,

it's actually a theme that's infected a lot of different industries. The lawyers, the example I'm using right there because you refer to like disclaimers on medicines that probably got put there by lawyer but like every industry in today's society because we are so large of a society and there's so much shit going on there is a level of group think that can infect things i think easier than ever before and it's because there's now all different sectors of opinions it's no longer like you have one and two now you got the internet so you can have a thousand different groups fighting it out like they're on the last fucking chance power ride right there over one thing and what you have now is the population gets involved in the fight.

It used to be relegated to the experts and the lawyers and the business people in that industry. Now it's anybody. I mean, you can go on Facebook or X or Reddit and any industry has citizen experts that know more than the experts in the industry. It's crazy.

That's why I'm always just, I don't know if it's humorous. It's kind of tragic when people are like, oh, he learned on Google. Oh, he's an internet expert. I'm like, the entire world's knowledge sources there. Whatever your experts learned at Harvard, that's also available on the internet for

anyone smart enough or with the desire to go look it up. Right. Like, you know, Harvard is no longer a gateway to being smart. You know, you don't have to go there. The entire world's knowledge base is at your fingertips. We carry it in our pocket. And, yeah, there's a lot of crap on the internet. There's a lot of bad, bad information on the internet.

There's a lot of good stuff on there. Oh, sure. Yeah. It's a mix. I think there's something to be said for that as well because I think it cuts both ways, too. I think you'll have expert class who just poo-poo everyone's opinion when, in fact, they may actually be more informed at this point based on accessing the world's full information. And then you'll also have some people sometimes, to your point, that we'll use the internet the wrong way and go all the way on things and have complete confirmation bios on every single thing they ever look at such that they think they're an expert and they're really not.

But there's got to be some sort of, like in this brave new world we got, there's got to be some sort of balance made there to where, you know, the expert class and the internet class can actually have conversations where they're trying to seek a solution. I think there's no better example right now than like the Charlie Kirk case where you have that, which we'll get to in a minute. But before you got to doing what you do now with the full streaming on the case, which of course I want to talk about, you did these HIV cases for a lot of years. And then there was another type of law you did between then. Yeah, so the HIV industry sort of burned itself out, the HIV criminal defense industry, because, so there's the 50 states, but there's also the military side. And the military side we were particularly active in. The military side. Yeah, so the military had a lot of HIV people charged with that crime. And we sort of legislated ourselves out of that because there was a case that went all the way to the calf, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, that reversed the armed forces's ability to enforce. the way they were charging people with HIV. And that sort of instantly overnight dried up most of the HIV cases out of the military. And by that time, there was a group that was led by a professor, I can't remember where he was,

out of Massachusetts or Connecticut, somewhere in the Northeast. And he started showing up with his little minions at all of our cases, and he would get the prosecutors prepped for our defense and help them get in touch with their own experts and all that. He's not a bad guy. He just, you know, he was part of the HIV establishment. He wanted to see it perpetuated. And so it just became time to move on. You know, I'd done it for four or five years. It was plenty fun. It was a lot of travel because these cases last weeks. And we were trying, you know, if you try a case a month even, you're gone two, three, four weeks a month. That's hard with a young family, too. Yeah. And my fifth kid was born while,

right after I got back from a trial. And I just thought, you know, this isn't right for me. Like, this isn't right for my wife. This isn't right for my kids. I need to do something else. So I went into broadcasting for a little bit. Opened a consulting shop with a buddy of mine and rounded up some clients and started to talk radio show and did that for a year.

You started to talk radio show? Yeah, news and views from nine to noon. We didn't talk about that on the phone call. You didn't ask. So you were doing it. Well, because you kind of skipped that part. You said I was doing the HIV law and then I went to, I got a general counsel job. Like, you skipped the middle of that.

So you were doing, you went back to Scratch the Itch and you went to the original college baron's love of AM radio. I did. I always wanted to try it. I always wanted to try it. Obviously, you're good at it. Well, I had an opening in my life. And so, and I knew somebody that worked at the station and we were talking.

And he was like, look, we've got an open spot. from nine to noon, no one's ever made talk radio in this market work in that time period. So just understand you'll probably fail. It won't be any good. Challenge accepted. He said, we're running Laura Ingram there right now, just on a, you know, just grabbing her from satellite. But if you want it, you can have it. And I was like, let's do it.

And so I started and I was a nervous wreck. My early shows are terrible. I still have them recorded somewhere. And I've gone back and listened to them occasionally. They were awful. We've got to find the barren files. No, you don't. Don't go looking.

We're digging. Don't look. I'm digging. Amanda, let's get on it. Make a note. She'll never find them. She'll find them.

I mean, they're out there. But I, so I did that for a while. I did that for several years. Nine to noon every day. Put a show together in the afternoons and evenings, got up in the morning, went to the station, put my final touches on the notes and did a show every day.

And I was still practicing law in the afternoon just on a private basis, but not super busy. I was mostly focused on the radio. Where are you living at this point? Montgomery, Alabama. Okay. in Montgomery, Alabama, WACV.

It was a fun little job. And then that sort of ran its course. I did that four or five years, and I was like, so then I tried another market. I went over to Auburn and was driving over there every day to do a radio show. And I was working in-house for a guy, and that's kind of where I got the in-house bug. He owned the radio station.

He was like, I can't pay you much on radio, but I've got this in-house position if you want to come by the office for a few hours a day. he was doing commercial real estate and so I went over to him and then COVID happened and I was working for him doing a little local radio show in Auburn

and that was, it was a great show I thought it was a lot of fun and but when COVID hit the commercial real estate business just collapsed and he was you know he probably didn't need to be paying a lawyer to sit in his office every day with the way that was happening

and so I started looking around like what else can I do and that's when I I went to work for a defense contractor, but it was like an IT type of job. Buddy of mine was the manager of operations over there, and he brought me in. And it was a lot of fun. I was there for a little while. It was kind of a hybrid work from home position, particularly during the COVID era.

Certainly no, like trial law at this point. No, no. Specific. Paperwork, looking at deals, finding deals, bidding on deals, you know, It was just a lot of fun. It opened my eyes to the world of government contracting that I didn't know existed. And so I did that for a little while, and I ran into a buddy of mine at a high school football game, and they were hiring a lawyer at a health care data analytics firm.

And it seemed like a cool opportunity. I really liked him. I had a lot of respect for him, and I always had. I'd known him since high school. I'd known of him since high school. And so I went to work for him. and stayed there for four or five years. And then that sort of ran its course.

No. No, but then that's when I started doing the podcast on the Charlie Kirk stuff. And it started taking off a little bit. You had said you were doing a little bit of the podcast, like on the side, doing other things. And then this happened and you kind of went full bore into that. Yeah. Where were you on September 10th when Charlie was going? I was sitting at my desk where I podcast every day.

I was sitting at that desk. I was working for the healthcare data analytics company, but I was working from home that day. And I got a call from a buddy of mine who's a long-time political operator. And he was like, you know, Charlie Kirk got shot. I was like, what? He was like, dude. Yeah.

And I thought, no. So I jumped on the internet. All I could see was the headlines at the time because it was too early. The videos hadn't started coming out. The pictures weren't coming out. So you were right on it. Yeah, it was pretty quick. I mean, I don't want to say to the minute, how many minutes it was, but it was pretty quick.

It was before the videos and the picture started dropping. And then the first video that dropped was that kind of distant video, and it looked like he got shot in the chest because his shirt jumped. And we were still on the phone. I was like, man, it looked like he got shot in the chest. He was like, yeah, I don't know. He's like, I just heard he got shot and he may not make it. I was like, what? How?

Like, you know, maybe it winged him on the shoulder. Kind of, you know, you could see the shirt jump on the side. And I kept rewinding it and looking. I was like, dude, I'm telling you, it looked like it hit him in the chest. you know, he might be all right. And so we were guessing, you know, what kind of person would do it? Would it be a radical leftist? Would it be some, you know, a person who's opposed to the bombing of Iran in June?

You know, who could it be? And while we're doing that, then the up-close video got released. And I came across that and I just, I just gasped in horror. Yeah. And he was like, what? And I said, don't watch it. And I actually talked to him about a month ago. He said he's never watched it.

someone who knew Charlie and had been around the block a long time and I was like don't watch it I was like it's so ghastly he was like describe it I was like his neck exploded he was like how

I said I looked like I got shot the neck I was like I don't know I said but I said I've never seen that much blood come out of a small spot in one time my life I didn't know it was possible he's like was it like squirting

and I was like no it's like someone opened the bottom of a gallon jug and it just fell out of the side of his neck Yeah. And so we stayed on the phone for a while, and I kept looking up information. And I think we were still on the phone when he was, when the rumors first started breaking about an hour later that he had died. I mean, once you saw it, didn't you, once you saw that video, didn't you think it was like? Yeah, I kept telling him that I didn't think it was possible to he lived. You know, I just said, I don't see how you live after that.

Even if it's just from blood, even if it's not from trauma, just from blood loss itself. Right. That was so much blood. Um, that's where I was. I was sitting at that desk, uh, looking at a monitor in the position where my camera is now. Monitors moved over since, but yeah. Now, were you thinking anything at the time or was it just pretty much like all of us or it's just shocked that this happened?

When I say thinking anything at the time, were you already wondering like, oh, no, I wasn't skeptical yet. My major thought was the security of people I knew who, kind of, not as public, obviously, as Charlie, but people who did the podcast circuit, the speech circuit, you know, who were out in public, who were at rallies. Like, this is, the guy was talking to

was one of those type of people. And I just said, you know, I wouldn't go in public for a while. He's like, I'm not. And he was talking to other people at the same time by text. And he was like, everybody's saying, everybody's locking down. Nobody's going anywhere right now until we figure out what's going on.

And I think that was the natural reaction. was just fear. It was just a fear of what the hell. Like this is really brazen. Yeah, the idea that, you know, especially in America, someone would ever be killed by anyone, regardless of who actually ended up doing it or was behind it and whatever,

the idea that someone would be killed on the basis of their political beliefs, which unfortunately has happened many times before, is just, it's still insane to me. It's insane to me that in, in this case in 2025, something like that could happen. It could happen so publicly. It could happen where there's thousands of people right there in the iPhone era

where everyone's got their camera out and, you know, people are going to be able to see this forever. You think about that guy, he had Charlie Kirk had kids. They're going to grow up one day and chances are they're going to see that video. And it's like that still doesn't register for me that that's like a thing today. Yeah, speaking of that, I mean, it was odd that there was so little footage. that came out. You know, I think thousands of college students gathered anywhere.

Was it four angles? Something. I mean, maybe six total, I think that had been released. Maybe only four. Not including the back camera. I'm talking about just iPhones. Yeah, I think four or five, six cameras at most, including the UVU review camera angle where the school itself was filming.

But it's, it was just a shocking moment. I was not the biggest Charlie Kirk fan. I wouldn't say I was opposed to Charlie. I never spoke out against him. I didn't like have a visceral reaction to hearing his name. But I always thought he was was on the team. You know what I mean? Like in the middle on the Uniparty.

He had started kind of speaking up on the Israel issue a little bit towards the end of his life. But prior to that, I mean, he was he was just sort of a water carrier for whatever mainstream Republican thought was at the time. And that's not really my brand of politics. And so I always sort of viewed him that way. I also had a friend one time tell me, this was before

he died, how much money they thought he was making, and I was just shocked. Like, it floored me when I heard the figures that were coming out that he was saying. Are you able to say that, like what he was estimating? Yeah, I mean, he was saying $25 to $50 million a year. He thought he was pulling in. which he asked me, what do you think he's making?

Because he had just heard somebody that supposedly knew. And this was probably six months before he died. And I said, I don't know. I bet he's making $2 to $5 million. He's like, I think it's like $25 to $50. And I was like, what? How? I was like, how?

Yeah, how, thief? Yeah. What are we doing wrong? He's like, he's got the podcast. He's got his salary from the place. He does real estate deals. He's involved in private equity. He's a bestselling author.

He's like, man, all that money adds up. Yeah. He's got a few other lines of income. Didn't think of that. Yeah, he wasn't all in on one line. He's a sharp guy. He was a sharp guy for sure. He's a very sharp guy. Even those who disagreed with him. Like, I disagreed with him on a lot of issues. Never one time felt like he was a dishonest actor or like a sellout or a bad guy necessarily. Maybe a sellout a little bit. But not a bad person. Like, I never thought he was secretly in the mob out killing people. I just thought, you know, this is a guy. who figured out how to play politics at a very high level on a team that I'm not on. And so that was kind of my thought on Charlie.

But, you know, as we were talking about it, the fear was sort of the overriding thing in the moment. It was just a really terrifying situation that a guy could really just get shot in the neck. We were actually talking about, do you think it was, you know, a leftist or that? And I kept looking at the video and I was like, I hate to sound gruesome and I hate to like do gunshot analysis in the moment. I said, but I think the shooter was left-handed. And he was like, why? I was like, because I bet you he was aiming for his mouth or his nose. And it was kind of down to the left. And your first shot on the range is usually down to the other side. I was like, I bet you he got a little anxious on the pole, you know, first human kill or whatever.

And so, I mean, that's kind of the thought process. We were just sort of working through it from the very basics. There was no thought of really who was responsible or some grand consensus. or some, you know, multi-agency cover-up in the moment. It was just sort of like what kind of crazy person would do this. Right. When did you do the first podcast discussing it at all? Was that a day later or two days later? I think it was like a...

He died on a Wednesday. I think it was Sunday. Okay. Now that was... So Tyler Robinson was arrested at... Well, they tell us he was arrested sometime on Thursday evening. And then it was announced. I think Trump announced that that Friday morning.

two days after the killing on Fox and Friends, like, yeah, we got the guy, whatever, nothing to see here. And so Sunday would have been a couple days after that. At this point, were there parts of the story that you were already like, wait a minute, this isn't, this isn't clicking. Yeah. So I had a, when I was doing a consulting job a long time ago, this was, I don't know, a decade before Charlie died, we were doing some consulting on a team for a grocery chain.

And one of the components of the consulting gig was Google Trends Analysis. And so we would look at, you know, what kind of trends are mid-30s women looking at when they go to the grocery store. You know, what's the cool new hip snack? What's everybody looking for? And so I had used that in the past because I recognized the power of that analysis to realize these are real searches. Like these are actual searches that people are doing. This isn't just Google telling us what they think people are looking for. It's taking a sampling.

It's not every search ever run on Google, but it's taken a sampling. And they won't, you know, the special sauce, they won't tell you how many are in the sample or what percentage it is. But you can be sure that if someone in Lincoln, Nebraska searched for the Atlanta Braves on June 3rd of 2025, that that search took place. somebody there did that or somebody with an IP address originating from there made that search and so I had I had thought while I was doing this stuff with the grocery store I kind of thought wouldn't it be interesting if we could look at sort of mass shootings and things like that there's always this oh he's a it was planned he's a patsy or whatever and so I started looking up mass shooters as they would happen or high-profile crimes as they would happen and look and see

were these term search, was this guy's full name search anywhere, it shouldn't have been? And so I did it with different things, and I talked to a guy I was working with at the time. And we were talking about the Thomas Matthew Crooks, and I'd done the search with him. And, you know, he pops up in Washington, D.C. the week before. He pops up over. Interesting. Yeah. And so, and again, why is he popping up there? Now, do I know it's that Thomas Matthew Crooks they're looking for? No, it could be any Thomas Matthew Crook's. But if you put it in quote, you know it was searched in that order. And you then can look and say, well, he wasn't searched in Virginia.

He wasn't searched in West Virginia, but he was searched in D.C. Or he was searched in Maryland or he was searched in New York. And so you can't say who's doing the search. You can't say why they were doing the search. You can't say that it was definitely that Thomas Matthew Crooks. But I started doing it for all these things. And it was always really interesting to me. And I was sort of in my mind had created this fake mass shooting

or real mass shooting, fake school shooting or real school shooting based on these searches. And so after the Charlie Kirk shooting, a day or two later, the guy was like, have you done it with that guy that got arrested? Tyler Robinson? I was like, no. He's like, you should. I was like, all right. So I did.

I started looking at Tyler James Robinson, Tyler Robinson. I looked in Utah, Arizona, Washington, D.C. I always found that you get an interesting hit in the Northern District of Alabama around Huntsville because the FBI headquarters or FBI centers there. A few of those things in Huntsville, too. And so I started looking at all of the names associated with the case, Lance Twigs, Tyler Robinson. And I started seeing this really weird things.

And I was talking to a buddy of mine. And I was like, what do we do with this? And I was like, I should get this to podcasters. And so I would take the screencaps, and I would email it to Ian Carroll, email it to Canis Owen. Now that I'm on the receiving end of those emails, I realize how insane.

that email had to sound insane I'm so terrified of going back and even reading it because I don't want to see myself in that light because I get these emails now from people with the yarn boards behind them you know yeah we get a few but I was trying to get the information out to someone else

I didn't want to cover it because I felt like you know it sounds dangerous because Israel was a country that kept popping up in these searches and And so finally, no one would bite on it. No one would email me back. And I was like, you know, to hell with it. We'll just do it ourselves.

So I fired up the camera one night and just went over it. And like my normal 35 people watching, maybe 50. Not a lot of people were watching your humble host at the time. And so I, you know, do my show, turn a camera off at the end, didn't think much about it, went to bed. A week later, you know, I did another show the next Sunday. night because I'd looked and I found out the name of the surgeons at Tempanooga's hospital. So I looked all them up and I found the name of the lawyers that were involved. So I looked them up.

And I started seeing these really weird patterns that why is someone in Israel searching seven surgeons that work at Tempanooga's hospital in June and July of 2025? Like why? Yeah, it's really weird. And you can't tell me the searches didn't take place. They did. it's possible somebody in West Virginia had a VPN that they had set to

originate in Israel and they were doing the searches. Like I don't know why the searches were coming out of Israel, but I know they were. And they were coming out of Washington, D.C., and they were coming out of other places they shouldn't have been. Like, I could see someone in Utah saying, I need surgery at Tempanooga's, who are the surgeons and looking them all up.

I can't see someone in Washington, D.C. doing that. I can't see someone in Israel doing that. It didn't make sense to me. So I went and covered that. And then as we would learn more and more information about the case, I would always do this Google Trends analysis. So I ended up doing like six or eight weeks worth of shows on just Google Trends. I covered no other aspect of the case, really. And then there were a couple other mass shootings that popped up along the way, and I would cover those as well.

There was one in North Carolina. A guy shot up a bar, and I looked his name up, and I was like, this looks like a fake mass shooting. And here's why. And then there was a guy who went after a Mormon church or something in Michigan at the time. and I was like, I think that might be real because I can find no evidence anyone was looking for this guy. But I just was going through these different things and I'm a consumer of live podcasting.

And so Ian Carroll was doing free speech Friday. My wife said, oh, I got to get gas. I got to go somewhere in the morning. So I'm going to go get gas. And I was like, let me go get gas. I'm just going to watch a podcast anyway. So I put the podcast up on the dash of the minivan and I'm driving to Kroger to get gas.

and Ian Carroll comes on and I'm all excited because I know what I'm doing for the next couple hours and I always look forward to that show. I loved it. And he's like, man, we got something interesting tonight. We've got this guy, this new podcaster, he's got like no subscriptions. No one's ever heard of this guy. He's like, he's doing great work.

And I was like, hell yeah, who is this guy? I cannot wait. Put me on someone new. This is great. I'm tired of listening to the same people. And he was like, his name is Baron Coleman. And I was like, oh, no. I was like, this, I did not. need this. And so I called my wife and I was like, turn eating on. This is, this could, this could be weird. And so then I get home that night and I've got, you know, hundreds of emails of people like,

you know, hey, I found you online. I'm like, oh gosh, you know, I've taken no steps to protect myself in any way, really. And it just sort of took off from there. You know, I had 300 and something subs and it went to a thousand and it was, I remember being on a plane with my sister, going to my niece's wedding and and I looked and I was like I got 3,000 subs. I was like I never thought I had 3,000 people watching my show. That's crazy. And then I went back and looked at the old episodes and had like 20, 30,000 views. I'm like, who the hell is watching this? You know, why would anyone tune me in? You get shot out by Ian. Yeah, it made a huge difference. And so it just sort of took off from there. And I didn't want to be pigeonholed as the Google Trends guy. And I felt like that

it kind of run its course and I felt like I, you know, was, was a decent enough broadcaster that could cover other stuff and if people were interested at all in the Google Trends stuff, maybe they'd stick around to hear me cover other stuff too. So I started looking at other aspects of the cases. I got interested in them. Before we get to that, on the Google Trends thing, this is just something I always wonder, because it's kind of wild when you look after something crazy happens and then you'll see like, as you said, the full name with the middle name searched in places. And I'm always like trying to put myself in the seat of, people part of like a conspiracy to do this and I'm like

yeah human beings even ones that are supposed to be smart in dark positions they make stupid mistakes but why in so many instances do you think people actually like take the time on Google without doing anything maybe they put a VPN on maybe they do that but like don't you think they could get like an Edward Snowden NSA computer so that it's not through fucking Google that they're searching for a guy or maybe just don't search for the guy that's gonna be a middle of your conspiracy all together like why Why do they do this shit and leave a trail other than to make sure someone smart like Baron Coleman catches it because they want you to?

I don't think most people knew this tool existed. I had to introduce people to the tool. Most people had never heard of it. Really? Yeah. Most people did. I mean, most of the people watching the show had never heard of it. Had no idea the capacity of it or how powerful of a tool it was or what it was even doing.

Yeah, it's been around a while. Yeah. It's been around since 2004, I think. It's been around a long time. But that ambiguity or that lack of knowledge or maybe just ignorance and it's just ignorance and it's been around a while. classical sense, that ignorance of Google Trends allowed people to attack the tool or attack the use of the tool in the Tyler Robinson case because people were like, oh, that's not what Google Trends is. You can't identify a single search.

Well, no, you can. You know, if that search shows up, that search was done. It was done. It absolutely happened. And so it's, you know, I think part of it is people just didn't realize it existed. I do see now that these searches are not being run on a lot of these math. shootings. It used to be almost all of them. Almost all of the mass shootings, you could find the shooter searched in particular jurisdictions in advance, three to six months in advance, and then again

a month in advance, then again a week in advance, a lot of times a day or two before. It's so strange. Yeah. It's just wild. And there's some that you couldn't, like the shooter down at Parkland in Florida. I could find... Nicholas Cruz. I think it was his name. I could find nothing on that guy. And that was a kind of a weird situation there. Like, that's one I expected to find a lot on. I found nothing. Um, there's no lights in that kid's eyes. Nothing, nothing home there. He went and got a Coke at a subway and just like chilled out. Yeah. Like, that's, that's a different type of different type of person. Yeah. Um, yeah, no lights. That's a good way to describe it. Um, but anyway, yeah, I mean, that's, that was kind of the limitation of the Google trends is just that

people weren't familiar with it. But because people weren't familiar with it, I think it had value because people were just Googling names. They're like, oh, we're using a guy named Thomas Matthew Crooks. Let's look him up. Does he have a social media profile? You know, what's he? Is there a picture online?

What are they going to see when they Google his name after this happens? I don't know that that's what was happening. I can't say definitively that's what's happening. But in the absence of hard knowledge, the mind kind of runs wild on these things. Now, the first few weeks when you're doing that and focusing on the show with the Google trends, though there's a lot of information coming out from the government fast and furiously about

you know what they are saying happen here this is what it is this is oh there were texts with Tyler Robinson his alleged lover by the way his lover was trans there's that angle here he wrote this stuff on the bullets what was standing out to you again outside the trends right away that you're like what the fuck that doesn't make sense like from the jump um it's hard to it's hard to to dissociate the Google Trends analysis I was doing because the Lance Twigs thing was always suspect because Lance Twigs was a far more persistent result on Google Trends for a much longer period of time than Tyler James Robinson was. Really? Yeah, overseas and in District of Columbia. He would pop up from time to time going back to when he was a teenager, 16, 17 years old. You would see him with his

full name, Lance Tyler Twigs and Lance Twigs. How old was he now in 2020? 25? I don't know. 22, maybe, three. So several years. Yeah, like 2021, 22, it starts popping up. Interesting. And my thought in this is, you know, how do you become a Patsy? I think, I think there are hundreds of thousands of available Patsies at any given moment. Probably because people are looking up stuff online, they shouldn't be looking up. They're saying things in Discord chats they shouldn't be saying. They're trying to meet up with people they shouldn't be meeting up with, primarily young people. And so you end up with this pool of available people

that any one of them would rather go to prison for accessory to a murder than what they're trying to do online. And so it's hard to segregate those two things in my mind. It's hard to take the story of Tyler Robinson that we're being fed without the Lance Twiggs component, being this persistent showing up, looking to me like a federal, operator, or at least an asset of some sort from the very beginning, from his late teenage years.

And, you know, then the stories come out that his parents were having a lot of problems with them. And, you know, his grandparents were having problems with him. Twigs. Twigs, yeah. And so it looks like you have a problem child who's chronically online, who's obviously sexually disturbed. God knows what his internet search history look like.

God knows what kind of discord groups and Reddit pages he was looking at and all kinds of other stuff. A guy like that is ripe, you know, to, we can offer you a way out of this. And so I sort of always took it from that perspective. That's sort of what made me starting to, that's what made me start to be skeptical of the whole story from the beginning is the Lance Twigs component, not the Tyler Robinson component. That's interesting. So you were pulling on to that more.

Was there a thought there early on where you're like, damn, I wonder if Tyler Robinson even did this all together? Yes. I was willing to accept he did it initially. I kind of took it at face value. Why did you take it at face value? Yeah, thank you. I have a mute.

I don't know if you've ever watched me. I cough a lot. It's just part of me. Yeah, yeah. I've seen you do it. It's just part of me. So I have a mute button that I've installed and I use it a lot. But I was willing to accept Tyler did it.

But I was willing to accept he was set up to do it. Set up to do. Like he was not brainwashed, but pushed, radicalized, nudged. You know, we got to do something. He's coming on campus. You know, this is our chance. You're the guy. You know, you've got the gun.

You know how to shoot. That kind of thing. I kind of always associated Lance Twigs with a setup from the beginning. And I associated Lance Twigs with a kind of an asset. aspect from the beginning. And so it was easy for me to see kind of that two steps to Tyler Robinson. It wasn't until I sort of got fascinated with watching people try to recreate the shot, a 30 out six shot, and they were shooting absolutely everything. And, you know, Green Bray podcasters and sniper podcasters saying this is not a 30 out six. It had to hit body armor.

It had to have hit something else. It had to be a lower caliber round. It had to come from a different direction. There's no way a 30 out six from that direction did this damage. It's impossible. And that's sort of what led me to, well, maybe there was something else. Maybe there was another person. Maybe it was some. You know, Chris Martinson had that theory that he was shot with a lower caliber round from a different angle. And so I sort of ran down that rabbit hole for a while. Did Chris have a, like have someone in the crowd that he could point to on that?

Or was he, was he just basing it off what he could see ballistically? No, he didn't. I don't think he ever pointed anyone in the crowd. I think he was thinking Sorensen's center roof. Okay. Because that's the right angle to do the damage that was claimed. So that's a different roof than the one that Tyler was allegedly on? Yeah, so the Lose Center is pretty straight ahead.

You know, maybe offset a degree or two. I think it was nine degrees offset. The Losey Center roof is kind of to Charlie's, I don't know, 10 o'clock. No, not 10 o'clock. Whatever that is over there, 10 o'clock. And that would be more of an angle because remember Andrew Colbeck came out with that tweet, allegedly quoting the doctor

saying that his Can we pull that tweet up Dee if I love that one? His C1 through C6 were impacted It's a miracle Yeah and so Martinson I think

is trying to reconcile damage to the vertebrae with with angle of a gun The angle a gun would have had to come from in order to do that damage and so he was sort of leaning

towards the Losey Center I was still thinking gunshot at the time I mean it you know this was late 7th September, early October. But I was sort of on the gunshot train, but not a 30 out six from the Losey Center, again, because all the ballistic experts, they were shooting thousands of things.

I mean, they were shooting steel plates and cast iron skillets and stop signs. And they were shooting ham bones and hamhawks and necks and pigs and cows. I mean, they were shooting everything. And it was just blowing right through everything. And they were shooting it from 142 yards. And it would just blow through everything. And it would blow through the concrete block after it blew through everything. And so it never made sense to me that a bullet could arrive from the Losey Center at that angle, a 30 out six round with that much energy and stop in his neck within like, what, three inches? Right. And Deep just pulled up the tweet. This was from, I believe, September 20th, 20, 25, 10 days after the one you referenced with Andrew Colvette. And when I did the podcast for Joseph

Scott Morgan, like we read this one out too, because even if somehow this were true and to be clear, I don't believe this. It's like the fact that he wrote this whole thing out, presumably read it back to himself because the grammar looks good, so it seems like he edited it. And I don't know if he did the old rule my mom used to say, which is count the five before he pressed send. But like the fact that he pressed send on this in a nation that was once told that a magic bullet went through fucking 40 different regions to somehow kill the president of the United States and thought this was not going to be taken the wrong way.

blows my mind from like a just intellectual discourse level. But just to read it for people to have context so you understand what we were referring to. This was Andrew Colvette on September 20th, 20, 2025. He says, I want to address some of the discussion about the lack of an exit wound with Charlie. I'm usually not interested in delving into the most of this kind of online chatter. And I apologize, this is somewhat graphic. But in this case, the fact that there wasn't an exit wound is probably another miracle. And I want people to know. I just spoke with the surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital. It's interesting from a hippa. standpoint, but that's neither here nor there. He said the bullet, quote, absolutely should have gone

through, which is very, very normal for a high-powered, high-velocity round. I've seen wounds from this caliber many times, and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two down, an elk, et cetera, unquote. But it didn't go through. Charlie's body stopped it. I mentioned to his doctor that there were dozens of staff students and special guests standing directly behind Charlie on the other side of the tent, and he replied, quote, it was an absolute miracle that someone else didn't get hit, unquote. Quote, his bone was so healthy and the density was 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, unquote. In the end, the coroner did find the bullet just beneath the skin. Even in death, Charlie managed to save the lives of those around him. Remarkable, miraculous. Well, and I agree with him. It would have taken a miracle. Like there's, he even admits, again, taking this at face value, which I I don't take anything he says at face value.

But if you take that at face value, the surgeon comes right out and says, hey, this doesn't happen. At 30 out six doesn't stop in that little bit of soft tissue in the neck. It just doesn't happen. That's not a thing that happens. It's a miracle that it did. And so even that, you look at that and you say, okay, it wasn't a 30 out six to the neck. It couldn't have been. It would have gone through.

Would it matter? So what was the gun used here again in Mouser? Is that right? Yeah. So when you're seeing all these different demonstrations from berets and snipers and stuff like that who were doing this like qualified guys who were doing it online, were you seeing it with people using all different kinds of guns, including the gun or a similar one that was used here? Yeah, they were using everything down to, you know, 223 up to 30 out six. And, you know, nobody knew at the time. Was it a frangible round? Was it, you know, 150, 170 grain? Was it 180 grain? Nobody knew what it was. was. But they were committed to the 30 out six narrative. And it doesn't matter what you put in a 30 out six. It's going through. I mean, Jesse on fire and Heavy Duda Country did a demo with frangible rounds. These are frangible rounds from like the 1940s. Can you explain that to people

who don't understand guns and bullets out there? Yeah. So a regular full metal jacket round is designed not to break up. It's supposed to go through. A frangible round is designed to break up. to hit something hard and stop. It stops redirection. It stops people, you know, innocent bystanders from getting hit. And so it's, it will turn kind of to dust if it hits the right, right density of an object. But can it like mushroom too? So that, you're thinking of kind of a soft point that will sort of mushroom when it hits.

But no, I mean, a frangible round typically. He's not going to mushroom. Full metal jacket can have a little mushrooming, but it's not designed really to do that. But yeah, I mean, it didn't matter what they threw at it. Anything they fired went through much thicker things than a neck, much denser bone than vertebrae. And so, you know, instantly I began to doubt that narrative,

and I'm thinking, okay, if it wasn't a 30 out six, and it wasn't from the Losey Center, Where did it come from? It had to be a gunshot, right? Where did this gunshot come from? And so I sort of ran down that rabbit hole for a while before you realized that rabbit hole doesn't hold much weight either. Because even a lot of the lower caliber rounds are going to pass right through.

I mean, a neck is not that much tissue. It's soft, you know. As you're thinking about this at this point, where's your head going with what this was? Did you have any idea of like, in your opinion, what this could be or who might be behind it or things like that, or was it too early? No, it wasn't too early at all because, again, the Lance Twigs component made me think there might be some sort of government aspect to it. I couldn't at the time think of why the government would want to kill Charlie Kirk. That didn't make sense to me.

He'd been a huge friend of the president, you know, rightly and wrongly credited with getting the president reelected. He was friends with the president's son. He was, you know, business partners with the president's son. And so in my mind, I'm thinking, okay, if this is a government, operation, it has to be rogue. It has to be something that is operating below the office of the president, but at a high enough level that you could actually pull this off. You're not going to get a bunch of E5s out there, like, let's kill Charlie Kirk, you know, and run and do something. So, you know, that's sort of where my mind was, was this was probably a domestic military operation,

but below the office of the president. Did you have a motive in mind or like a reason they would want Charlie Kirk gone? The Iran War. That was why. Yeah. I mean, that's the only thing I could think of. He was pretty adamant. And a lot of the clips were starting to get replayed. The clip from the PBD podcast back in 2023. I remember that when it came out. Yeah, that was pretty devastating. That was like, I would cite that to people at the time when I'm like, Charlie Kirk was saying this. I'm like, this is most fucking, you know, pro-Israel kind of dude ever saying this like five days after October 7th where he was talking about the, I've been to that cause of border. You know, I don't know how. It wasn't only that, though. He seemed to have insider knowledge of the plan looking back because he said, you know, I don't even want to use the word. He said, okay, I'll use it.

Ethnic, cleanse it. They're going to ethnically cleanse it, you know. And at the time, I thought, how can you ethnically cleanse Gaza? That's crazy. You'd have to either kill everyone or relocate him. I mean, that didn't even make sense. But looking back, you go, oh, maybe he did know something. And maybe that knowledge, as he continued to turn and push harder on that subject,

Like maybe that knowledge is what got him killed. At the time, at the time, and this is a way different world then. But I remember watching that at the time. And when he did the like and looked up to the sky like this, I was like, you know, I'm not, I was even going where you just were with like, oh, maybe he knew like something about it. But I was going, what is the weight behind that? The weight of him just giving an opinion on this saying, hey, I'm just throwing this out there. Don't shoot the messenger. but maybe maybe it could be this like you could tell he was like i'm really gonna fucking say

this do i did i take enough at her all day yeah you know and then he did well he looked up he he was he was recalling a conversation in my opinion he was recalling a conversation he was looking up like what what words did he use okay used ethically cleansing that's that's how i took it um you know and then and then they tried in vain for two years to get him back on the team and weren't successful. Here's the thing, though. From what I could see, and I'm just seeing social clips at the time, I can't say I'm like the closest

person watching Charlie Kirk while he's doing this, but like, I would see clips pop up of him doing things, not even on college campuses, but like at conferences and stuff like that. I'm talking in 24, 25, where like the Israel topic would come up, and he would vociferously defend it.

And we now can see from like some texts and stuff behind the scenes and conversations that were happening in what I've seen, especially until those recent texts that Candace put out, which I think is something we've got to come back to. But like July 2025, August 2025, the Hamptons meeting, you know, when he did the thing with Dave Smith. And Dave Smith talks about what they talked about offstage before that debate at the end of July 2025. That's where you could start to see him at least like saying some things out loud on his show when you look at clips. But before then,

after the PBD thing, what he thought privately is one thing, but everything he still did publicly to me was very much still like defending the shield here. Yeah, until August, that's when he started dropping the mask a little bit. The Megan Kelly interview, I think it was August 6th. Yep. Two days after the Hampton sign. Yeah. That was the first time I recall him publicly dropping the mask after that PBD interview.

And, you know, so in my mind, you know, going back, you were asking me where I was in September October, it wasn't an international operation, but I thought it probably had international okay because of the searches that originated from overseas. And you were thinking, it's interesting, though, that that early you were already thinking the Iran war, because, again, the narrative, huge air quotes there, but the narrative at the time was, oh, we did that 12-day thing, we came in and bombed. Florida, the nuclear, now you and I know this is like bullshit. But the nuclear, the nuclear stuff's gone. So we've stepped out and we're not going to war. And so in my head, I was like, yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.

But at the same time, I will admit, I still wasn't thinking, like from that point, June 20, 25, I wasn't thinking sometime in the next 12 months, we're going to seriously be looking at boots on the ground, like as a real plan in Iran. And then that became like a, within eight, nine months, conveniently after Charlie's dead, they were already talking about it. Like, okay, we're starting a war now, and maybe we're going to put boots on the ground. Yeah, I mean, but you knew, I knew everybody in the lead-up to the 12-day war, we all kind of had the same thought, or a lot of us on our side of that issue had the same thought, which was this is going to spiral out of control into World War III. You know, the Iranians are proud people. They're not just going to let people come in and bomb them and go, oh, okay, well, we're sorry, guys.

Sorry about that. it had the potential in the capacity to get very ugly, very quickly. And Charlie coming out talking about it in the way he did, it just, that's a problem. If you're going to go forward, that's a problem you have to deal with. You can't just leave that loose end hanging out there.

Why not deal with it earlier, though, if they knew that that was already a thing he was thinking behind the scenes? The reason I asked that, that is because by the time, if it is alleged like they did deal with it, in September 2025, respectfully, the horse has left the barn. You look at people below 55 in this country, left, right? It's a very unifying issue. Like, what the fuck was he even going to do about it at that point?

He was getting killed by his own people. Well, we don't know that they didn't try. So, you know, the fact that something happened on September 10th doesn't mean that there wasn't a very similar operation in place in a April in December the year before that. Like you can't, you can't say definitively this was the only time that they tried. And had they gone on September 10th and something went wrong and they called off the operation, you and I would not be sitting here talking about it. Maybe they would have done it September 29th or October 5th.

You know, we don't know that this was the only time that he walked into a death circle and there was a plan to take him out. It could have been, but like, what if it had rained that day? Right. You know, if the plan is to take him out, you're not going to let a rain shower ruin it. You're going to just, okay, here's our backup plan. Here's the next place we're doing it.

You know, it's not lost on me that all of his first events were like in Colorado and Utah. They're all right there together. So. How prior to September 10th, when he was going back out on this tour publicly, colleges, you know, in the year before that, how good and deep, you know, by manpower was his security team everywhere he went? How much did we know about that? I want to say Brian Harpole

said they typically carried six with them. And that was on the Sean Ryan show. And I don't, quote me on that, because maybe he's at five or seven. But I want to say it was six. Because I remember I remember the impression it left with me after that show was that they had doubled his security for that day. And I think he said they had 12 or 13 people on the ground that day. And so that would be, I think, fairly average for him. Now, obviously, you know, he's not a president, so it's not a Secret Service team. It doesn't have, even if it's a deep security team, it doesn't have that kind of resources. But, you know, from what you've been able to gather in the past, was there a protocol with any of his security teams when he would

go do public events outdoors that were near roofs where they would scan some roofs and see if there were any security limitations on those? I have no idea. Okay. That would be interesting to know if they'd ever done that. I think it crossed their mind because multiple of them in the aftermath have commented on the fact that when he walked in, they looked up and saw all the roofs and it made him uncomfortable.

I can't imagine that was the first time it had dawned on anybody that roofs, particularly in light of what happened in Butler the July before. I can't imagine that's the first time it had ever dawned on anybody. Roofs or a major vulnerability. Yeah. I would, especially after Butler, you would think you'd be thinking of that fucking anywhere. This is over a year after that.

The other thing that was weird right from the jump to me, I talked with you about this on the phone, but I'll never forget when, so he died on a Wednesday, and then Friday morning, like we said, that was when they said Tyler Robinson had been arrested. And then I had a wedding to go to on Saturday. That was like six hours away.

I was going to get up early and drive there. So Friday night, I'm sitting in here, I'm working, and I see something on Twitter that his wife, Erica, is going to come out and give a statement. I'm like, okay. So I pull up the live stream on YouTube. And I just remember seeing her walk in, and the only thing I felt was guilt.

Because right away, that thing in my gut that goes, what the fuck, something ain't right here, this ain't real. I've never had that thought in a situation like this before. It was blinking on a 12. And I'm watching this and I'm like, and everyone's, I'm going to Twitter and everyone's like praising her. It was like a mass like campaign of people being like,

oh my God, bravest woman ever, yada, yada, yada. And I remember shutting the computer afterwards and like just being quiet. And I'm like, that's an impure thought. So mean. This is a grieving widow. Don't think that. But then I'm driving to the wedding the next day and I'm thinking about it. in the car, I could not get it out of my head.

And so Sunday morning, driving back from the wedding, back up here, I call up my buddy Danny Jones. And it was like the two of us were like coming out of the closet. Because I'm like, hey man, you know, we talk like every day. Okay, what's going on? I'm like, you watch that thing the other night? What thing? Oh, the thing with what? I'm like, yeah.

What, what do you think? And he's like, bro, was so weird. I'm like, oh my God, it was so weird to me too. I was so, oh my God, I felt like I couldn't tell you what about this? He's like, dude, something's off. And he's like, even my wife said it. And, you know, women pick up on that shit real good. They know that shit.

And we were just talking about it. And I'm like, what is that? And, you know, still the narrative was you'd go on social media. Most people were like, oh, she's so brave. And then you get the WWE wedding with the VIX in the fucking, you know, no ugly crying. Yeah. I know people grieve weird. But like at what point was it the WWE wedding or funeral, I'm sorry, was it before that, was it after that?

At what point did you start saying to yourself, wait a minute, something ain't right there? Yeah, so it wasn't that for me. I mean, I watched it. I watched the speech. And looking back at it, it sends all kinds of crazy alarm bells off. But at the time, you know, whatever. And actually the guy I was talking to when we were first learning about it in real time and the pictures were coming out, the videos were coming out. he called me back

I want to say Monday or Tuesday so what was that like the 15th maybe something like that it was a day or two before she was announced that she was going to be

the person and he said hey I've got some information out of TPPUSA I know who they're going to put in Charlie's place because we had talked about the day he died we talked about

who would take over TPSA is just even if it's just a placeholder and he had mentioned Tyler Boyer he had mentioned Benny Johnson he had mentioned

Justin Strife, the C-O, you know, he'd just been appointed to this new executive role. Why not just put him in there for a little while? And then he had mentioned Erica Kirk, and I was like, who the hell is that? Like, who is Erica Kirk? You know, I didn't know if Charlie's wife was. And then I saw her give that speech, and then he called me back a couple days later. He's like, they're going to give it to Erica. And I was like, why?

And he was like, I said, you know what? I actually probably still have that text. I think the initial part of the conversation was by text. He said, I was like, well, you know what? I think it's the right thing to do in the short run because I viewed Tyler Boyer as an opportunist and kind of shady. Benny Johnson, I thought, was like a total disaster. And, you know, TPSA at the time, even if you didn't like Charlie, it had value.

It had the ability to turn voters out for conservative causes, Republican candidates at the college level. It just did. And, you know, some of the states where, you know, are decided by 500 votes or 1,000 votes or 10,000 votes, turning out a couple of college campuses might make the difference. I don't think he's the reason Trump won either election. People say that a lot. And he's credited with that. But I'm not sure that's true.

But some of the states get pretty tight. And turning out a bunch of college kids could be helpful. And so I thought, okay, yeah, Erica is probably not bad. She didn't do a terrible job in that speech or whatever. But before the memorial, I had a friend who was going to go to the memorial and backed out and decided not to. He's like, this is too weird. Something way too weird is going on with this. This is, I don't feel comfortable with it.

Already booked a plane. Already booked a hotel room. And just said, no, I'm not going. And so there was already this weirdness that was going around in advance of the big shebang, the WWE. what you call it, WVE wedding. WV.E funeral, whatever. Felt like a wedding. It did.

I mean, she wore white. She dressed like it too. She wore white. But yeah, I mean, I think, I look back and say, hey, let's assume this was an operation to kill Charlie. And everyone was in on it. Like, everyone Charlie knew was in on it. They've done absolutely everything wrong to get away with it. Absolutely everything.

Starting with bringing Erica out. Like, she's been a disaster. you know, as you dig into her past, as you uncover her prior statements, as you look into inconsistencies and stories she tells, on down to how they met. I mean, frankly, Charlie was in on that inconsistency as well. What was it that they weren't a customs line in Israel or something? Well, that's when she says she first saw him. But, you know, there's this story that their first date was at Bob's Burgers in New York

City. And that, you know, Charlie slid into her DMs and very slyly invited her to a job interview and then turned it into a date and said, I want to date you. I don't want to hire you. So this is like a cute fairy tale story. I think it's probably mildly illegal by HR standards. But I was going to say. It seems like a crossline. But we'll let him have it. We'll let him have it. It didn't hire her, I guess. So yeah, he didn't. So maybe he got away with it. But then Tyler Boyer is seen on a podcast saying, no, no, no, no, they went on a date before when she was here in August. the month before that or two months before that. And, you know, I was hyping Charlie up for the date.

They went to a gym together. And so, I mean, like, everything about everything she says falls apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny. And she's just strange acting. I mean, even if she's an innocent grieving widow, she's the strangest innocent grieving widow of all time. So if you're trying not to draw scrutiny to the situation, running her out there is the worst thing you can do.

Yeah. Had they just put her away. for like even a year. You know, hey, we've decided we're going to let Erica Kirk run this thing. She's going to be the CEO. But we're giving her the year on a sabbatical to spend with her family. She'll be in charge. She'll be overseeing everything.

But she has expected to keep no office hours. She's going to do no events. She's going to go and grieve. And Justin Strife is going to run the place in the meantime. Or Tyler Boyer is going to run the place in the meantime. I don't think there would be a lot of scrutiny on this case. I think a lot of the scrutiny comes from the feeling you had that, September 12th, the feeling your friend had that September 12, the feeling your friend's wife had

that September 12, the feeling a lot of us had by the end of the WWE funeral. It was just too weird. And then by the time she's showing up at events, tossing out merch, coming out to fireworks. And I mean, it's, it's, everything went wrong. And then it's like they realize, oh, well, this version of Erica Kirk's not working. So let's, let's overcorrect. And let's go to, she's only going to wear black now. Whenever she's seen in public, she's going to, she's to wear black. Except the time she's in her Little Bo Peep outfit. Then we're going to, then she's going to be Little Bo Peep if she's in Arkansas. Like, who is she? No one dresses that. You see how I'm dressed. I wear. I wear hoodies. That's what I wear. I wear hoodies and t-shirts. If you catch

me in a Little Bo Peep outfit, something's gone terribly wrong. I'm not, I'm not being myself. So I think there's, I think, I think what you perceived, maybe other people took longer to perceive, but I think it's sort of ubiquitous by now. Yeah. And like you said, it's the optics of it too, that you just, from a PR perspective, which shouldn't be what this is about, by the way, it should be about an investigation trying to get to the truth here. But just at the top layer of PR, the fact that people around TPUSA presumably couldn't see

that this was, she just made it worse every time she went out to the point that she was still given, you know, live speeches on his show that somehow still named after him, even though he's dead, you know, in like April and May, I'm like, guys, it's been seven months. The polling's in. You know, this is a Jeb Bush. It's not working. This is Jeb Bush. Please clap. Right. Right. It's got to be, you know, I didn't, I haven't covered this case a ton on the show. But we talked about it probably about three times before, other than we were live on air when it happened. Obviously, we were like all stunned.

I was with Nate and Chris from the religion business when that happened September 10th. But, you know, I didn't do like full podcasts on it. And then a couple things happened. My guy Alessi has been with me forever, was up in town. He lives down in Florida now. And he came up here. So we recorded one on his podcast when he was here. And he asked me about it a little bit.

And we talked about it in some of those clips, especially the ones with Erica, went a little viral. where I gave some opinion. Then I had Clint Russell in here as well, and we talked about it for about 15 minutes. But until I had Joseph Scott Morgan in here to like just break down to the forensic side of it, we hadn't talked about it in depth. But you have, you've done 150 plus episodes on this at this point. And, you know, you were talking about this right away. So, you know, what was it like in, in October, you know, to be raising those kinds of questions, even about someone who's like a grieving widow and all that at a time where, like, you know a lot of people might take that the wrong way even if that is like what we are clearly feel many of us were clearly feeling and seeing was that a little nerve-wracking to talk about it that

way i didn't talk about her i didn't i gave her the benefit of the doubt um for months and what changed the book tour uh in december it was so bizarre so weird um the interview with very weiss uh the fox and friends appearance um every i watched all of them it and every single appearance she did that week. I think it was like December 10th to 15, something like that. It was mid-December. Every single appearance she did that week was so bananas that I thought, I've got to. I would fight with my listeners because at the end of my show, I'll do Q and A and I'll just pull up questions and I, you know, depend on how late I want to stay out. But sometimes I'll do two hours of just Q&A with people, just boob, boom, just questions,

questions, questions. And I was fielding questions. And I was fielding questions. on a daily basis at the time. Erica's too weird. You're being too nice. She's not a grieving widow. She killed him. And I was like, guys, you can't say that. And I was saying, I've never lost my spouse.

My spouse is very much alive. We've been married 25 years. Everything's fine, you know. I don't know what I would be like if she was suddenly murdered the next day. I have no idea how I'd react. Maybe I would be weird. Maybe I would act strangely. I'm very, very much not a public crier.

I've gotten sad a few times in public, and I'm the most awkward, sad, public person you've ever seen. I hate it. I'm trying to stop it at the same time, and I just don't like it. It's a very vulnerable position, and if you don't like feeling vulnerable, you don't like being emotional in public. And, you know, I kind of looked at her through those eyes. Maybe she's just very vulnerable. She's had a vulnerable childhood. She had vulnerable relationships.

She's not very confident in her emotions. She doesn't know how to handle them, so she acts weird. I really, this was not me just playing the game. This was not me just talking points. I genuinely thought she was acting weird, but I genuinely didn't know what to make of it and was unwilling to comment on it. And then the book tour happened.

And I thought, no, there's something wrong here, particularly the Barry Weiss interview. I mean, that was so performative to me, so strange. The love for our greatest ally and I mean, it was like so over the top. And I thought, no, there's something here. This is not right.

I still at the time would not come out and say, and I don't believe I've ever said, she killed Charlie Kirk or she planned to kill Charlie Kirk or she was in on it. But I have allowed my mind to speculate. Yeah, what does it speculate? Well, I mean, it speculates that she doesn't have a very good alibi for where she was on September 8th and 9th. It speculates that she doesn't, frankly, have a very good alibi for where she

she was on September 10th. Where did she say she was again? She said she was on September 10th. Yeah. I think she said, I think her current story is, or story maybe is not changed. She was at a clinic with her mom. She was watching the live stream, which is unusual, because that live stream supposedly was not something they typically did.

That was something new they were doing that day. And Terrell Farnsworth told Candace Owens that they were live streaming, quote, back to the ops in Arizona that they were trying to, something new. And the fact that she's at a clinic with her very ill mother, and I do believe her mother's very ill, the fact that she was at a clinic with her very ill mother, but she's watching the live stream of her husband do something he's done, what, a thousand times? Right.

Like, why are you watching that one that day? I mean, you know, Utah Valley University, fine university, not knocking it. It's not Harvard. It's not, you know, it's not Ohio State. It's not UCLA. It's not one of the bigger super high-profile universities in the country. It's a good school in the heart of Utah that has some great students and professors, I'm sure. But it's not, you know, if you're going on a college tour and you're talking on all the college tours, 100 college campuses a year or whatever he was doing, Utah Valley University is not one that would stand out and say, oh my gosh, this is the one I've got to watch live as it has. And so she says she's watching it and she's watching him throw out hats. So obviously they're live streaming the hat throwing. So who was live streaming the hat throwing? Because all the other cameras were just focused on Charlie.

They were just set up on Charlie. Where he was going to be sitting? Yeah. Yeah. So not when he's out standing. Yeah. So whose camera is she watching? Whose camera's fixed on him?

He's throwing out hats. And then she says she puts her phone face down because she's with her mom. And then she said, Mikey called a few seconds. later after it happened. Mikey McCoy. Mikey McCoy, the Charlie's chief of staff. And I think a pretty close family friend of theirs. And, and, you know, that's a, that's a good story.

But is that the Bob's Burger story? You know, did they actually go on a date in Scottsdale before they went to Bob's Burgers? Did they, you know, that's a pretty cool story. But did you actually graduate summa cum laude, you know, from, with a double degree from wherever? Arizona State. That's a pretty cool story, but was that really only your second pageant or was it your sixth? The problem with Erica is it's tough to believe her stories because so many of her stories don't hold up under scrutiny. That's right. And so, you know, if someone asks, where were you on that day, you saying I was with my mom is not very compelling because you say a lot of things that when you

scrutinize them don't really hold up. One of the things I would do if I was her PR person is I would I would get a hold of everything she's ever said publicly from the from the time she was 16 doing beauty pageants until yesterday and I would somehow whether you feed it into chat GPT or whether you just create a spreadsheet or just memorize it I would figure out what your story is and I would make sure you either never address anything on that story ever again or you clarify it yeah

I would also, if I was TPSA, call everybody into a conference room and say, the next person that lies is fired. The next person who tells a story that's inconsistent is fired. Like we have a massive credibility gap. It's starting at the top, but it's bleeding through everybody. Andrew, your Twitter feed is a disaster. It is so easily disprovable on many occasions. So let's stop this.

Let's stop just winging it. Let's get some discipline. Let's get some messaging. and let's stick to it. And if it's not on the sheet, you don't know. If they ask where you were on this day and it's not on the sheet, I don't know. I'll check my calendar and get back to you. Because we're only talking about what's on this sheet from now on.

But that's supposedly where she was on September 10th. And I don't know that I believe it. Have you had, I presume, people from TP USA reach out to you behind the scenes? Yes. Lots. Lots of them. like high up people as well, I take it. What's without revealing specifics of stuff you want to keep private?

Like, what's the nature of that? Shut the fuck up or like, hey, we want to write your path here. You actually have this wrong. We could help you out with that. Like, what are they, what are the types of things they're saying to you? I've been given a lot of corrections where I've speculated on things and they say, here's what actually happened. And I've suddenly made those corrections without burning a source.

Got it. I've had... So meaning you had maybe sources that were around TPUSA or in it that maybe told you something that then wasn't true, verifiably. And you're like, okay. So I don't want to burn them, but... Well, or I had said something publicly on a podcast and somebody said, well, you didn't quite get it right. Here's what really happened. And then, you know, I can subtly make that change over the next few weeks without anyone really realizing that I've talked to someone.

So that's happened a few times. And I've had good contact with a couple of particular people who have given me the temperature of what it's really like in there right now. What's it like in there right now? She's not super supported from some of the top people. Including people that maybe are putting on a face publicly? Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm told.

The information is only as good as people. Tell me. But not super supported, not really running things. It's kind of the, you know, you guys keep saying she's running it into the ground. She's not running much of anything. And that's, you know, that's the two big things. I mean, I've gotten specific piece of information I'm not going to talk about. But that's sort of the general consensus that I keep getting.

Got it. when he was shot obviously we've seen all the video after that we use the word shot oh very loosely there yeah loosely there but you know when when he was when he was hit and went down and everyone sees the blood come out and then you see the security team converge they obviously ended up taking him carrying his body back to the truck there was no ambulance near there I guess at the time so they take him to the truck and what was it five guys in the car with him yeah okay Okay. What are some of the things there that you've taken issue with as far as what's been reported about what happened with this body just going from the point of attack to the car to the hospital? You know, I can't second guess a security team and say what I would have done differently because I've never worked personal security. I've never been trained for it. I don't know all the things that go into it.

You know, it's easier to hire someone to do it than try to figure it out yourself. it's but when you look at it just based on their statements there are a lot of things I think probably went wrong from the beginning for example we talked about the roofs I think three or four people from TPSA have been on record saying that they were concerned about the roofs

well if you're concerned about the roofs you have two options well three really they took the third option and didn't work out the first two options though could have kept them a lot Number one is you either solve the roof problem by putting your own people on the roofs, or you put somebody at a high position that has roof oversight. Like, I've done big events. I've been at big events.

Bigger events than that, frankly, you know, tens or hundreds of thousands of people. And I know the security protocol that we were told, you know, hey, you'll have something in your ear. If you hear a certain word, that's stage clear. Everyone's gone. Shows over, folks. You know, sorry, you will not be getting a refund. Goodbye. why why wasn't that in place why didn't they have somebody at the highest point if they're worried

about the roofs figure out which roof is the highest and stick somebody up there and the second you see somebody in all black climbing on a roof whatever the code word is purple purple purple purple show's over folks charlie's gone sorry sorry to end it eight minutes into the program but you know he's in salt lake city before anyone knows what happened um you know if you're if you're not going to do that, then you have to conduct the entire thing from a different security posture, in my opinion. You have to, you have to, if you're not going to have somebody at high point watching the roofs, or you're not going to have somebody stationed on the roofs, you have to have security run in mind with the roofs or a primary concern. So maybe you're watching roofs from

the ground. Maybe you have somebody stationed in a different place. Maybe you move the tent. Maybe you delay the event an hour to reconvene from a slightly different angle or a slightly different location. I don't know. But I know the third option is the one they chose and it was, hey, Charlie, we don't like the looks of these roofs. These rues look like you're at risk. Here, sit here. Do your show here. We'll make sure nobody's overlooking the roofs. We'll make sure nobody's on the roofs. Just have a seat here, sir. You'll be fine. That's not it. I mean, I've said this many times on my show. If I'm hiring security people, I'd rather have somebody smart than beefy. You know, the fact that you can roll around and shoot a gun while you're rolling is not as impressive to me as watching around as I'm walking down the street.

Not as impressive as having situational awareness and enough of an IQ that you can detect, hey, something's not right. I don't feel good. Let's go a different direction. Let's get out of here. So his IQ is pretty good, man. He's a very smart guy. Struck me no way. We IQ people.

We IQ test people. No, but I mean, that's more of a concern to me. You know, because once the shooting starts, you've lost. That's right. You know, the game's over. I tell people this with a lawyer all the time. Don't get sued. Once you get sued, you've already lost.

I don't care if you win, you've lost. It's going to cost you a lot of money. It's very inconvenient. Warriors win. Yeah. With free speech and journalism, there are some protections because you can always, you know, like anti-SLAPP statutes, for example. I'm sure you're familiar with what you do.

But I think from a pre-show posture, it seems to me evident on its face that there's a failure. But that's not me coming and saying, Brian Harpole's group failed Charlie and got him killed. That's not the point. My point is, as we're second-guessing and looking, the next time somebody does an event and someone doesn't feel comfortable with the roofs, let's evaluate the roofs. Let's think about it. And let's evaluate whether we should do the show at all or should we put people in different places. The excuse they keep giving that, oh, we only have permission to be in this area right here. Well, Tyler Robinson didn't have permission to get on the Losey Center roof either, but he did.

That's their story. So if he doesn't have permission to get up there yet somehow manages to, you've got 12 or 13 people with you and you can't put one person on the highest point in the facility that's overlooking the tent, the Losey Center would have been a pretty good place. You'd have had operational oversight over the entire field. Well, that sounds like a great place to be. Right. When did this particular security team, though, because again, this was a new, this was a new tour he was going on. This was the first one. They put this team together shortly before that, right? It was, those guys hadn't all worked together for Charlie Kirk prior to this point, or am I misremembering that? I think the base of the team had worked for Charlie Kirk for a while. But not every single guy on the team together working for him. I don't know whether we can say they'd never work for him. But I know that they hadn't spent years working with them.

I think we can safely say that. Got it. All right. So you talked about the 30-ought-6 and some of the issues with, you know, wondering how the hell that bullet could have been stopped and all that. And you mentioned, what was the gentleman's name again who initially had the shot from another? Chris Martinson. Chris Martinson. So you mentioned his theory.

What do you, like, bad visual to give, but come to your head. what do you think actually killed him? I don't know. You don't know? I don't know. I don't think it was a gunshot. I don't necessarily think it was a single modality. I think it could have been multiple things taking place at once.

What do you mean by that? Well, I mean, if you're going to, if you've made an operational decision to kill Charlie Kirk, are you going to have the entire operation rest on a single point of failure? In other words, are we going to put a sniper on the roof and hope he kills him? You know, people get shot point blank in the head and live. If the goal is to kill him, you want him dead. Like, you do not want him walking out of there. And so maybe you have built-in redundancy, you know, when you get on an airplane.

There's no critical function that rests on a single point of failure. There's backup, usually triple get backup. That's why planes don't fall out of the sky very often. Cars are different. Cars have single points of failure, but you just pull over to the side of the road. You can't pull the plane over to the side of the road. You know, it's going to fall out of the sky from 35,000 feet. So most critical functions are redundant, and I think in this situation, you probably have redundancy. And so it's undeniable to me that something moved, something caused his shirt to move in a very unnatural way that's inconsistent with a bullet. The road microphone, actually travel with him. I have him with me.

The road microphone goes from his right collar all the way towards the middle of his neck. Those have mass. They're not easy to move. His necklace, which is hanging down by... Wait, they have what? I'm sorry? They have mass. I mean, they're not styrofoam.

Like M-A-S-S? Yeah, bass. Yeah, I mean, they have substance. They're not the heaviest things in the world, but they're not the lightest things in the world. To get one to move at that pace in two frames of a camera, you know, you're talking a 30th of a second, a 15th of a second. to move from your right collarbone to the middle of your neck in in a 15th of a second or 30th of a second that's very very fast something caused that um did it explode did something eject out of it i don't know uh was it damaged did it did it remain whole i don't know um it would be easy to prove it remained whole just you know

those those those record on a 32 bit waveform just release it you know or show us that it kept recording. I think you could fake it, but at least you could try to show that it didn't explode. So his microphone moved. His necklace, the charm was hanging down in the pictures down below his sternum, like right below his zyphoid process right there. It shot up towards his neck at basically the speed of light. I mean, it was so fast. What caused that? That's not a gunshot wound of the neck. That necklaces don't jump that high when you're struck in the neck. There are some angles that look like the necklace on the back of his neck, the chain on the

back of his neck, goes straight back off his neck, or at least his shirt goes straight back off of his neck. And you can still see the neck and I don't see a hole. So if the gunshot wound of the neck is supposedly causing all this stuff, why is this happening before a hole appears in his neck? Now, that's possible the hole was super small, but it didn't look super small with that much blood coming out of it. So there's just a lot of problems with the gunshot narrative that I default to the fact that there's something that was acting on his on his body. There was some force

that was acting on his body. Whether that force came from the microphone, from the necklace, whether it was some high-tech force that we don't even know exists, you know, some sort of, you know, for lack of a better word, like an EMP or something that blasted at him all at once. I really don't know the answer to that. Is there a way that whether it's in like Chris Martinson's lane of a second, an actual second shooter down there, different gun, is there a way that if someone's shooting from much closer than 138 yards, as it was alleged where Tyler Robinson shot,

that, you know, the kinetic energy or types of things that could happen could explain the movement of the mic, of the shirt, of the chain in the back and all that in a more satisfying way than what they say. happened from 138 yards away? I think the closer you are, the more force the 30 caliber round arrives with, the more likely it is to blow out the back of his neck. So I'm not entirely satisfied with that. But I think, you know, I don't think he was shot with a bullet.

If he was, it was a redundancy because the injuries are, in my opinion, and the people I've talked to, I've talked to several medical professionals last couple of days since the prosecution filed their motion that included a few lines from the medical exam. Oh, they filed it. Yeah. I mean, there's injuries from the top of his heart to the top of his head. It's really difficult for me to accept that all of that took place from a single gunshot wound. So injuries meaning like internal bleeding, bruises every day, like a litany of things. Hemorrhaging, I'm not a doctor and there were big words and I had to look up every word

just to understand what they were saying. But I mean, even like the parietal lobe of his brain above it was damaged. I mean, you're talking like two feet worth of injuries. It's something that's just to me unprecedented. Like I looked and looked for examples of those types of injuries from gunshot wounds. You can't find the collection of them in any single gunshot wound to the neck. That I could find. I did not look at every medical exam ever conducted in history. Now, it'd be interesting.

It's way above my pay grade. Yeah, way above mine as well. That's interesting that it's that. It's a tremendous amount of, of, of, of damage. The most telling thing that they filed in their motion was that his C2 to C6 was obliterated. Is that what they wrote? Yeah. The left side, so the side where the wound was, from C2, which is way up here to C6, which is down here, the left side of all those vertebrae were completely obliterated. And his spinal cord was traumatically absent in that range. meaning there was no connection from his brain to his body at all. So even beyond death, when he was hit, he was quadriplegic.

Am I hearing that right? Or I totally put that up? Yes, according to the medical exam. Okay. But then now go back and watch the video. And I can't play the video on YouTube, neither can you, because YouTube doesn't like that video. But if you go back and watch the video, after this all happens, after his C2 to C6 spinal cord is completely gone. Traumatically absent, completely transected from that.

He fences. Do what? He fences, right? He clenches both fists. He flexes his elbows, his knees stay out, he stays erect, his head stays up. And there's no way, again, way above my pay grade, there's no medical explanation for that being physically possible. No, I talked to a neurosurgeon yesterday after that came out, or two days ago, whenever it was. I talked to a professor of that, that, I can't remember what his title was, but, but, but,

but it was long. And I had them go over this with me line by line. And both of them agreed. And the professor started giving me citations to PubMed papers that demonstrate that it's impossible. That once you lose, once it transects, you have about one-tenth of a second before everything goes flaccid.

And the way he described it was, he said, I'm not saying flaccid like he would have dropped the microphone. I'm saying he would have lost all. muscle tone from the neck down. Like every muscle would have turned into just goo. It would just, his knees would have collapsed. He would have fallen immediately off the chair.

His head would have immediately fallen over. He wouldn't have held on the microphone and then slowly let it go. Like we watched the video together. Yeah. He wouldn't have slowly let go of the microphone. Everything would have collapsed. Gravity would have taken over to his body instantly. Like he said like a tenth to a tenth and a half of a second is all you have left.

Once those electrical charges are gone, the body's done. It's no longer receiving any input whatsoever from the brain. So I look at that and I say, okay, well, something obviously was still acting on his body. I'd speculated in October because of a medical professional who contacted me. And he said at the time that it looked more like electrocution than a gunshot to him because... Electrocution. Yeah.

He said because of the flexion. And this was after the Andrew Colvette tweet is what prompted him to reach. out because he said, hey, if he had that much damage to his vertebrae, his spinal cord likely was transected and he wouldn't have been holding on to anything. Something had to be powering his nervous system that's not his brain. And the only thing he was holding on to that had power was the microphone. He said, have you looked into the fact that the microphone may have lit him up? And so I started looking up video of singers who would touch those same SM 58 sure microphones. and they did a lot of the same stuff, you know, and fall back to the stage.

So I don't know. I really don't know what it was. But I'm confident, 99.9% confident. It was not a 30 out six to the neck. That would not produce, in my opinion, and I'm not a doctor, but I have talked to them. And they're confident as well. It wouldn't produce those damages. Like something else was going on.

It's possible he was struck with something in the neck. than a 30 out six. It's possible he was electrocuted. It's possible something happened to the road microphone. It's possible something else was strapped to his body that we don't even know was strapped to his body because they were trying something new and streaming back to the ops in Arizona. But to me, the 30 out six narrative died with that filing.

Keep in mind, when a medical examiner does the exam, they're not watching the video. They're just describing what they see. Yeah. You know, and they might very well have seen that damage. but they didn't know he was still flexing and had this apparent decorticoat posture after his C2 to C6 was dramatically absent.

So, you know, to answer the question, how did he die? I don't know. Would you make of the bullet? Did we have a picture of that deep? The bullet they released at the preliminary hearing where they put out it was like a measuring stick. Again, I do live in a country where they released

they talked about a magic bullet, so. Yeah. Well, this is not only... does go up a little bit. This is not only a magic bullet, it's a missing bullet. The lady who tested it for the ATF, the lady who testified about the testing for the ATF, read from a report where seven fragments were removed from Charlie's body. Seven fragments. Yeah. But she only received four in an envelope, in a manila envelope. She received four of the seven. I would think in a murder investigation, you would want, if you pull something out of his body, that would go

along with the rest of the evidence. Where are the other three pieces? Are these the same four pieces that were pulled out of his body? I don't know. It's possible the autopsy photos will show that, yes, in fact, those were exactly what was pulled out of his body. But we also don't know the chain of custody of his body. He wasn't taken by ambulance.

He was surrounded by security people who didn't guard the roof. So that's the casing. Yeah. The one that was at, sorry I forgot to say. The one that actually showed like the aftermath of it. They released their trial. You know, when we did solo number 23 after JSM, I think I'd put that link in that Google Drive folder.

That would have been like three weeks ago. So it should be there. But it shows it next to like in actual measurements. You can see like how the bullet allegedly changed and all that. But like so do you think you would use this word a few minutes ago. I want to make sure I understood this. You said there could have been something that was a redundancy. Meaning like maybe a bullet was fired after he was already hit with something else.

Well, so this would be an example of redundancy. I'm not saying this is it. But let's throw everything in together. You've got, let's say he was the mic electrocuted him. He was shot in the neck. The road microphone exploded. They broke his neck under the table. They, you know.

Broke his neck under the table. Well, what I'm saying is every theory out there is it could be pulled into this redundancy. you know in other words he's walking in and he's not walking out right we'll kill you know we'll rhapsoting this guy all at once if we have to um but once we once we give the signal once we give the go ahead which may or may not have been you know steal third uh you know i've still amused by dan flood stepping forward and touching his right arm and everyone's like oh it's something he did all the time i'm like okay show me him doing that all the time that was such a weird bizarre and And probably if it was a total coincidence, it was the worst timing to step forward about 400 milliseconds before your guys killed.

That is one thing about this. It's like if for some reason like the Fed narrative were mostly right or whatever, the number of things that were the worst possible coincidental timing, forget chaos. I know things are chaotic. But like you couldn't have drawn it up any better. Yeah. I mean, you don't have an ambulance. Your security guy steps forward and does this. Your resident theologian who just decided to show up is grabbing his hat.

You know, you've got like the number of terrible coincidences that would take place if this was just Tyler Robinson on the roof. It would be an interesting discussion. Yeah. So, if this has the measurement on it from the ATF or whatever, this is what they allegedly released. This is where, so we're going to be doing a podcast. you and me later with Joseph as well, which would be cool to have you two be able to go back and forth on stuff like this. So we should probably kind of save this for that because I'm not the guy, but he still shouldn't be right there. You come here. You stand right here. Do not move from this

spot. Yeah. Don't walk around. Don't pour water. Don't pour water on the surface. Please. Of the crime scene. I beg you. Well, I'll proffer that the guy walking around talking to those two cops, grab the chair, set it up under the camera, took the cameras down, moved them, set them on the table, removed some object from it. We believe it's the SD card, that's his story. Remove something from the camera and then walks off. Does that fall below the standard to allow that to happen? Can I play that on a loop? Yeah, that's...

I just wanted that on the record. Yeah, that's... There was something he was explaining with the measurement here and how that would it turned out that way, but what you're seeing is essentially, from what my eye test can see, that's like a mushroomed kind of bullet. Like it hit a wall and stopped. Well, that's just the jacket. That's not the bullet.

Right down there, that is? Yeah, that's the front and back of the same fragment. That's a fragment of the jacket. So the little pieces at the top, those are little pieces of bullet. Up there where it says 8A, 6B. Well, B through E are little pieces of the bullet. So that would be among the seven fragments that she's talking about. Yes.

The ATF wouldn't it? Okay. All right. That makes sense. So what you're seeing at the bottom is the front and back of the same piece. Okay. And she described, what was interesting to me about that was she described the measurement, not with precision, but with a range.

She said the range was 0.286 or 287, something like that, to 0.301 inches. Now, 30 caliber round is called 30 caliber because it's, in theory, 0.30. inches. So, but a 30 out six is actually 0.308 inches. The bore diameter is 0.30, but the grooves inside the bore are 0.308. And so if you take a 308 measured round and you slip it through a bore that's 0.30, but the ridges are 0.308, you should, in my opinion, and from what I've been able to research, have a jacket fragment that measures closer to 0.308 on where the ridges are. There's some compression as it goes through the bore, but I'm not sure you'd lose all of it. But that's obviously for people smarter than I am.

What were the things in the five-day preliminary hearing that stood out the most to you that you felt were just didn't help matters? Well, the biggest inconsistency of the entire five days, in my opinion, they had video footage they showed that they alleged was Tyler Robinson coming back to try to retrieve the gun at 1247 a.m. So 12 hours later. Yeah, roughly 12 hours later. And they show a car that looks a lot like a Dodge Challenger and it's rolling up and this is recovered from doorbell cam footage from across the street. they show a little clip of it. It's very muddy. It's very blurry.

You can't see what's going on. But you can see a door open. You can see headlights and tail lights. But they clipped it. I mean, they just kept showing you a little piece of it, a little piece of it, a little piece of it. And then the prosecution, you know, finishes their examination. And then on cross, the defense is like, hey, the lady who took that, she saw a bald man driving the car with three passengers, right? And the guy was like, oh, I don't know, I don't know.

And she's like, well, that's the statement she gave, right? He's like, well, yeah, she did do a statement where she said she thought she saw a bald man driving with three passengers. Sorry, we forgot that one. Yeah, okay, that would have been good information on direct. That would have been really good information on direct. You know, when you're trying a case, you're not only trying your strengths, you're also looking at your weaknesses. Now, granted, this isn't a trial. You don't have a trier of fact there.

I mean, judge kind of sits as a trier of fact as a magistrate. But you certainly are trying, because of how public this is, trying to capture. the public's trust. To me, the prosecution has to have an explanation for that. Why did she think that? That might be a good time, if you're going to introduce that footage, that might be a good time to go ahead and bring her in and let her explain why she thinks she saw that. Maybe she has glaucoma. Maybe she hallucinates. Maybe she takes Ambien. Maybe she, you know, has a history of mental illness. Maybe she wasn't wearing her glasses that night. But why? You know, if you have a statement from somebody that says, oh, you're saying that Tyler Robinson's car, that was actually driven by a bald man and he had three passengers in the car.

That was a huge problem, in my opinion, because it showed, to me, it showed the prosecution was dishonest. They knew that existed and they did their direct examination and never mentioned it. And I guess they thought the defense either wasn't going to see it or wasn't going to bring it up. I don't know why they would think that. But that to me is evidence. big evidence that the prosecution's hiding the ball on this on this case it's not a strange timeline thing there's a lot of strange timeline things in this case especially as it relates to Tyler Robinson like what the fact that he so you and I talked about this but I'm trying to think like

what you said was off record with this I don't want to say anything wrong well don't risk it or clip it out all right I have a thought you and I'll talk about that after maybe I'll bring that up tomorrow so let me let me punt on that for a second but like You have the video of him that's more HD walking around in hallways around the building. This wasn't a school he went to or anything. So it's like, that's interesting that he was there. So we can at least place him like at the place. And then the video of him that we referenced earlier that Jack Posobic claimed to see things that clearly he didn't see,

you know, up on the rooftop is from far away. And this is someone who at the time when you review that video, because now there's, I think it's the same one. but it's better rendered, the one that Candace put out. You can see it closer, and you can see a figure who does not appear to have a leap, a limp, sorry, a figure who is moving very quickly as a result, does not appear to be physically hiding a gun in his pants as we had seen in some of the other videos as well, and who then gets down into a position, but we can't see him take out a gun or pull a trigger or anything like that. He does a military crawl on the way there, which would suggest he's experienced,

extremely highly trained like he was in the military, which this kid was not, and then is able to get away quickly and run again without a limp off the building, presumably with the gun. And to me, this was like a bit of a shocking video to see because to me it's like, first of all, question, and I'd like to pose this to you, do you think that's Tyler Robinson? No. Okay. Let's start there. So you don't think that's Tyler Robinson. On the roof? But you do, but the video of him walking through the hallways, that's him. So where do you think? I don't think that's him in the hallways either. You don't think that's. him in the hallways, either. No. I don't think you can tell. And in fact, Lance Twiggs, when he was doing his 1102 statement via Zoom for some reason and not in the courtroom or not with a court reporter. Is that strange to do it that way? Yes. In a preliminary hearing? Yes. Okay. Yeah. I think so. I mean, I think it's highly unusual that you would introduce a Zoom call as evidence in a preliminary hearing. Yeah, it's very unusual to me. But they show those six pictures that they have of the alleged Tyler Robinson on campus. And they said, you know, can you identify the

person in there? He's like, well, not 100 percent, not based on those pictures. And he's looking at all six of them, all six pictures. And his face is visible and everything else. And he says, well, yeah, I mean, you know, based on the clothes, he, you know, he's wearing jeans. You know, he's got those shoes. He likes to wear hats. He's wearing a hat here. I've never seen him in that hat, but he's wearing a hat. Yeah, and the sunglasses. Yeah. And then, so you can, in my opinion, it's almost as if somebody's off screen going, dude, that's him. You have to say it's him. Because he's like, oh, yeah, and in those last two definitively, I can say that's him. But yeah, exactly. But he had already said that he couldn't identify him and he was already looking at those two pictures.

So what changed in that 30 seconds of hemming and hauling? It didn't leave a lot of confidence that that's Tyler Robinson. It didn't leave a lot of confidence that Lance Twiggs thought it was Tyler Robinson. Do you think Tyler Robinson was on campus that day? I think he was an orrum. I don't know whether he was on campus. I've not seen evidence that's convincing that he was on campus. Do you have, and this may be like way outside the scope, I'm just asking, but do you know a reason why he would have been in Orm? No.

I mean, I operate under the assumption that he was there to engage in some sort of criminal conspiracy, whether that was to kill Charlie Kirk or cause some sort of mischief at an event or what. but I do think he was probably there as some sort of a group that he believed was going to pull off some sort of criminal activity. That would put him in Orem. Whether or not his role was to ever be on campus, I don't know. So I'm playing out of pure spec, total hypothetical here, but in that type of scenario, could it be something where he and a group of people who may disagree with Charlie Kirk's beliefs were colluding to disrupt an event like that?

And perhaps because they're talking about that on digital spaces, that could be picked up by other people who view that as a very advantageous cover to be able to do something a little, a lot worse than that. Do you think something like that is a plausible scenario? Plausible, sure. You're given a lot of credit to these Discord groups that they're not infiltrated with bad actors on purpose. Oh, sure. That's another. Yeah, absolutely. And that they're not manipulating these groups. That's right. the ones making these comments and they're not the ones opening these X accounts saying, oh, something bad's going to happen. Right. But yeah, I mean, taking it in a very favorable light,

sure, something like that could have happened. Okay. Do you think, based on the video, again, this was what Candace put out the other day, but based on that video, do you think that the person there, if it wasn't Tyler Robinson, is someone who, whether it was a gun, that we can't see very well, that might be a different kind of gun or with some sort of trigger to do something else, is the person who actually pulled off killing Charlie Kirk? No. I mean, I think the person on the roof was one of two things. Either it was another step of redundancy,

meaning the person did have a gun, but it wasn't a 30 out six, because I don't see a 30 out six up there, but it has some sort of weapon up there that could kill Charlie Kirk if needed. And let's say, let's just assume the signal was Dan Flood, stepping forward touching his arm. I'm not, Dan, don't sue me. I'm not saying that's a signal. I'm just assume. Pure speculation. Um, but let's say that is a signal and he sees the signal and then a second goes by and nothing's happened yet. Now you shoot. You know, in other words, you're the backup to the backup to the backup. Um, or that guy was just a decoy. They needed to see somebody on that roof

because that was going to be the story. And we had to capture them on video. So you got to get up there. You got to lay down in position. You got to run off. Don't worry. Our camera's way back there. No one's going to see what you're doing. They're not going to see your face. Just jump up.

You know, I think the person on the roof was likely one of those two roles and not actually the one who did anything on that day. Now, I started to make that timeline point a couple minutes ago, but didn't want to go on that other thing. We'll talk about it after so I can make sure I know what I say. But wasn't there also, like, with these Discord messages that did look, some of them highly suspect from the get-go? to me. But wasn't there something where some of them were allegedly sent after he allegedly had been arrested according to what the story is as well? Yeah, so there's a lot of debate on that. I was looking at the filings and I noticed in the defense's filing that they made along the way, one of their filings, they referenced a timestamp when Tyler invoked his Fifth Amendment right

to silence. But they didn't put a date on it. It just said 6.25 p.m. And so I thought, What was 625 p.m? Where was that? So I was looking for context clues in that statement. And he made a comment about the lawyer's office that I want is closed for the night. He said, I'm looking for a lawyer here. His name is XYZ, whatever his name was. And it looks to me like he's very clearly invoking his right to remain silent for the first time.

If you assume that 625 is accurate, and I don't know why the defense would put the wrong time in there. So I assume it's accurate. You look and you say, well, there's really only two options of when that conversation could have taken place. It could have taken place on September 11th, which is a Thursday, which is the day he turned himself in. Or it could have taken place on September 12th, which is a Friday, which is the day after he turned himself in. And even on the official narrative timeline, that 6.25 p.m. would be like 21 hours after he turned himself in. And so knowing those two facts, it has to be one of those two times, 625 on Thursday or 625 on Friday, go back and look at the the context again. I'm looking for a lawyer here named so-and-so. Well, here would have been

Washington County. That's where he turned himself in because the lawyer he named was practicing in Washington County. He wasn't practicing in Utah County. He wasn't from Utah County. It's four hours away. Why would he say I'm looking for a lawyer here? Then he says, my parents are trying to get in touch with him. His office is closed for the night. Close for the night, not the weekend. If it's 6.30 on Friday, do you say the office is closed for the night? What lawyer opens up on Saturday morning? The fact that he's saying my parents are trying to get in touch with him means that he had just spoken with his parents and knew they were trying to get in touch with him and that his office was closed for the night. That's more consistent with a Thursday night where he had just spoken to his parents minutes before than it is Friday night where he hadn't spoken to his parents in 21 hours and has no idea what his parents have been doing for 21 hours. Maybe they did get in touch with a lawyer.

Maybe they've already gotten him. Maybe his office isn't still close for the night. We have no idea what's going on. So I looked at all those context clues and I raised the possibility. that that conversation actually took place on Thursday, not Friday. Well, if it took place on Thursday at 625, it took place an hour and a half before the Discord messages went out at 757. And so that led me to believe it's possible those Discord messages were fake. They weren't from him at all. And they're inconsistent with taking your right to remain silent. You're going to invoke the right to remain silent to the sheriff,

but you're going to confess to anybody with a link to a Discord chat forever. That's going to be there forever. Yeah, that's very true. Anyone who ever gets that URL can log. in and see your confession, but you don't want to confess, but you want to invoke your right to remain silent, and then go back to his text messages to Lance Twigs. I intended to take this to my grave. Okay, well, you're taking it to your grave, you're talking to your alleged boyfriend about it, and then you go and confess to a Discord chat that you don't, you're not even met all these people in there, you don't even know who all these people are.

It's totally inconsistent. So I looked at all that, and I concluded that it very likely was a Thursday afternoon. invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights, not a Friday afternoon invocation. And if that's the case, do we have any other context clues? Well, we didn't at the time. But a few weeks later, a couple months later, maybe, maybe a month or two later, the prosecution, rather, files an exhibit list. And on the exhibit list, they list out by bait stamp number the exhibits they tend to offer. One of those is Tyler Robinson in the Washington County Sheriff's Office on September 11th. that's the same bait stamp number that was cited in that original 625 p.m. time stamp.

So I look at that and say, no-brainer. Obviously, that was September 11th at 625 p.m. This is a huge problem. Third context clue came during the preliminary hearing. They wanted to show that his clothing, when he turned himself in, was consistent with what he was wearing on that day. So they wanted to show him at the Washington County Sheriff's Office in the maroon t-shirt. When they do, they zoom it in so you don't get it. the timestamp on that security footage. That was a big indication to me that that very well could have been that.

The fourth context clue is one of these press outfits in Utah, I don't know, I don't want to cite the one because I don't want to cite the wrong one, but one of the press outfits in Utah wanted to get a copy of the footage of him turning himself in. They wouldn't release it to him. Do you think they'll release that at trial? I honestly don't know because turning yourself in is not part of the crime. So they don't have to. You could convict them without turning that in. It's possible we'll never see that. And then they lied to the press and said that they had deleted it because it extended beyond the retention period. The prosecution said that? The Washington County Sheriff's Office said that. And then the Washington County Sheriff miraculously resigns in March of this year under a cloud of suspected bad behavior. And so I put all that together, five, six pieces of context clues, some of which are really. really solid, in my opinion, like the base stamps number. And I think some of those discord messages

may have come after he turned himself in, which raises suspicion on every statement that he made about he did it. Have you spoken, and if you can't talk about this, no problem, but have you spoken with any sources in or around or in some way connected to the knowledge of like the thinking of his family and where they stand on whether or not, at this point, whether or not they believe he actually did it? Yes. They don't believe he did it. So is it fair to assume you're referring to like his mother and father don't believe that? Yeah. There's a there's a guy on X. I know him. I believe him. I have personal knowledge that he has spoken to the grandmother. Okay. And that's well known. It's the grandfather's gun, right? That was the alleged thing. Okay. Yeah.

and he has spoken to the grandmother, and I've seen text messages between the, you know, family, they don't believe he did it. They deny that he confessed to them. They deny that he turned himself in because he was guilty. They don't think he did it. Now, did they think he did it at the time? No. They've never thought he did it.

They never thought. And what's miraculous is that we get to the preliminary hearing. we've been told for 10 months by TPSA people, by their spokespeople, by their hangers on, their paid contributors. We've been told for 10 months that he confessed to his parents. And that's a key component of this. That's why we know he did it. He confessed to his parents. He turned himself in.

He confessed to his parents. He turned himself in. We heard this for 10 solid months. We get to the preliminary hearing. They're not even on the witness list. Like you talk about bulletproof probable cause. If your mom gets on the stand and says, yeah, he told me he did it. Yeah, you're fucking.

It's over. We don't need a trial. I mean, at that point, I'm going, well, maybe I'm wrong this whole time. Could part of it, I got to ask it this way is the devil's advocate, could part of it be like, there's no way my baby did that? And like, it's just setting in after enough time to think about it being like, you know what? I just don't believe it. If his parents told law enforcement that he did it, that would be documented.

If you put him on the stand and they deny that he said it, you impeach him with the documentation. He didn't tell him. I'm telling you. That is so much evidence that they've been lying to us this whole year. Otherwise, we would have heard from them. What do you make of the, and it'll be interesting to talk about this with you and Joseph to go back and forth on it, because he's more familiar with the actual process and what it could or should have been. But what do you make of the handling of Charlie's body from what we know, from when he was declared dead at the hospital, to when there's video taken that we can determine around the time it was taken,

of Erica allegedly over his casket where he has an embalmed body being prepared to be flown back to Arizona, which was less than 24 hours later, or around 24 hours later. It's too fast. Way too fast. We also have a filing from the defense where they talk about the autopsy photos. And the autopsy photos, they want all of them, and they said they were all dated September 10th. He died on September 10th. Right. He allegedly didn't. even get to the medical examiner's office until close to 9 o'clock that night. The autopsy was done by midnight? I mean, I'm looking forward to the conversation with Joseph because I'm curious if that sounds unusually fast. I would think they would be autopsying a warm body at that point.

When did they cool them down? The standard, I think, and he'll know more than I do, but from what I can tell from the people I've talked to from the research I've done, it looks like most of the time an autopsy is done with a body that's been cooled down to below 40 degrees. When did they cool them down? That's a six to eight hour process. And why such a hurry? Why do it in the middle of the night? Why not? If you're going to do an autopsy and it's only going to take a couple of hours, come back at 8 o'clock in the morning when everyone's fresh, had a night's sleep, got him a good breakfast, drank a cup of coffee. All right, let's roll him in here. He's been cooled down. Let's see what's going on in here. You know, nothing's changing between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. Why, why this massive

hurry? So I, I'm very much looking forward to that conversation. I have no interest in trying to change his mind on anything, but I have a lot of questions that I think he, as an expert, would be able to answer. I think it's just going to be amazing because like the combination of you looking at it from an investigative litigation standpoint and him looking at it strictly from a forensic standpoint will be great because that was the other thing that, When I had him in here, I didn't do a good enough job of, you know, making it clear. With him, we're just looking at like the forensics of it. All the other stuff around it and the things leading up to it.

That's not his lane. But, you know, we'll talk about tomorrow because you're going to be here as well. And it'll be interesting to see if those worlds kind of collide. But it was, I remember, and I called him when, like a few days later when I was thinking about it because I put together the timeline in my head once you put out that post of like when that must have been based on when that flight was at 5. or whatever to go to Arizona the next day. And I was like, that just seems like, you know, this is a very high profile killing. I would think you're doing a little extra. I know everybody is supposed to be treated the same, but I'm thinking, you know, maybe you do a little more

crossing the T's and dot in the eyes with this one with a public execution like that. That's just me, but I don't know. So it'll be interesting to see what he thinks there. But also, I referenced it a little bit ago and forgot to ask you about it. Obviously, when a scene like this happens, it's chaos. people react in weird ways in certain ways that includes people in the audience but again public event we have different videos of the immediate aftermath you see weird things like someone taking down the camera taking out some cards and then you know that whole thing and whatever was there anything there besides the security team that we kind of talked about that stood out where you're like that that doesn't make sense at all i don't know why someone would do that in that scenario

Yeah, I mentioned Dan Flood stepping forward and touching his arm. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face. That was the weirdest thing I've ever seen from an alleged security person. And if you take it, if you take that video footage and you line it up with what's going on on the roof, which has been done, it's even weirder. Because you see lots of different things taking place. No longer is it just Dan Flood stepping forward. now you have Brian Harpole taking a step back. He had been standing roughly in the same position the whole time.

He's now, there's a woman who comes from behind the screen, right as the guy starts to get into place and she hands him some mints, he said. And he takes the mints. And he doesn't eat him, mints. He just sticks him in his pocket. Well, why is she passing out mints? So it seems like was she sitting back there waiting for, I don't know, and I'm not accusing anyone. But was, you know, was she sitting back there waiting for a guy to, you know, start running into position.

Why was the sound bad all of a sudden when Hunter Kozak got up to start asking questions? The sound seemed fine while the first guy was asking questions. Now the guy that wants to get up and ask about transgender violence starts asking questions and we get all this feedback in the system. Why did Philip Goldsbury Jr. turn his head away from Charlie Kirk before the shooting, like, I mean, or before the bang, like half a second before? you know once Brian Harpole steps behind Frank Turrick

Frank Turrick then turns towards Charlie Kirk and grabs his hat well when he grabs his hat Dan Flood looks at him and then looks to the left for some reason and we don't know who he's looking at and then he steps forward and touches his arm and then you hear the crack like all that may have been innocent all may have been innocent weird though but when you look at it and you put it in that video footage of the guy running on the roof

and you're watching it all take place it almost looks like a choreographed dance. Now, again, may turn out, Tyler Robinson did it with a 30 out six from the Losey Center roof, and that was just the most unfortunate series of events that's ever happened. But it looks like a series of signals. I mean, even the guy asking the question turns and does something that starts the casket. I mean, the whole thing is weird. And, you know, it might only be weird because something happened.

It might be, you know, maybe lots of people asking questions turn their head and look at somebody. and play with their glasses. Maybe lots of people grab their hat. Maybe lots of people get mints and reposition themselves. Maybe lots of people step forward and do this right before, uh, you know, during a speaker. But when you watch it in context, knowing that there was a loud bang that killed Charlie, now it starts to look like this multi-faceted, multi-step checkoff. Like yes, my, I'm clear. Yes, I'm clear. Yes, I'm clear. Yes, I'm clear. Yes, I'm clear. Yes, I'm clear. Bang. And so I don't know. You ask what's weird in that moment. That is, that is weird. the cameraman behind Charlie immediately after he goes down turning and not running for his life

but turning to film where they're going to pull Charlie out that's weird um that was strange that was strange um the fact again that they just yank Charlie off the ground he's got a neck wound obviously an injury to his neck there's no head and neck attention whatsoever and they just drag him off with his neck literally dangling um there was the kid on the phone too was that Mikey McCoy. Yeah, he denies being on the phone. He says he was plugging his ears, but there's also footage of him way off in the back, and he's still doing this, you know? Is he still plugging his ears, or is he have a phone in one hand and he's plugging in the other ear so he can hear better? You know, Frank Turk saying he was on FaceTime with his son. His son's in his 30s. Why is he on

FaceTime in the middle of a Wednesday watching Charlie Kirk take questions on transgender violence? What a weird thing to watch in the middle of the day. And the video footage behind him doesn't look like he's on FaceTime. Looks like his screen's black. So what is he watching? And, and lest you say, maybe you can't see it from video. He is on FaceTime earlier and you can see the FaceTime screen. So why can't we see the FaceTime screen now that you claim you're on FaceTime? Just way too many weird things that popped up every step of the way. And, you know, the conclusion I draw is it's weird for a reason. Yeah. Have you had a chance to speak to anybody, whether in the family, around the family, friends, people that would have been had access to his body

or whatever over the next 24 hours, have you had a chance to speak to any of them about observations they had? Charlie's body? Of his body, of the people around him, when the family came in, what reactions there? I don't like it. I don't talk about that. Okay. I don't maybe, but you don't want to talk about that. Okay, no problem. And then the whole paving over. the entire thing a couple days later. You know, again, not a cop. Optics. That's where we get the term cover up from.

Right. You cover up the crime scene. You covered up the crime scene. Like, is there any explanation for that that is even reasonably decent? I thought there might be, and then Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch did a public record request and got a bunch of text messages about the crime scene that took place the next morning. Okay. And the next morning, they were already talking about digging it up.

Like, inside of 24 hours, it seemed like. It may be wrong on the exact timing, but it was the next day. They're already talking about digging it up. They didn't just dig it up. I mean, they dug up like 10 inches of soil and got rid of it. Is there a reason to do? And they did that before having a paving contractor so who could come in and put down the pavers. But is there a reason to do that?

I don't know, man. I've never run a university where someone's been shot and killed on campus. It's, you know, he bled a lot. It's possible they thought it's a biologic hazard. Oh, come on. You can block that off. You could block it off. And they did block it off.

It was blocked off for a long time. You know, and it rains and you have sprinklers and you have hoses and there are, you know, you don't pave over. every crime scene. So lots of crime scenes take place in America every day. Maybe they were worried he had HIV. Yeah, it could be. That's good. It could be. They're going to pick it up. You'd know something about that. Yeah, not a typical

route of contraction. But no, I mean, you're asking me for any reason. Maybe any reason could be they didn't want people out there walking around on Charlie's blood or where you died. And so you put down

pavers to, out of, out of respect out of, you know, whatever. But I don't, I don't see it. Yeah. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me. It looks like you're covering up a crime scene. Yeah. Joseph covered the Coburger case a lot out in, what was that in Idaho. And he was even saying back then how much, how pissed off he was, they raised that house like a couple months later. Yeah. And they did it because it was in the middle of like a bunch of college housing where a bunch of kids were still going to school. And it was obviously a very traumatic event and like it was a couple months later though and he was pissed about that and this is like a couple days later yeah they're doing this just block it off it's a it's a public assassination like

it that i've never been able to get around like what what the fuck was i can't either um they did the same thing at parkland high school they did the same thing as sandy hook uh it's interesting that the school in lilton colorado that kicked off the school shooting craze back in was it 99 Harris and Klebold. Columbine. I couldn't think of the name of the school. It's interesting that school's still there. Yeah.

They didn't knock it down. Yeah. Wasn't it Parkland, the one where they kept stuff so preserved? Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong one. They kept it so preserved, though, that the jury was able to visit it and it was as if nothing had happened there? Maybe. I don't know. There was one of them where they did that correctly, and it's like, well, why don't you do that here? I think it's interesting. I mean, you know, they,

They've, other famous cases, they've redone the crime scenes. They did it at the Bundy address where allegedly OJ Simpson killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. They've redesigned that. They've redone that. But that was, what, a decade later? Right. Decade and a half later. Right.

Certainly after the trial. Yeah. That's fine. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, at the scene, yeah, there was a lot of weird stuff that took place at the scene. I'm still weirded out by the fact that Mikey McCoy and Danny Phillip were both wearing backpacks on either side of Charlie Kirk when their car was like 10 feet away. Put your backpack in the car.

It's blocked off. You've got it blocked off with police tape and gates. Why are you walking around in 91 degree heat in long sleeves and a backpack? But what would the suspiciousness of them having a backpack be? I don't know. I'm just saying it's weird. Like put your backpack down. No one else was wearing backpacks on the team.

the only two, and they were positioned basically equidistant with Charlie, making almost like a little triangle with Charlie. I don't know why that is. How long from him walking up from behind when he got out of the car to walk up there and did the hats and then sat down? How long was it approximately from then until he got shot? I heard 17 minutes and 28 seconds, but I could be wrong. Maybe that's, maybe it was a minute or too longer. I don't know why that number is coming to my head. It was quick. Yeah. I'm a backpack guy. Like, I'd take it. places. I could see me like accidentally like leaving it on and just chilling there. But you don't accidentally leave it. You showed up in a car. You grabbed it out of the car and put it on your back.

Right. Because I went to, I got to a new place. I don't, I'm not as aware of my surroundings. I take the backpack out of, out of the car. I don't know where the car is going while I'm here. Maybe it's sitting here. Maybe it's not. You know what's going. It's sitting right there. It's 10 feet away. Yeah. I would probably take it. I would probably take my backpack. I'll allow it. That one I'm going to to push back. I'll allow it. Yeah. I'd probably take my back. That's just me. Yeah. But I mean, I look at things like that. I think it's weird. I think it's weird that Nate Walker in the immediate aftermath was picked up on video upstairs. I mean, this is the guy who was carrying Charlie's binders and he's, you know, helping, I don't even know why he's there. He's only been working there

a month or so, I think. But he shows up and he's helping Charlie with his binders and he has a little passenger bag with him. And then a minute or so after the event, everything is chaotic and and Adam Bartholomew from Life is driving, YouTube channel is live streaming, and he's flipping his camera around, and Nate Walker's up on the roof. Like, why is Nate Walker on the roof? What's he doing up there?

Where was he? Was he taking a leak? You know, I... Maybe it was innocent, but I think this is where silence really works against TPSA. Because in a situation like that, the first time somebody asked a question

about, why was Baron Coleman doing this? I would say, well, Baron Coleman was doing this because of he... That's right. You know, I drank four cups of coffee on the way in, and I'd go to the bathroom. Nothing to hide. The event had started, I'd already done my job.

I'm wandering around campus. Yep. You know, what are you talking about? But the silence, when these issues are raised, they pick and choose which ones they're going to address. And when they choose to address it, they do it in such a condescending, nasty, mean way that it's like a cornered dog, you know, like stop attacking us. These are legitimate questions. It's a murder. You know, a lot of people.

The reason you have a job, the reason all these people at TPSA are employed, they're 700 plus employees, the reason there's four different TPSA organizations, the reason there's a podcast, the reason you guys are all at that event that day, is because a lot of people really love Charlie Kirk, really deeply loved him. They were willing to travel a long way to go see them. They turned out at college campuses. They turned out in arenas. They sold out places.

They bought his books. They made him a multiple-time best-selling author. These questions are coming out. out of love. Answer the freaking questions. You know, answer the questions. These people want to know why Charlie's dead. And you sitting back and acting high and mighty and being condescending and being, acting like you're above everybody else. And you don't have to answer anything. And anyone asking any questions, evil or corrupt or demonic or has bad motives. You know, that reflects so poorly on those people. That's not, that's not the posture to take when someone that was truly loved

by a lot of people, by millions of people, is tragically died and it looks weird. Answer the questions. I completely agree. It is a case study and PR disaster that will probably make an actual case study at some of these colleges when they study in business school in the future and it should. But how do you think the prosecution is going to go about proving their case at trial? I don't think they can. You don't think they can.

I don't think you can prove a case. Unless they're sitting back on evidence that unless they gave all of their weakest evidence at the probable cause hearing, I don't think they can. You're going to have a hard time convincing people. That figure running on the roof had a 30 out six in his hand. Keep in mind at trial, you're not going to be able to get away with his clipping up videos and not showing us everything. At the probable cause hearing, they were sort of the architects of the evidence.

At the criminal trial, the defense gets to introduce evidence. That's right. And so you can't show us the purported Tyler Robinson walk to the top of the stairs and then jump the camera forward a minute, four seconds. What was he doing for that minute, four seconds? Did he talk to someone? Did he text someone? Was he on the phone? Did he raise his hands and signal to somebody? Did he flash a flag? Like, what was he doing? You're not going to be able to get away with this. Oh, we think he ran into the woods. Well, why? Why do you think he ran into the woods?

Where's the rest of the camera footage that shows that he even ran towards the woods? Did he cross the the street? Did he walk down this way? You know, when do you next see him? Do you ever see him again? You told us he changed clothes in the woods. Why do you think he changed clothes in the woods? You know, what evidence do you have for that? You're not going to be able to get away with all this stuff at an actual trial. You're not going to be able to get away with, oh, here's a guy in a maroon shirt. We think it's Tyler because he drove in in a challenger. Well, that's not the only challenger that's ever been sold.

That's not the only red shirt that's ever been sold. Give us more. Give us way more than that. Oh, he went and ate Chick-fil-A. But we're not going to show you any footage of him eating Chick-fil-A. We're not going to show you a receipt that proves he was back on campus. Just trust me, bro. He was there.

No, not going to be able to pull that off either. there's so much of this that they're only able to get away with right now because the defense was limited on their ability to push back on it. They couldn't really turn it into a trial because that's not the standard at the probable cause hearing. The prosecution is the architect of the probable cause hearing. And so it'll be really interesting to see if the text messages can hold up under scrutiny. It'll be interesting to see how Lance Twiggs actually does on a. stand. He's obviously expected to be horrific or he would have been there. So we can anticipate his testimony will be terrible. It'll be interesting to see if the defense calls Ms. Noble,

the lady who saw the bald man with the three passengers. I would call her. Yeah. Assuming she'll talk to me ahead of time and tell me why she thinks that, and if not, I mean, you can't get her statement in, you're going to have to call her as a witness, but, you know, assuming she'll stick to that statement, and if not, impeach her with a statement. Okay, you're saying you didn't see a bald man. Do you remember making a statement to the police? I mean, you might not be able to introduce it as evidence, but you can impeach her with it. There's a lot that the prosecution is not going to be able to overcome, I think.

For example, they lost him on camera at the most critical juncture. They admit they lost him on camera. Which juncture was that? Well, you said that you thought you saw Tyler Robinson in the hallway walking up the stairs. And then they say he disappears from camera. And all of a sudden we have what looked like to trained assassin appear on the roof and military crawl into position, holding a non-existent 30-out six, and lay down and take a non-existent shot.

How do we even know that's the same guy? You know, let's say we can say that's Tyler Robinson in the stairwell. It's not illegal to be in the stairwell. There's nothing illegal about being in the stairwell on a public college campus. He can walk around any stairwell he wants. Nothing illegal about eating Chick-fil-A, nothing illegal about driving into parking lots, nothing illegal about walking around campus. So putting him on campus is really irrelevant.

What the question is, who the hell was that on the roof? And if you lost Tyler Robinson from camera, and you can't definitively identify the guy on the roof, and you can't definitively identify what's in his hand, and you can't definitively identify he took a shot, you're going to have trouble proving your case. One more piece of evidence, and I assume the defense would track this person down, I think I could if I had half of mind to do it.

There was somebody put on Instagram a video from directly below the Losey Center. like seconds after the alleged shot, seconds after. The crowd is still fleeing and running crazy. I've seen this video. Yeah, yeah. And they said the shot came from down there. If there's one person in that entire facility

who would be able to put a shot on the roof, it's the person standing directly below the roof. Right. And they said the shot came from down there. There's a lot of problems with this case. And it puts me in grave fear for Tyler Robinson's life. Because if all the hopes and dreams of putting this case to bed, on us having to believe Tyler Robinson did it, you can't take this case to trial.

It's a disaster. It's an absolute disaster. And the more they come and tell you that it's definitive and it's bulletproof and, well, pardon expression, that it's open and shut, the more they howl about that, the more I believe that they don't believe it either. They agree with me that this case is lousy and they feel like they have to go out and put the cell job on it in order to convince people it's not. I don't think people buy it. I don't think a jury will buy it. you really strike me as a guy who wants the truth here, just like you said. And like I've been extremely impressed, obviously, like watching some of your streams, catching up on that because you've been doing that for a long time,

talking with you today and getting to see it face to face, like how you lay it out, talk with you on the phone and going through it. Like you're an affable guy. You're extremely smart. You dig into all these things. And you're asking questions that to sub-tweet what you said a few minutes ago are questions that people, of all backgrounds, deserve to know about this because it was such a public horrific assassination,

but then particularly the people who were fans of this guy deserve to get answers to these things to get closure, if you can even get that on a case like this. But, you know, I think it's a mess. I think what you're laying out makes a really good case that there is a strong possibility. Tyler Robinson is it Patsy and like he didn't actually do this? Do you ever worry about if, even if there were a bigger story there

behind him doing it. If in fact he did do it that like you and some other prominent people, whether it be Candace Owens or the handful of people who are really going at this, you guys would be responsible for the actual killer of Charlie Kirk going free by poking so many holes in this case? No, that doesn't cross my mind at all. The foundation of the American criminal justice system is that it's better that guilty people go free than innocent people go to prison. It should be an extremely high bar for the prosecution to be able to put somebody in prison, to deprive them of liberty or their life. And if they can't build a better case, then he needs to go free.

If this is the only case they have, if this is the best they've got, then you can't convict him because it puts everyone else at jeopardy. Put the system to the test. Yeah. It puts everyone at jeopardy. I've represented some really horrific people. And on the criminal side, wouldn't want to do that? Yeah.

Well, I want to say horrific people. I've represented some people accused of some really horrific crimes, really horrific crimes. I didn't have any moral issue whatsoever with representing them because it's better to keep the system honest. You know, if Julian Dory doesn't want to be falsely accused of a crime, we need a robust criminal justice system that can ensure the only way Julian Dory goes to prison is if he committed a crime. And if you committed a crime and you get away with it, that's the cost of keeping the system to a very high standard. I don't think he did it. I'm open to the fact that he did it. But if they can't convict him, that's their problem, not mine.

Yeah, my friend Brian McMonicle was on the show back in episode 115. He's a really prominent defense attorney. He's the guy that got Bill Cosby off and then quit and then Bill Cosby got convicted. That's a poor choice of words with Bill. That is a very poor choice of words. But you know, I don't think he was Bill Cosby's type. I don't think he's the only one that got Bill Cosby off. But he, I walked right into that one. Pause.

But he said, you can run the tape on that episode. He describes it the same exact way. And I believe him on how he looks at it from like a moral standpoint and a constitutional standpoint. And that's what this country's built on. So I think that's a great answer. But last thing, before we get out of here and then we'll be doing another podcast, to stay tuned for that one. That's going to be really good. But you know, you do have security. And I guess I understand that as well. But, you know, are you fearful, I guess, of your life and

and the work you're doing being a little too public and asking a little bit too many questions and maybe people don't want to ask? Fearful, no. I don't want to say fearful. I'm careful. There's a lot writing on this. more than the jeopardy of Tyler Robinson. If it wasn't Tyler Robinson, we talked about earlier, it's a binary choice. It either was Tyler Robinson alone on the Losey Center with a 30 out six, or it's a multi-agency cover-up that could be international in scope

and goes to the very highest levels of government with every person involved, with every agency involved. And that's the concern. That's the concern, that if the case against Tyler Robinson arose, then people will come to the same conclusion I come to. And if people come to that conclusion, then the people who are leading the charge to investigate this, they become a problem. They become an issue.

And so I think, you know, being careful is a responsible thing to do. I've got eight children. I've got a grandchild. I've got a wife. I'm the sole provider for all of them. It's a big house. Yeah. And so it's a,

it's something I approach soberly and seriously and and you know I've got I've got plans to be around a long time and you look healthy thank you and I'm and I'm happy and I've got plans for next week and next month and next year and 10 years from now that's right I didn't see them experiment with belts before no no no I don't even wear belts don't own a belt is that your rule on the other belts. So, no,

I mean, it's just, you know, it's a sad statement that anyone should be fearful or have to be careful for covering a new story.

Like, that's really sad. That's a sad commentary. It's a sad commentary is where we are. But when you, when you, when you hear people

on the other side, cheerleading the, the way they are for, for the conviction of Tyler Robinson in the absence of any evidence. It raises the obvious question of why. And it's the why that causes me to be careful. Well, you're doing some really impressive work,

and it's also done in a way. You have to balance also being entertaining, but also asking the right questions and being respectful of the process too and doing that in the right tone. I think you do a great job with that. So for people that haven't seen Barron's channel, that's going to be linked right there. You can go subscribe. But you and I will be doing that podcast.

Joseph Scott Morgan will be coming out the same week as this one. This one will be first. That one will be an episode or two later in the same week. So you guys can check that out. It'll be a fun conversation. But thanks for doing round one right here. Appreciate you having me. All right. Everybody else, you know what it is? Give it a talk. Get back to me. Peace. What's up, guys? Thanks so much for watching the video. If you have not subscribed, please hit that subscribe button before you leave, as well as leaving the like on the video. It's a huge help. You can join my Patreon via the link in the description.

and you can also join my clipping community via the Discord link down below. See you for the next episode.