Timcast IRL - DOJ Releases Charlie Kirk Assassin Messages, Trans Left Aligned Confirmed

Episode Date: September 17, 2025

Tim, Phil, Ian, Tate, & Elaad discuss the DOJ releasing the messages between Charlie Kirk's assassin and his trans lover, a man identified & charged for trying to help Charlie Kirk assassin get away, Pam Bondi slammed by conservatives for saying DOJ will target hate speech, and leftists continue to push the lie that Charlie Kirk's assassin was a republican.   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Elaad @ElaadEliahu (X) Tate @RealTateBrown (everywhere) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere)

The complete text messages between the Charlie Kirk assassin and his lover have been released. And it's fairly cut and dry, basically explaining why he did what he did. Now, there is something interesting about it. Some people are suggesting it's weird. It seems fake. Something's off about it. I don't necessarily agree with that. I think it makes sense the way it does, but Matt Walsh made an interesting point to which I agree to a great degree. And that is, it looks like the shooter may have stated these things and staged this conversation to absolve them of responsibility. Now, maybe I'm thinking too far out of myself. However, the DOJ is actually investigating a potential transgender online group for foreknowledge, this we've known about for some time, but there is more evidence emerging that there may be. be others involved, in which case possibly, these messages were sent in an effort to make it

look like these other people were not involved. We don't know for sure. We can only go by the official reporting so far, and today was a crazy day, and there was an insane amount of news. The old man who screamed that he shot Charlie Kirk and was detained, apparently according documents, he did it to help the shooter escape, and now he's been charged with child abuse images, very crazy. Cash Patel had a Senate hearing this morning where he just laid it.

into Cory Booker and Adam Schiff. Absolutely nuts. And in that hearing, it was revealed by Chuck Grassley that the FBI had a probe into 100 conservative groups, including TPUSA, which is insane. Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be a heck of a crazy day. There is a lot of crazy news for us to get through and we'll do our best to get through all of it that we can. Before we get started, we got some great sponsors for you, my friends. We got crowd out. Check out join crowdhealth.com. It's open enrollment, the season where health insurance companies hope you'll blindly sign up again for overpriced premiums and confusing fine print. Don't just take someone else's word, trust yourself and take control of your future with crowd health, the health care alternative for people who make their own decisions.

Health care for under 100 bucks. You get access to a team of health bill negotiators, low-cost prescription, and lab testing tools, as well as a database of low-cost, high-quality doctors vetted by crowd health, and what if something major happens. You pay the first 500 bucks, then crowd health steps in to fund the rest. It feels like the options we used to have before Obamacare messed everything up. And of course, you'll join the crowd. A group of members just like you who want to help pay for each other's unexpected medical events. The system is betting you'll stay stuck in the same overpriced, overcomplicated mess. And this year, it's even more complicated because most of the ACA subsidies expire,

which means your prices are going sky high. So far, crowd health members have saved up to $40 million in health care expenses because they refuse to pay, to overpay for health care. This open enrollment, take your power back. Join crowd health to get started today for $99 for your first three months using code tim at join crowdhealth.com. That's join crowdhealth.com code tim. Crowd health is not insurance. Opt out.

Take your power back. That's how we win. Join crowdhealth.com. But wait, there's more. We got Ali O Capital, my friends. Have you ever noticed how confusing and divided the world feels these days, whether it's politics, or just daily life. The truth is a lot of it comes down and not really understanding how the money world works. Finally, there's a tool that make things clear. I want to tell you guys about the

Alio Capital app, that's A-L-L-I-O. It's built by people who really get how global events affect your money. Imagine an app that keeps an eye on things like inflation and interest rates, stuff that actually changes what's in your pocket, and then automatically tweaks your investments so you don't have to stress about it. It's smart, it's easy, and it works for you whether you want to get a hands-on or just set it and forget it. It's great having something that breaks down big picture stuff into steps you understand. If you want to feel a little less in the dark about your finances, just check out the Alio capital, the Alio app in the app store or on Google Play. Or even simpler, text Tim to 511-511-5-1-1. That's A-L-L-I-O capital. Text Tim to 511-5-1-1, see what

it's all about. Just remember every investment has risks. Nothing's a sure thing. But I think Alio makes understanding and growing your money a whole lot easier. Standard text fees apply. And yes, This is a paid ad. Shout out to Alio for sponsoring the show. Don't forget to join our Discord server over at Timcast.com. Get involved with our community and you will be able to call in to our members-only show at 10 p.m. Don't miss it. And also smash the like button. Share the show with everyone, you know.

Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much else is Adam Johnson, who's in Texas for some reason and we don't know why. Adam, what are you doing on Alex Stein's show when we had you booked to come on this one? So here's the story. lectern guy, as everyone likes to call him, was as far as my team is concerned, booked to be on Timcast, IRL tonight. And we were informed that he would be driving himself. And he messaged me last week, I think, Adam. So he's on the list, and I just called my driving team. I was like, are you sure you booked him right?

Because maybe we made a mistake. And they're like, we got them. It's on the schedule. These are the dates that we set. And I said, okay. And then he didn't show up. And so we tried calling him. He wouldn't answer his phone.

and we were really worried about him and I'm, this is genuine. We were like, oh, I think I hope he's okay. And then Ian's like, hey, I just turn on Alex Stein's show and he's on the couch with Alex Stein. So anyway, Tate's here. What's up, guys? You know, getting me here as a guest.

Really, everyone had the swing for the fences, but I was like, you know what, fine for Timcast. I'll fill in as a guest tonight. So happy to be here. Tate Brown. We put the lectern in the picture. We were like, let's just grab the lectern and put it in his place.

I kind of, oh, were you going to say more? I was going to stand at the, lectern for the whole show, but the mic wouldn't reach. I kind of like just us hanging out, like a friendship zone night. I don't know. I feel good being with you guys. Don't I just play magic? Yeah, we could. You know, they'd get a top camera. I'm also here, Ian Crossland.

We got this mother in the house. My massage handler is here. Good evening, everybody. I am Alad Eliah White House correspondent here at Timcast News. I was concerned that they finally picked him up. I don't know if you had any outstanding warrants for the J6 stuff still. No, no, no. He's pardoned all that stuff.

No, he's pardoned all that stuff. All right, so I'm like, how is he in Texas? What? It was so weird. Like, wait a minute, what? It was 7.59, I clicked on the YouTube app, and it was the top video. It showed him sitting on Alex. I was like, what the?

But it was weird because he also responded to someone on X saying, who's on IRL tonight. And we were all like, he's making a joke. He's saying that because it's him. But he's in Texas. Maybe he was a genuine question. He's like, who's on IRL? And then I think Ian was like, is Alex Stein's show pre-record? And I was like, no, I was literally on the phone with Alex Stein a moment ago.

He's like, I'm about to go love. Yeah, I thought it was maybe a pre-rerector. record that they were streaming live, but... I'm gonna call him. Yeah, we should do it. We should call him live and see if he answers. Oh, and while he's calling him. Hello, everybody. My name is Philibanti.

I'm the lead singer, the heavy metal band, All That Remains, my anti-communist and the counter-revolutionary, and I, too, expected Adam to be here, and I am also let down. I have no idea what happened. Well, let's just talk about the news, and then maybe at some point I'll call Alex Stein, and maybe we'll be live on his show. We got this from the Post-Mennial. It's huge.

Complete text exchange between Tyler Robinson and Lance twigs after Charlie Kirk killing. Quote, don't talk to the media. If any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer, and stay silent. What we are learning now, I mean, this is pretty crazy. Take a look at this from the New York Post. Charlie Kirk assassination investigation widens to probe whether pro-trans online groups new in advance.

And there's a lot more. Apparently, there's this weird Utah and like trans-armed group. We'll get in a second, but let's just read about the transcript so far. Newly released documents show Tyler Robbins and the 22-year-old accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk confessed in text messages to his trans lover roommate Lance Twigs after the September 10th shooting and urged him to destroy the evidence. Police say Robinson's roommate, who was in a romantic relationship with him, received a text directing him to look under Robinson's keyboard. There he found a handwritten note that read, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it. In a series of texts, Robinson admitted responsibility. I am, I am, I'm sorry, he told his roommate, his lover.

explaining, I've had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. He also described leaving his rifle hidden and worried it could be traced back to his family. Robinson repeatedly asked his roommate to cover for him, delete this exchange. One message read. So the text conversation is below, but I think we have the press conference here. The roommate. Police interviewed Robinson's roommate, a biological male who was involved in a romantic relationship with Robinson.

The roommate told police that the roommate received messages from Robinson about the shooting, and he did provide those messages to police. On September 10, 2025, the roommate received a text message from Robinson, which said, Drop what you're doing, look under my keyboard. The roommate looked under the keyboard and found a note that stated, quote, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it. Police found a photograph of this note. The following text exchange then took place.

After reading the note, the roommate responded, what? You're joking, right? Robinson. I am still okay, my love, but am stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I got to grab my rifle still. To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you. Roommate, you weren't the one who did it, right?

Robinson, I am, I am, I'm sorry. Roommate, I thought they caught the person. Robinson, no, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone and similar clothing. I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. It's quiet, almost enough to get out, but there's one vehicle lingering. Roommate, why? Robinson, why did I do it? Roommate, yeah. Robinson, I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence.

Going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have moved on. I haven't seen anything about them finding it. Roommate. How long have you been planning this? Robinson. A bit over a week, I believe. I can get close to it, but there is a squad car parked right by it.

I think they already swept that spot, but I don't want to chance it. Robinson again. I'm wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle. I'm worried what my old man would do if I didn't bring back Grandpa's rifle. I-D-E-K, if it's had a serial number, but it wouldn't trace to me. I worry about Prince. I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. Didn't have the ability or time to bring it with. I might have to abandon it and hope they don't fine prints how the f will i explain losing it to my old man only thing hi i'm chris gathard and i'm very excited to tell you about beautiful anonymous a podcast where i talk to random people on the phone

i tweet out a phone number thousands of people try to call you talk to one of them they stay anonymous i can't hang up that's all the rules i never know what's going to happen we get serious ones i've talked with meth dealers on their way to prison i've talked to people who survive mass shootings Crazy funny ones. I talk to a guy with a goose laugh, somebody who dresses up as a pirate on the weekends. I never know what's going to happen. It's a great show.

Subscribe today, Beautiful Anonymous. Hey, this is Dan Harris, host of the 10% Happier podcast. I'm here to tell you about a new series we're running this September on 10% Happier. The goal is to help you do your life better. The series is called Reset. It's all about hitting the reset button in many of the most crucial areas of your life. Each week we'll tackle a topic like how to reset your nervous system, how to reset your relationships, how to reset your career.

We're going to bring on top-notch scientists and world-class meditation teachers to give you deep insights and actionable advice. It's all delivered with our trademark blend of skepticism, humor, credibility, and practicality. 10% have here is self-help for smart people. Come join the party. The thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel. Remember how he was engraving bullets? The effing messages are mostly... a big meme. If I see Notice Bulge UW on Fox News, I might have a stroke all right. I'm going to have to leave it. That really effing sucks. Judging from today, I'd say grandpa's gun does just fine IDK. I think that was a $2K dollar scope. Wink, wink, wink.

Robinson, Robinson again, delete this exchange. Again, Robinson, my dad wants photos of the rifle. He says, Grandpa wants to know who has what. The Fed's released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. He's calling me, RN, not answering. Robinson, since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty diehard MAGA. Robinson, I'm going to turn my son. in willingly. One of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff. Again, you are all I worry about

love that came from Robinson. Roommate. I'm much more worried about you. Robinson, don't talk to the media, please. Don't take any interviews or make any comments. If any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer and stay silent. You know, he keeps saying love. in the exchange and they're like roommate over and over again. It's like, old man, understand what they're trying to convey. I will also add quickly, upon further investigation, our booking team has said, wait, we made the mistake. Adam, I apologize, if I have impugned your honor. Apparently, Adam had written earlier in the message October 16th, and then after the message had progressed to the 16th, they wrote down the 16th, not realizing it meant a month from now. Oh, see you next

month, buddy. In the meantime, however, I do have the actual text exchange. And Matt Walls makes an interesting point. He says, I am leaning very strongly towards the theory that this text exchange was scripted as a way to absolve the boyfriend. It's almost exactly what Walter White did at the end of Breaking Bad. This feels like a strategy they cooked up from watching too much TV. I largely agree. I say largely because when you take a look at the exchange is entirely plausible that it's real. A lot of people base their expectations on what people do and say on movies. And that means they assume everyone is going to have a dramatic response. Everyone is going to be bawling their eyes out. People react differently in different ways. Sometimes you just don't

understand. And this could be entirely plausible. That being said, I don't believe, based off what we've seen with this investigation, where they're looking into whether these pro-trans groups knew in advance, this wasn't in a vacuum. They knew. And how the roommate would not have known is absurd to me. So I think it's entirely plausible that these messages were actually made as a, you couldn't have known. And then they can say, see, here's proof. He wasn't involved. It provides a lot of sympathy for the roommate. That is for sure. I feel real bad that that the shooter seems to be putting this guy in a position where he's asking him, to delete evidence and to become an accomplice in a murder investigation.

I hope the roommate didn't delete the messages like he was asked to. But one of these things that messes is, I'm wondering about when he said he was engraving the bullets with LMA or whatever these, the bullets were engraved. Who's he? Who's the guy that was engraving those bullets? That's the shooter. The shooter said when he was engraving the bullets. That's right.

He's not talking about himself. Yes, he is. when he out of body He said he's someone else In the note The shooter says to his roommate When he was engraving the bullets

He's talking about someone else Remember how I was engraving bullets The effing messages are mostly a big meme If I see notices Bulge Ooooo on Fox News I might have a stroke all right I thought he said I'm going to have to leave it That really effing sucks

Like unless Unless the texts were transposed Like this is not how Zoomers communicates. That's the first red flag. And then the second one is what Anons were pointing out on Thursday. I mean, Captor Dreamer is one of them. It is very obvious that they wrote this based on the messages and they are not one for one. And what I'm saying is it's interesting, sorry, but it's interesting that they put all the question marks here. You weren't the one who did it right with all those question marks. Because all of those question marks are flare, which is indicative of

colloquial conversation. However, based on the grammar and punctuation, this is clearly not a one-for-one transcription. This is typed out by somebody. Yeah, it's supposed. I mean, guys, anybody, just look at it. Nobody types in complete perfect sentence with grammar. Like, who uses commas when you're texting a friend? Just me, because I'm born in 1979.

That's right. But the other thing was, like I was saying, is like a few Anons pointed this out Thursday, pretty much right after. I think Captain Dreamers is one of them, is a lot of transgender people in the area were saying something big is going to happen tomorrow. or they're preemptively celebrating and that sort of thing,

which indicates that there was, you know, again, indicates that there was some sort of network of transgender people in the area beforehand that maybe Tyler had tipped off. And so that's, to your point, how would the roommate not be in the know? I mean, he would be presumably a part of that. You know what he said, that he couldn't, it's at the very top of this message.

I can't read it from this distance, but he said that I couldn't take his hate anymore. He's talking about himself. Talking about Charlie Kirk. Well, he, that's what he's projecting. on to Charlie Kirk, but he's talking about his own inability to communicate. Here's the other thing I want to add. Notice the ellipsies. It looks like they've omitted things. The ellipsies in writing like this are usually indicative of pulling something out.

And based on the structure of the ellipses, again, it may just be that they typed that in because they are taking communications they saw and retyping it out. We're stitching text together. There is a typo. I-D-E-K. Oh, that's I don't even in which case there's not a single typo which makes no sense because bro on my phone especially with autocorrect it is insane trying to send someone a message over any service discord text or otherwise when it changes yo i'll type in um uh gov like i want to say governor so i'll type go gov and it'll go government yeah it just fills up the whole i'm like that's not the word i want it and i got to go back it's even long it's like waste of time i turned off auto phil about

two years ago. I'm like, just, just take the, it's like Luke Skywalker going in the desk, sorry, I'm like, get the computer out of my face. Yeah, but that I'm sausage finger in words and like eyes and use and... I'm so concerned that it's going to plug in some horrific meaning that I didn't intend. It does that. Yeah. The reason a lot

of people are speculating that this maybe wasn't transposed is because a lot of the lines began without capitalization. And so a lot of people are saying, no, this could just be a direct rip from their correspondence. Okay. Yeah, I don't believe it for a second. If the roommate was involved in any way they should obviously be held to whatever laws that they violated in doing

so. One of the details that I think goes against it, though, was them thinking that it was the old guy being caught being the actual shooter, because that's what Cash Patel originally put out. And Cash Patel is getting a lot of pushback for that detail, too, for fudging that detail. The old Pito, by the way, who has been charged now, or I should say alleged, been charged with child abuse materials, which is, this is a crazy story. What is going on? Sure. But what do you, I mean, what do you think about that, too? Do you think Cash fumbled this at all early on saying that the subject for the horrific shooting today that took the life of Charlie Kirk? Cash was not talking about the old man. He was talking about another person wearing similar clothes. And he didn't say suspect. He said subject. And he did make a mistake, but it's not the biggest deal in the world, in my opinion. I think it shows that they're real humans trying to deal with this. And what I can't stand is that, you know, whenever you have a crisis, or catastrophe or disaster, you know you're not getting real answers.

Like when Deepwater Horizon happened, like anyone seriously believed the statements from BP when they were coming out and talking about it. It's like, I got a bridge to sell you. This shows, in my opinion, cash is actually just a guy who's trying to do this job and he's not treating it the way previous administrations and previous FBI heads have.

And that means he's trying to be transparent. He was trying to give information to people. And for that, he went early. and he made a mistake with it. Not that big a deal. I don't think it's the end of the world. And a lot of people are ragged on him saying, he didn't do anything anyway.

The family turned him in. And I'm like, yeah, only because they published information and they were doing the groundwork investigation and then they're verifying the guy. So what I will say is these messages, there's a couple ways I look at it. The first and highest probability, in my opinion, is that this is transposed.

No millennial. I mean, Phil, you're Gen X. Do you type like that? No. Yeah, nobody does. Maybe voiced a text for some of that or something. That's true, but it would get words wrong. But fair, both are using voice to text?

No. I don't know. And ones at a computer says, look under my keyboard. It seems obviously they transposed it, which means they flared it up with the question marks or the question marks were there and they added them. I make sure they're still there. But this looks like they transposed a conversation from,

and honestly, that makes sense. Could you imagine trying to translate Gen Z to a general public? Nope. It would say like, nope. Are you the one who did? I am. No cap? You know, the average person would be like, huh? Yes, I am. I'm sorry. How do you say I'm sorry in Gen Z?

My fault. My bad? Yeah, my bad. No cap. No cap. My bad. Saas is an SOZ or is that a little out now? I think that's you guys, yeah. Oh, that was like the third generation after me before you. I don't know how far.

There is. There is however another high probability in my opinion, though much lower than chance is what Matt Walsh said. The reason why it looks unlike Gen Z is that the message was written by them intentionally to isolate any external groups who aided and abetted this. As we already mentioned, they're investigating these other groups for foreknowledge. It seemed, listen, seven different social media channels accounts had posted four knowledge of the event. How many lottery numbers are there? Six.

Yeah, it's like usually six or seven, six and then like a power ball or whatever. Okay. So it's a lottery. Lottery tickets, it's greater than a lottery tickets chance that these people were able to predict days and even a month in advance it was going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this was actually written intentionally by them so that when they got caught, or if they got caught, they could say this absolves anyone else of responsibility and proves it because they had no idea. Well, if the roommate did have any knowledge of this, I think Robinson wouldn't be stupid enough to write it down in a discourse over or over text or something stupid like that. if they lived together they probably talked about it in person like that that's what i think it's a lot more likely he was still near near the scene that's why you were saying oh come back for the rifle later no but if he knew ahead of time like anything that he'd do anything i don't think he'd tell him yeah with like an online record you're saying if the roommate knew there's no need to go into a textual communication about it they already knew ahead of time i think robinson would say to the roommate in

person in such a way that wouldn't be able to leave a trace well apparently my understanding is that they deleted this. They thought that by saying it and then erasing it, it wouldn't be caught by the FBI, but that's ridiculous. Like if these guys are roommates, they're probably hanging out on the couch. Robinson really hates Kirk.

He's saying like, oh. He couldn't get home. Roommates? Roommates. You mean, they're hanging out in bed, having some pillow talk thinking, oh, wow, Charlie Kirk's such a big bully. Like, and I hear he's coming to town.

It's a pillow talk. You hear I say, yeah, but he says, I'm stuck in Orem, I won't make it home. Oh, no, but I'm saying if we're looking for more information about the roommate being in. involved in this one way or another. You know what's fascinating about this is. The roommate sounds, it sounded like the roommate, I mean, whether, I don't know whether

or not this is an actual genuine exchange, but the way that it sounds, it doesn't sound like the roommate actually had four knowledge, at least not to me. Yeah, because he kept asking, are you serious? Sure, my personal opinion is, come on. Yeah. Like, the boyfriend was just secretly plotting the whole time. He would be the only transgender person in all of Utah, evidently, that didn't know this was going to happen.

Exactly. All these other people were posting, like, wait until they would have. happens to Charlie Kirk. It sounds like, and Cash said this, he was asked, are you investigating the other people in the 20 people in Discord? He says it's a lot more than that. It's a lot more than that. Oh, yeah. So these people who post it online, these are the weak links. Because if you've got a discord with a couple hundred people in it and someone says they're going to go harm Charlie Kirk, keep your mouth shut, the giddy losers went, ooh, I have to tell somebody, I have to tell people, because I get to know. But everybody knows. You got to, you, that is the weak link, right?

Like, for instance, if someone were to have given pre-release Magic the Gathering Cards to Tim Poole, and I came out and started posting pictures of them, then people could get in trouble. So nothing like that has ever happened. Yeah, that would be a big mistake if something like that would ever happen. I know. You can't give Magic the Gathering cards to someone before their release date. No, no. You can't.

I can't do anything like that. But I'm only joking because Spider-Man's coming out soon. I have no foreknowledge of Spider-Man. App, that's going to be cool. Yeah, they're doing the Spider-Man's stuff. But that's the point, right? If, like, if you were to get something in advance, there are people who want everyone to know that they're special.

Yep. And these seven people who released that, they couldn't stand that they knew and other people didn't know they knew, so they had to say it. Very common with music journalists. Oh, yeah. Back when you used to give them the record to review, they'd be like, oh, I got it. And they'd talk to their friends and give people copies. They want to brag about how they got it, you know?

You pointed, you said something kind of simply, Phil, that if this is even real. And because I'm still in, like, shock from the, the passport of the terrorist hijacker of 9-11 that they found on the ground. This is, I'm putting it in air quotes, because this was the official story. They found the hijacker's passport, which is evidence that he was the one that blew up the building nearby. What the hell? Like, so now they have some text communication. And they're like, here, look, read this text. When you're four years later, you're still wowed by that?

Yeah, I'm still burned. Like, I just don't trust the government. I don't trust the media. Well, I mean, there's plenty of reason to not trust the government, but as for, you know, this particular stuff, you know, the evidence seems to point to that there were a lot of people that knew about this. Let's jump to this story from The Independent. Man, 71 told cops he shot Charlie Kirk in order to give the real shooter time to escape documents say. Now, here's interesting. This guy.

George Zinn, the man who falsely told police he shot Kirk, has now been charged with possessing child porn. Okay. This was not a lone actor. I don't believe it for a second. Why would this guy have at 71, just with all due respect to elderly, but just of himself, standing there as an old man, know that he needed to grant someone time to escape? This was actually the theory as soon as it happened, and they realized he wasn't the shooter. people were like, why would he do that? Well, we brought it up on the show.

It distracted police who jumped at him and then the shooter on the roof ran. Had he not done that, they may have looked around and try and figured out where the shooter was. Instead, they went and grabbed him instead. He successfully distracted him. Now, just in all honestly,

how did he have the quick wit as soon as a shot happened to do that? Maybe he's like a broken... Well, okay, I'm just going to just going to go ahead and say maybe he's a broken psychopath with child porn on his phone. And he was just wanting it so bad. Yeah, maybe.

It's a possibility. And it was like he heard the noise and immediate was like, ah, and he's like, this is my mission. I'd just like you can randomly grab a left to set of a crowd and they're a pedophile. Magic, man. Kyle Rittenhouse proved it.

I think there is a decent probability, though I'm not saying it's guaranteed or greater than chance of that. The evidence shows there are more, look fact people had four knowledge i don't think you look at seven posts online from these trans or trans linked individuals saying something's going to happen and be like that's a coincidence no that's that's that's too much for me sorry it like how many how many times do the powerball get missed until someone won the one point eight billion dollars every every every every there's two

drawings per week and it took months so it is it is astronomical odds to have seven people predict even the day of saying something big is going to happen. You'll note when you see it. And then after it happens, say, that's that. Yeah, I mean, look, the good news is there are more people that they can wrap up and put in jail. You know, if these people are a danger and they knew, or if they knew and they didn't say anything,

they're a danger to society as well. So have the FBI wrap them up, charge them with terrorism, charge them with accessory, throw them in jail forever. I think considering what we find out about this guy in his proclivities, seems to be that there's probably an overlap with him and these other people on these Discord servers.

I was thinking how many people that identify as transgender have seen pornography under the age of 10 when they were under the age of 10. Like how many kids were warped by pornography as young children? Super don't care. They're still advocating murder. They go to jail. Yeah, but that's the cross between a guy

with a child pornography and people that have seen porn when they were little kids. You know, there's this weird sexual perversion. All in jail. Right to jail. I don't care about any of when they saw what, when they saw what or whatever, put them in jail and that's all that I need to know. I don't care about the backstory. Well, and if they're tweeting like veiled threats, that indicates they have nothing to lose anyway. And that's kind of the problem is you take these psychopaths that have nothing to lose. And that's how you end up with this situation. So it's like, like, I'm with Phil. Let's let's knock on their doors and figure out what's going on. Not to mention this guy in particular. I remember I was in, I went to University of Utah in like 2013 when I was going to school there. he called in a threat to, I think he called in or sent in a threat to the Salt Lake Tribune saying he was going to blow up the Salt Lake Marathon right after the Boston Marathon so he has a precluded to do this in the first place, whatever chance he can get to be in

like this kind of... And he was 59 years old when that happened. Yeah, yeah, totally nuts, so... Mental asylum, man, geez. Yeah. I think there are more people that are involved. I think I don't trust the messages they put out are complete. They say it's complete, but I don't trust it because there's a lip-sees in it.

And it's perfect grammar, so it's clearly transatlantic. posed. And I think everyone probably understands there is security clearance for a reason. They're never going to release literally everything, especially if it could jeopardize their criminal prosecution of the individuals. That being said, the New York Times reporting acted alone. I find that hard to believe. And Cash has said that they're investigating way more people. Lots more than 20 is what he said. So it sounds like even Cash has said publicly, at this hearing. Yeah, more people are likely involved in this. So, you know, the media trying to downplay it is very strange to me. It's so weird because if you're in a Discord chat and this is, I was

trying to think of the perspectives of these people and some rando is like, I'm going to go commit crime and you're like, ignore it. Like if I got a random Twitter message from some anonymous account that says they're going to go commit a crime, I wouldn't even pay a mind to it. I wouldn't think to send it to the FBI. And then if the crime happens, I'm like, what? But if a friend of mine texts me, they're going to commit a crime right to the FBI, just so you know friends out there. don't commit crimes and tell me you're going to do it. So I don't, all these people that happen to be in the same room with the guy that maybe saw a text, it sucks that they're going to get a knock on the door, but that may be just for the sake of the integrity of the mission,

you know, they may, it's worth checking out and having a conversation. I don't know. What mission? Of finding out, getting to the bottom of the conspiracy, if there's a conspiracy. So there's likely a conspiracy if there's more than, you know, 20 people. More than one person. I think the government is going to struggle to put together a way to go after people such that it satisfies conservatives or right-wingers that they're going after the left enough. So I think the administration is struggling to find a way to not let this so-called political crisis go to waste for them to have something effective to do.

But what are they going to do? You know, you have the Attorney General Pam Bondi saying from one moment in an interview earlier that like she's going to go after hate speech. But, like, I don't think that's the direction of Charlie Kirk, that Charlie Kirk would have wanted this to go in. Like, he was famously a free speech type guy. So, like, the administration is struggling. Like, what if this Robinson guy didn't, you know, isolated and didn't implicate any of his friends to a degree that could get them arrested or anything? You know, what does that leave for people to want to do in the government? Well, that's a Rahm Emanuel quote.

He was Obama's chief of staff. Don't ever let a good tragedy go to waste. I'm paraphrasing. you can get people to do things that they would otherwise not do. And then Pam Bondi comes out and says, if you use hate speech, we're going to target you and then walks it back on Axios the next day. Trump, when asked about it, says,

maybe she'll go after you next to the reporter because you've said some unkind things to me. Like, yeah, this is a nasty opportunity for a government to completely trash their constitution and establish martial law. So the populace, fortunately, were intelligent enough to see it coming. I can't imagine how martial law would come from this. Well, it starts with the repeal of free speech and then just knock the dominoes down.

You think the president is going to enforce an institute martial law nationwide? And you think that the National Guard of the multiple states are going to comply? No, I don't think it's going to happen. Okay. Guys, what do we want the government to do about this besides going? I want the government to start investigating every single Antifa Reddit account. There's Reddit pages that are dedicated to anti-fascists. Anyone that's involved in any of the Antifa attacks,

the Antifa attack on the ICE facility, the specific attacks against the Border Patrol guys, a couple months back. I want all those people investigated, all of the people that connected with them. I want anyone that's involved with the trans community in Utah investigated or people that were in those discords. I want them investigated.

and I want all the people that have committed crimes. I want them all arrested and I want them all put in jail. Yeah, well, I mean, I think Bondi specifically, it was just maybe a sloppy way of putting it. I mean, what needs to be done is people that are sending threats. People are saying, oh, you deserve to die for saying this. Those are the people that should get knocks on the door. You don't have the call.

That's not hate speech. That's a separate thing. But I think that's what she's referring to. You need true threat. Her actual, like the things that she said are actually bad. I agree. Terrible with messaging. Horrible with messaging.

sloppy because this is about terrorism this is about organized terrorism like you know organizations that are terrorist groups intending to chill political speech to frighten people of a certain political persuasion so those people should be should be investigated and if they committed crimes they should be arrested and tried yeah yeah precisely she was sloppy with the the threat whenever there's a threat you know the supreme court's been through this it was in like 60th. It was during the Vietnam War, a guy said, if you draft me and make me carry a rifle, the first person I'll put in my sights is LBJ was the president at the time. And so they arrested him. It went all the way after the Supreme Court. And they're like, it wasn't a true

threat because everyone laughed. He didn't. And so they didn't, they realize, like, you can say stuff like that and it's not a real threat. And then, so now it's like you have to establish, like, that there was intention to establish that it was a true threat. Often there's, what they call, like, immediacy. Like that's what they're, That's why we're not talking. That's why, like, talking about hate speech or, like, the, the, whether it's, what's the word I'm looking for? Hey, this is Dan Harris, host of the 10% Happier podcast. I'm here to tell you about a new series we're running this September on 10% Happier.

The goal is to help you do your life better. The series is called Reset. It's all about hitting the reset button in many of the most crucial areas of your life. Each week will tackle a topic, like how to reset your nervous system, how to reset your relationships, how to reset your career. We're going to bring on top-notch scientists and world-class meditation teachers to give you deep insights and actionable advice. It's all delivered with our trademark blend of skepticism, humor, credibility, and practicality. 10% a half here is self-help for smart people. Come join the party.

Or whether it was trying to get people to commit a crime or whatever. Incitation. Yeah, inciting. Thank you very much. Insighting. That's not what's being discussed or what should be discussed. Material support to terrorism. Right.

right like this isn't about the people that are saying it's about free speech are wrong that's not the topic at hand it's terrorism correct so the people that are helping terrorists and if they are helping them the the old guy that was trying to get with the uh get the police's attention and and trying to help the shooter get away material support to a terrorist attack it's not about free speech well he helped it welcome to welcome to to warfare that's it cry complain stand on your morals and be destroyed. Now I'm not saying there's a civil war happening right now despite all the lies from the writers trying to claim that I am because I literally made a video today where I said I do not think we are in a civil war. I made a video responding to a great video by Moon where he said

that the assassination of Charlie Kirk will lead to the civil war and he did a large breakdown of the case. But let me explain something to you. All is fair and love is war is a saying for a reason. And what's happening right now is we are beside on both sides, on all sides, from people who in tend to destroy our way of life. And I mean all sides as in, you have foreign actors and you have domestic actors. Now, they are going to exploit our laws in our way of life and take away whatever they can from us, and they're going to use our own goodwill against us as they have for a very long time. Let me explain how. We believe in free speech. We want you to have the right to express your opinions without fear of reprisal from the government. We recognize that someone might try

and stop you. It's called the heckler's veto, but we're opposed to that as well. And if you are speaking, your opinion, and someone attacks you, that is wrong, and they will be charged. Now, the left says, you shouldn't have free speech because speech has consequences and it's hate speech. It says all fired, banned, censored for years. And this results in mass censorship, the loss of industry, people have their lives destroyed. Now we are experiencing people on the right, getting people fired because they are dancing on the grave of Charlie Kirk. And it is largely just people saying things like you deserved it or whatever, and they're calling their company and they're getting fired. There's a big difference, I will add, between someone saying a naughty word 10

years ago and someone actively dancing on the grave advocating effectively for political violence. But here's the point. We talked about that liberal influencer whose name I'll leave off for now. The other day, Elon Musk called for his arrest. Maybe we'll talk about it a second. And what he said was very, very cleverly worded to avoid crossing the line of the First Amendment. He said, and I'm going to paraphrase the points made in the Pierce Morgan debate and videos from his own channel. violence has reached an extreme degree, seven of ten of the worst protests of the biggest protests in the country, more political violence we've ever seen, and if you, quote, if you wanted Charlie Kirk to be alive, Donald Trump shouldn't have been president for the second term. He said in another video, conservatives need to fear being killed. They need to fear death. That is saying it as explicitly as you can without getting into legal trouble. Why? If violence has already reached an extreme degree to where, we've got seven to ten of the biggest protests and people are getting shot and assassinated.

Literally, what else could happen that would make a conservative fear dying? Well, extreme violence won't do it. He said it's like memes. They don't believe that they'll actually die until one of them does. That's the implicit. Now, of course, if he came out and said people need to go do X, he'd have crossed the line. He'd get some legal trouble. If he said, people go out and do this thing, he'd find some incitement charges.

there'd be some terroristic threat charges appearing online. But he didn't say it. He said, no, no. I'm just saying once conservatives fear death, they'll tell Trump to knock it off, which is explicitly stating, or I should say implicitly, it's implying, in the most legally circuitous way possible, conservatives will die unless the left gets their way. And he is reminding you. Now, the issue that we're dealing with, as Phil mentions, terrorism.

If someone comes out and says, Charlie Kirk got what's coming and people should, should do more to the rest of them, which they're saying all over the place, and they have lists with my name on it, for instance. Ian, you're correct. You've brought it before. That's not an imminent threat. That's free speech, right? Technically.

It's literal. You are allowed to say that people are deserving of death and that someone should do it or whatever. As long as you don't say you, at this time, go do a thing. There has to be a direct and imminent threat created for it to cross the line. You are legally allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. That is a myth. Here's the point I'm making. They should be arrested.

Why? Well, I put it like this. It is wise to tell someone, don't take a bucket full of water and throw it on your kitchen floor. Right? Yes. Okay, except when there's a fire. Correct. And that's the problem we're dealing with.

We sit here standing in a burning house as they have literally murdered Charlie Kirk. And then they are saying, let us keep waving the death of a conservative in your face so you are too scared to go out. So you will never vote for Trump again. so you will learn your lesson. That's what Destiny said on Peers Morgan Show. Learn your lesson, conservatives. Stop speaking your mind. Stop doing events.

And maybe then they will decide to stop killing your friends. Now, so far, unfortunately, there's only been a small handful of our friends that have died. And that's because it's not just Charlie Kirk, though he is the most high profile. Everybody remembers Aaron Danielson, who was friends to many conservatives. And he was walking down the street in Portland when Michael Reinal put two bullets in his chest. and the statement from destiny was very clear you shouldn't have voted for Donald Trump then because the left will murder you

so we get the message we get the message and now when these people go online in their stochastic, terroristic fashion and say y'all deserve what's coming next and we're watching you and so I'll be completely honest with everybody I'm going to tell you exactly what's going on

complete transparency is with great respect and honor that I have been invited to Arizona this Sunday. And it means a lot to me that the team over there considers this. And I apologize if I shouldn't be talking about this, but it needs to be said. I do not feel that we can have a security to go. And that was the intention of these terrorists. And it is terror explicitly stating

that I cannot go to this funeral because they can secure the event. And I'm sure it will be. The president will be there. But they can't secure the airports. They can't secure the buses. They can't secure the roads. And it is in Arizona where it takes one crack pot. And so this is the conversation I've been having for the past several hours. And I probably shouldn't talk about them in the show, but it needs to be said. When they go on TikTok and say things like, more people are going to die and you deserve it, it is the intended terrorism. And how do we deal with it?

We let people speak freely because of the First Amendment? Well, sometimes, sometimes it is okay to dump water into your home because you're not concerned about the water damage anymore. You're concerned about your home burning down. and when I am living in a reality where people are going online and posting a list of names saying next that's a death threat

but I'm supposed to be told under the current Supreme Court rulings that this is protected free speech because they didn't actually articulate anything so what do we do as a country sorry real quick when we are living in a society we are living in a system

where prominent social media platforms will allow a prominent streamer with millions of followers to go out and say if you didn't want your friend dead you shouldn't devote it for Trump I got the message loud and clear, brother. I got it loud and clear. Maybe now Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, whoever else needs to say, if you are speaking terror

with the intention to destroy people's lives and make them live in fear so that they will not express their political opinion, this is overt terror. And you know what the argument is? After Charlie Kirk is dead, we are in a very dangerous spot because this is always how authoritarian structures come to rise. We are in an untenable situation that they have created intentionally because it is my opinion that the left wants a civil war so they can destroy the Constitution. It's the only way to get rid of that piece of paper, which is tattered to shreds, but still offers tremendous

protection. And in fact, our gun rights have expanded tremendously since its inception, as is our free speech. But they have put us in a position where they are going online and they are saying, hey, remember when we killed your friend, you're next. That's free speech. That's free speech because they're saying it in clever ways. So I'll put it like this, the very simple analogy. Two people are standing on a street corner. One person screams Nazis should be killed. It's free speech. The next person points at you and says, hey, everyone, that's the Nazi. Also free speech. Together, those statement is go kill that guy, which would violate the law. However, because they split it up between two people, we have to tolerate that they're calling for our deaths, killing our friends, threatening our lives,

and making it impossible for me to go to a funeral. And we're in an age of amplification of the common man. before in the 90s there's no way you could get a terroristic threat out you'd have to take over a news station there's like TV shows about guys bring now any idiot can pick up their phone and make some veiled threat and so we need to basically social the government is good at using force we're good at using diplomacy as civilians and we have in letting employers know if you if you have employees that are celebrating murder and implying that they would like to see more they are going to get fired from their jobs. They're not welcome in civil society. That's one way to fight back against it in the modern age with this. But the tools, people, I don't, there are so many people that don't understand the power of the amplification of putting a message online right now that are getting wrapped into this. We decided today we will be doing our culture war live events.

Oh, base. It's nice. We will. The university events we will not do because they are going online right now saying that I should die and they will kill me. And they're doing it in ways where when we talk about. law enforcement, law enforcement can't do anything about it, nor can we sue them, nor will the social media platforms take this stuff down. Because publishing a list of names is free speech.

Well, you know why they're doing it. And so I will tell you guys in all seriousness, we do not discuss for security reasons, for the most part, the issues that we deal with, only some. And I feel like I, you know, the conversation I'm having behind the scenes literally 10 minutes for the show starts is how am I supposed to go fly to this city with all of these posts online saying they're going to kill me but they're not doing it explicitly they're not saying mr pool we will find you and you will be and we won't and we'll murder you they're just saying uh watch your neck not that's free speech they're saying i live in i live in this city hope to see you soon you might make an argument if someone could be it's about intention there if they're terrorizing you if they like charlie got shot in the neck and

then they say watch your neck, there's definite intention. And that is the point about throwing water on your kitchen floor. So check this out. So the point real quick is that by all legal standards saying watch your neck is First Amendment protected speech, you've made the argument that we could now interpret that as a death threat. That is the line and that is the fear. When the government decides to interpret what is legally clear free speech as a death threat because of context is when we enter Phil's territory of it is no longer free speech. It is terrorism. And that is a scary thought to me that this country has come to a point where you can say something that five years ago was an expression of opinion, but in the modern context of assassination and political

violence is intended to terrorize and destroy and ruin lives. Now the only solution is we arrest or file civil charges or bring charges against people who are speaking out, Terroristic threats. Let me ask you guys. These are clearly terroristic threats, are they not? Well, it's about intention. Some of them, maybe. Some people might just be inheriting.

So let's try this. When someone says something like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Tim Poole, Michael knows, hope to see you soon, winky emoji, and a trans flag. It depends on who said it. No, that's for speech. That's indeed. But you know what they mean, right? Totally.

And so when does it become terrorism? It needs to be an explicit threat. It needs to be an explicit call for violence. And that means we will live under their boot where destiny can go on Pierce Morgan and say that implicitly you will be murdered by them and you know it and they can threaten your life directly to your face,

but they can say it in a way where you will never do anything about it. Totally. They're taking advantage of free speech, yes. And that means the only outcome is regular people are being told right now. Charlie Kirk was a moderate and they killed him. And the message is clear when destiny goes on Pierce Morgan. The message is clear when they make these posts to all of those who deviated and dared to vote for Trump. You're next. And we can do it. You know why? Because you

wouldn't dare lift a finger against us. That's what you're saying. And that is the fear I have. The choices we have are let them post implicit death threats in context. We get what they're saying and we can't prosecute them or decide to cross that line and say, we understand your intent. That's a terroristic threat and you will go to jail for it. Do you believe hate speech is a thing? No. Well, yes, it is. Okay, because on this point, I wanted to follow up with you on something that Pamboddy said on this, though, because...

Hate speech is real. Hate speech is free speech. You are allowed to have speech in which is hateful. So let's define hate speech. Hate speech is typically defined in a broad sense as language that demeans the rides protected categories. It exists. And we can give a broad name to the behavior. That's fine.

Now, whether we make that illegal, that's wrong. That's distinct from, like, people calling from violence. Indeed. Just distinct from that. Okay, because there's this. Let's pull up the Pam Bondi hate speech thing, and so we can move on before I lose my mind. Because that's exactly where you're going, though. I mean, this is the exact issue she's dealing with, because then I think you should agree with her.

Let's pull us up. Here's a story from CNN. Pam Bondi's hate speech comments lead even some conservatives to cry foul. They say within hours of Charlie Kirk's assassination, Donald Trump signaled a rather curious crackdown. administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it. There was no evidence last week that the shooter was anything other than a lone wolf actor, and there still isn't. False. There is evidence because people had foreknowledge. I didn't say proof, but evidence.

Try harder, CNN. It wasn't difficult to see how such a thing could get out of hand. And the administration has done little in the days, blah, blah, blah. Consumative activists are already drawing attention to random people who celebrated Kirk's death online while some GOP lawmakers are pushing for employers to fire workers who posted things such as their lack of sympathy for Kirk's murder. Even Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller have criticized employees who allegedly refused to print posters honoring Kirk with Bondi saying they could be prosecuted.

Trump on Monday said he'd consider naming far-left Antifa movement domestic terrorists. And people, I'm going to pause real quick. Antifa is an international association. It can be named a foreign terrorist organization. I digress. In the Oval Office on Monday, the president responded to a conservative journalist who said the anti-war protesters near the White House still have their First Amendment right. Yeah, well, I'm not so sure. Through it all, many on the right largely shrugged.

But Bondi on Monday made it so some of them could no longer shrug. They quickly cried foul over her comments on a podcast that the Justice Department would go after hate speech. The National Review's Charles C. Cook wagered the Supreme Court would reject Bondi's view 9 to 0. She should know this, Britt Hume said. Conservative radio host Eric Erickson wagered that such a statement. standard could lead to prosecutions of preachers for opposing gay marriage. Even vehemently pro-Trump pundits flatly rejected it. Charlie Kirk literally died defending the principle that Pam Bondi is trashing, said right-wing influencer Hans Monk, just unreal. Now, the point brought up before this

segment is right now what we are experiencing is the left using concurrent statements and actions to terrorize and threaten death on people like me. It's personal. And they're they're doing it in a way where they fragment the threats so they don't cross the threshold into illegality. In order for speech to be illegal, it has to, well, there's a few categories, fraudulent, meaning you lie to someone with the intent to take resources from them, in which case your presentation and delivery of information, the speech, is actually committing a crime. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about when does someone say something, and that is creating a clear and imminent threat, which means you have to tell a person, you

go do this or do this at this time. So if you told someone to commit a crime and said here at this time, you have created an imminent threat, you have crossed the line, you are a participant in that crime. What we're experiencing now in the challenge we face, the knee jerk reaction for many conservatives to cry foul over hate speech makes sense. But what's happened is in the simplest of terms, I'll give you the broad explanation. First, Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Prominent liberals are saying he deserved it.

And then many others saying, y'all are next, and they're putting up lists. The message is clear. While no individual is telling you, you are going, they are instructing someone to kill you, so they've not created an imminent threat. Together, they create an imminent threat where not a single one can be prosecuted. This is speech black-block tactics, I would call it. Let me just write this up. Can I read her a quote because I feel like it's really...

Okay, read the quote. This is important here because the quotes of what fired up a lot of people. She said, there's free speech, then there's hate speech, and there's no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything that crosses the aisle.

And she's wrong, because hate speech means using a language that demeans a specific social group or class of people. And that is protected, and that's unambiguous. And she should resign. And it's stupid of her to say, and I feel like she's been dropping the ball on this

and some other issues. I mean, I really feel like it's a very aggressive, unforced error. Everybody on the right has been slamming her on this one thing. It makes a lot of them. But but but but so let me clarify something real quick. The issue we're dealing with right now with that context in mind is that if an individual said Tim Poole I'm going to kill you and I'm going to do it at this point like that's a death threat. I can actually contact the FBI and they will be criminally charged and I'll get a restraining order or protection or something like that. But when

they say someone should kill Tim Poole because he's a Nazi, and then another person says, in response to that post, or just another post, here's Tim Poole's address, another person then responds with, I'm going to come meet you, Tim, at your house, at this address, we understand what they did. They fragmented the death threat into three pieces so that you can't prosecute any one of them. I then personally have a terroristic threat made against my life, which is explicit and in front of my face. And this has literally been happening. And I'm told by law enforcement, we can't do anything about it. They were allowed to do that. Can I ask you then? How about we get specific and I'll give you an example. There's a prominent leftist Twitch creator that constantly promotes violence and uses euphemisms of violence against the right and justifies violence against the right. Do you think they should be banned off Twitch?

Who? I'm talking about Hassan. Yeah. Well, I'll be careful to say I haven't seen enough of Hassan's content and out of context videos aren't enough for me to make determination. I've seen the videos that have circulated in X where Hassan said stuff like Guttum and things like that. And I think he's expressed support or tacit support for Hezbollah Hamas, terrorist organizations. He said America deserved 9-11, I believe.

Yeah, that's all free speech. He's more famous quotes. Totally. But we're talking about this line, right, of where they're encouraging violence against the right. I know he's going on spiel of encouraging violence against right-wingers and how the Zionists should be unpersoned. They shouldn't be welcomed in society. They should be treated the way that's where. I get it.

Supporting foreign terror organizations verbally is free speech. explicitly. Supporting Israel or rejecting Israel, you are allowed to express those opinions. Now, if a prominent streamer said, if you didn't want Charlie Kirk, if you wanted Charlie Kirk alive, Donald Trump shouldn't have been the president in the second term. And then in a different show, I believe before this said, conservatives need to be made to fear, or conservatives need to fear that they will be killed when they go out. We understand the intention of that when you say, when the first part of that is after Charlie Kirk's assassination, you are saying if you express your political views through the ballot box, the left will murder you. So the message there

is now clear, but did it cross the line into illegality? It did not. So it goes right before the line and says, whoa, we know what he's saying, but he didn't say anybody should go individually take an action. Then someone on Instagram or on threads or on X says, here's an idea and post a list names. My name's in it. And I know what the context of that means. Everyone does. A judge would. They'd look at that and say, we know exactly what you were saying with that. But it doesn't cross the line. We now live in a society where I can look at tweedledee and tweedledum, send me a death threat because one talks and the other finishes. And the law does nothing about it. Now, we all agree as a society, the law says

you can't issue death threats, verbally written or otherwise. That's a crime. But when Tweedledee says, I think someone needs to kill a Nazi and then Tweedled him goes, hey, look, everyone, there's the Nazi. We know that they just said, go kill him. And we've seen this taken place.

When Luke Rukkowski was mercilessly beaten in Germany because some random guy point at him and yelled Nazi Shreinund, and the other random people ran up and started punching him and then even know why. They didn't know or care. It is a mob. And when we see this, this was what?

Seven years ago, Luke was pummeled and beaten in Germany, a journalist with another young journalist, they were both beaten and one had serious damage to his, I think, to his knee because someone yelled Nazi. We know why they say this. I think Phil and Blair had a similar tweet. They don't call you a fascist because they want to kill you. They, what is it? They don't call you a fascist because they want to kill you.

They call you a fascist. in order to make it okay to kill you. They don't believe you're a fascist. Oh, I'm sorry. They don't want to kill you because they're a fascist. They call you a fascist so that they can kill you. Yeah. So here's the issue right now.

I agree. Pambandi statement was bad. However, how do we reconcile that with the internet and social media, the ability of individuals to collectively issue death threats, they are now immune from prosecution. On top of that, I will add, Antifa and far-left black-block tactics have made them immune from prosecution as well for physical violence.

Because like we saw in 2017, when 200 or so individuals got together, organized, and wore the same thing, they set fires to the streets. They smashed windows. And when the police arrested them, they had the charges dropped, sued the city, and won. The city couldn't prosecute any individual because the argument is always is their reasonable doubt. And when you ask a jury, they say, what clothes was the man wearing? a black hoodie, a black mask, sunglasses, and black jeans. And you grabbed him after he threw a Maltov cocktail. I did.

And how many other people were there wearing a black hoodie, sunglasses, a black mask, and black jeans? And 200. So how do you know you grabbed the right guy? Because I saw him do it. And then the defense looks at the jury and says, do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that that man grabbed the right guy? And they go, no, acquitted, free to go.

They have made themselves immune to prosecution when they fire bomb buildings. They have made themselves immune to prosecution when they issue death threats. What do we do? Honest question. Because they've exploited our goodwill and our, it's called the liberal democracy. I know it's not an actual democracy, but we refer to societies where we allow the individuals to have representation, constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. They have exploited the system we've built.

They are destroying the fabric. of it because it was intended for a good moral people who act in good faith, and they don't. So I'm just saying this. The question before us right now is, if someone goes online and makes a veiled threat that can be interpreted as one, like we know what they're saying. When someone says something like, just found your address online, Tim Pool, I'm coming to meet you. How's Charlie? That's free speech. But you know what the intention is. And they're doing things like that. like crazy. They're posting online saying, how's your friend Charlie? How's, you know, how are things going out in West Virginia? Here's a list of people that we're going to put out there just because

then someone says something like, I think I'm going to follow up on that list exactly how you'd expect. They're making TikTok videos where they say, who's going to go do it? You know what it means and everyone knows what it means, but it's free speech. Yeah. Normally, we can't function this one. When you take the puzzle piece, each person's statement is a piece of a puzzle that makes an obvious image. It's conspiracy, but you need a crime to have happened for it to become known as a conspiracy. Until then, it's like, eh, can't prove that they're conspiring until something bad happens. And you're like, I don't know, but I keep looking at Saul Olinsky, dude, Sololinsky who wants to, I don't know if he's communist or what rules for radicals,

the real action is in the enemy's reaction. That is what we have to be aware of is that whatever the reaction to this is, it's not an answer, but that's my point. The left has boxed us in intentionally to make a choice. They can either terrorize us and engage in overt stochastic terrorism. That's their term. Or we can ask Trump to put a stop to it. Either way, they have a contingency in place. It's a rock and a hard place. But I'll just point out this. We've highlighted this quite a bit recently. DC to pay 1.6 million to settle claims from 2017 inauguration day demonstrations. Infuriating. The government charged these individuals in the black block, these far leftists with conspiracy because their argument is when you all dress the same to cover up the

crimes of those around you and make it hard to prosecute you have conspired they lost were sued and lost again and we the taxpayer paid 1.6 million to far leftists who we know and i filmed firebom i can't believe that they lost that court case and it's it's likely because of the who the the actual judge and was in it because it's a you know judge appointed by the left he was a leftist and he didn't think they did anything particularly bad and it's horrible that we have to live under that this situation but the only thing i can think of is you know do everything you can to have conservatives appointing the judges but that's not actually a solution well i think i just think the tim's point i mean put it perfectly is they're

exploiting our goodwill and like careful using that word exploiting i mean because we're you just have to believe these people when they when they say these things like that's just the point we're at is I don't know how many more people will have to die until conservatives realize this is like you have to believe these people when they're saying these things ladies and gentlemen let's jump to this poll from you gov as far as you know is the person who shot charlie kirk a democrat republican neither or not sure among all adults 21% of adults think that the shooter was a democrat 24 think he was a republican that means the public would be wrong 15% said neither and 40% said not sure. Before we move forward with the rest of this, I want to show you this article from

the telegraph. Charlie Kirk suspect was in romantic relationship with transgender roommate. Tyler Robinson was arrested after someone he was living with handed evidence to the FBI. I don't think it is typical of Republicans to be living, having romantic relationships with trans people, unless the left wants to argue now that the right is pro-trans. Let me make sure I can get more context for you and pull up a statement from the Utah governor, so we can add to this and we'll use let's see

let's go with the independent and we'll grab a couple more just to make sure this is clear Charlie Kirk's shooting suspect was on the left but motive still unclear Utah governor says let's try another source let's do the Washington Post here we go

a separate source Kirk shooting suspect had leftist ideology but motive unclear okay I think the Washington Post the telegraph and the are good enough sources for those that are watching this video to now understand that while this guy was not a Democrat or Republican, he was a left-aligned individual, which puts him in the Democrat political camp.

So this is a poorly worded question to be completely honest, but the answers given are remarkable. By region, this is funny. In the Northeast, 20% said Democrat, 23 Republican. The Midwest, 25 said Democrat. 24th of Republican. You want to know why that is? Because y'all in the Midwest are big viewers of Tim Kest, IRL. Thank you for watching.

Very good. It actually is true. Chicago is our biggest, probably because I'm Chicago politics. Let's go by gender. 22% of males think he's a Democrat, 24 are Republican. 20% of females, a Democrat, 25% a Republican, which they'd be wrong. By politics.

Democrats, when asked, as far as you know is the person who shot Charlie Kirk, 41% said he was a Republican. 41% of Democrats incorrectly said the shooter was Republican. Why? Because liberals, like politics girl, who I believe is might as touch, fabricated information and flooded the zone, she among many, and I believe it was intentional to confuse and obfuscate the fact

that it appears the motivating factor of Charlie Kirk's assassination, was transgender ideology. I will stress, while transgender ideology isn't typically associated with left economic policy, it is progressive ideology. And there's one important distinction here. If you are quote unquote on the left, there is no issue whatsoever in you publicly stating you don't want socialist economic policy. They won't care. There are only a couple of issues that you can say that will excise you from the left. And one of them is, opposition to gender ideology, which puts it squarely on the left. So if you think a Republican had a transgender lover, that's very strange considering what Democrats actually fight for.

Now, when Republicans were asked, 40% said he was a Democrat. To be fair, Democrat aligned makes sense, but the question is poorly worded as he was politically unaffiliated, in which case neither is technically the correct answer. But if we're, this is why, if you, if you're, you're actually asking this question, you should respond with left aligned, right aligned, or liberal or conservative leaning. But we understand the intent behind this. Democrats are wrong, Republicans are right. Democrats were tricked into believing something that is not true. How do we function when you have people like Jimmy Kimmel intentionally lying? Politics girl, intentionally lying, the Krasenstein's, destiny, all of them, and they know they're lying, I am not playing

this game. I am not stupid and I will not be manipulated by people who are going to try and tear on your heartstrings and exploit your goodwill while they advocate for death and murder. They know they're lying. Why? Some of these things are so absurd to believe in the first place that you have to intentionally, look, you'd have to be developmentally disabled to make some of these statements that these people have made. Like Jimmy Kimmel doesn't have a team of people who can use Google. How many press conferences have we had where they're like he had a trans lover and was leftist a line? The Guardian reported that he had a, his friend said he was a leftist, the only left person in his family. The mother stated that he had been pushed to the left

that the father called him because the father was upset that the kid was dating a man, that the guy was dating a man, that he was gay. Axios reported the Groyper thing was a lie. Axios reported six independent sources, familiar with the investigation said, the motivating factor may be his transgender lover. I think they said roommate. And Democrats still believe fake reality. So when politics girl makes a video and she's like, turns out he came from a conservative background and the engravings and the gun were just markings from a manufacturer. There is no way, no way. She wasn't aware that she was reading lies directly into that camera. How do you live in a place like this? it's tough because they're doing their best to place the blame you know on conservatives and this is kind of modus operandi like the way that the ADL had accumulate or taken the information that they got for that the the right is actually responsible for most of the political violence and stuff they went into they went into prisons and every time there was a white supremacist that got into a fight with someone that was they

called that politically motivated and it's it's intended to create this narrative that the left never does anything wrong and it's always the right and when it is the left well it was justified you can see that by the way people reacted on tic-tok and on instagram and reels and stuff like that it's oh you know i just saw a post from andy no shout out to andy no something i didn't consider in the previous story but i'll bring up now is we're in the general conversation I think it is now fair to say that we have proof that we literally just showed. The shooter did not act alone. Andy Noah was a great post.

The shooter, according to the messages released by, I believe, by the DOJ and the sheriff and police, was of the shooter instructing his lover to destroy incriminating evidence. And they had stressed that the letter that said he was going to kill Charlie had been destroyed. and they found forensic evidence of it. And the message is that they recovered from Discord, I believe they said had been destroyed, which would imply that while he may not have organized, we may not have direct proof

that the shooter organized the assassination with help. I think we have evidence that he did. Other people knew about it. Perhaps he worked, fair point, perhaps he worked alone, but he told people what he was doing. However, as far as the crime goes, yeah, I can't believe I missed this one.

Shout to Dandy, no. Instructing an individual to destroy evidence implicates you in that crime. Not for the murder, but for the destruction of evidence. If they actually destroy the evidence, yeah. And they did. That's what I asked on that segment earlier. Did he actually destroy the text messages? And if he did, he becomes an accomplice.

You're right, right? Deleting them counts as destroying evidence, right? I believe, yes. It does. If someone tells you they just committed a felony and you delete it, and they say, please delete it, and you delete it, you're accomplice. But not just that. I believe that it was cash.

I could be wrong. Someone had made a statement that there was a lot. letter saying that the shooter said he had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirkie was going to do it. They said the note was destroyed, but they found forensic evidence of it. I thought it was a digital message. From what they've reported, it was a note he wrote and put under his keyboard and then told his lover to let the keyboard and take a look who saw the letter. If that indeed was destroyed, then that's, I believe it's probably what, many felonies? Yep. Interesting. Probably a felony account. Every message that they deleted, they'd probably count as a

To the point of this UGov poll, guys, subscribe to my channel at Tim Poole, it's on Rumble and YouTube, new videos. I did a review assessment's reaction to a video from a YouTube channel called Moon, where he argued the assassination of Charlie Kirk will bring about civil war. That was the title. And he points out that, as we have, there is no reconciliation because each group lives in an entirely different universe. And that means that the other group becomes an existential threat. I think it is clear to say right now, I have proven to all of you. The shooter was not a Republican. If your argument is that Republicans are transphobic, then you have a cognitive dissonance because why would a Republican

that you believe is transphobic be living with a trans roommate and kill one of the most, if not the most prominent conservative activist in the country. That does not make a lick of sense. Furthermore, I've shown you numerous articles and statements showing that officials said this was a leftist-aligned person with a trans roommate, so it is clear. If you still believe that the shooter was a Republican, you have cognitive dissonance. But more to the point, it is clear now to all of you who don't. that Democrats clearly do. How do we live in a society with terroristic threats, violence, assassinations from people

who believe two plus two equals five? Also not an exaggeration. I was just going to say for quick, it's like, I mean, this isn't even like 2020 where you could chalk this up to propaganda or gas sliding or that sort of thing. You have mainstream outlets saying this guy was a leftist and Democrats are still digging their heels in. So it's like, you can't even chalk this one up to propaganda this time. This is just straight up cognitive dissonance. This is straight up team playing.

For some, but it's also, there's a motivation to deceive. There's a huge social incentive right now to double down on this. So earlier we were asking, what should the response be, given all these threats, given that the Constitution was made for a moral and religious people and left us in our country are not that? How do we react to people who are bending at the fabric of our Constitution in our society? I think we need to double down on the values that Charlie Kirk espoused and continue to continue his legacy and how he went about his advocacy. I think when people try to terrorize conservative outside of college campuses, we need to

double down and continue going to college campuses. I don't think we need to run away from free speech. I think we need to double down on free speech. I think cracking down on free speech would be antithetical to all of Charlie Kirk's values. So I think, Tim, I think you have like a reason to be afraid and concerned about going to Charlie Kirk's wedding, but I think like... Funeral. Funeral. Oh. Yeah. Although he did have a great video about how men wear black at their wedding because

it's a kind of funeral. And like the values he talked about were getting married, getting married early and being religious. But I guess living in fear would really only encourage more terrorism because then they'd be accomplishing their goal and you'd be further incentivizing their goal. Also recently came out the speakers for Charlie Kirk's memorial service. President Trump, Vice President Trump, Erica Kirk, White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, RFK Jr., Pete Hagseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump Jr. Indeed. Indeed. I think it would be meaningful if you were able to arrive, too.

Yeah, I'm not like a speaker or anything like that. And they have secure sections for high-profile individuals, and it's a weird thing to say, but I have so many death threats. The question is, not the event, which would obviously be amazing, but it's an extremely high-profile event in Arizona, and this means that I have to have a 24-7 security detail. I'll be confined to my hotel. This is the reality of going into places like this right now. We're a week out. Now, I get it. I can do the basic disguise thing and, you know, try and figure things out and do stuff like that. And my point is not that I wouldn't go. The point is not that fear has kept me confined to my house and I won't even go outside anymore, anything like that.

No, there's a thing called courage. Courage doesn't mean you don't have fear. It means that even when you're afraid, you still push forward. The issue that I bring up with this debate is that they have created an air of terror that for a fact. Who were we talking with Connor Tomlinson when he said there were conservatives who did not go to the Unite the King's, Rally because of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. So Charlie Kirk is assassinated by a leftist. Now I think it's fair to say confirmed.

And they go online and say, you're next. We know where you are and we're coming for you. The purpose is to terrify as many people as possible. And to be completely honest, the threat of death is real. It's a real death threat. So you've now got to weigh the risks you are willing to take and what risks and why. And so the question of the university event that I was going to be doing with Alex Stein, that was going to be in a month. And we're canceling that. I think Alex said he was canceling all of his university events because you can't secure it. Does it make sense in a time of political assassinations and death threats for me to go out in the public to try and talk with 500 people when I can do my show and reach millions? Why would I risk losing? my opportunity to speak and call these things out for that. And so for that, we've canceled it.

That being said, for the events that we're doing for the culture war live, they're indoor with full security screenings. We are still making concessions. I've long said, I believe in the Second Amendment, and if I'm going to go in public and people want to be armed, then so be it. But now the question is, I can't because they're actively trying to kill us, expressing the desire to do so and largely getting away with threats. I think you're right, Elad, that we do Phil, sorry, I'll rattle this off and then jump over to you really quick, that we do need to double down on Charlie's message, which is free speech. That is the essence. But the tactics, we've got to be smart because if you're in combat and enemy develops a new artillery that can hit your far back line and they wipe out squadrons of men, you don't go, you know what, I'm going to keep doing it because it's the right, and you stop moving people into that position. You start moving into different positions now that there's a new tactic. This isn't about free speech. This is not. about free speech. The point, the reason why Tim is talking about safety issues

and whether or not he's going to go is because this is about terrorism. We keep bringing up free speech as if this is about reasonable discourse. This is not about discourse. This is about intent to chill political expression. It's about terrorism. So continuing to talk about this

as if it's a free speech issue It's not about research is the very essence of how we speak out against the tyranny. No, this is the point. Okay, then. Do you think we should arrest someone who says, hey, Tim, I'm coming to meet you. I got your address. How's your friend Charlie doing? I understand. I understand the points that you're making. Would that person be arrested? No, no, they shouldn't. I'm asking you. I'm talking to you. Okay. But the point, but no, he shouldn't. I don't think that he should. But that's, that's, I understand the, and I understand the points that you're making. But the, the topic that we're actually discussed,

that we should be discussing is how the federal government is going to make sure that people can express themselves politically. Of course, we can't do anything about people that are going to make illusions and say things like that and use multiple people to try to intimidate, you know, multiple statements to try to intimidate people. But the point is, we need to use all of the powers of the federal government to prevent these types of actions from happening in the first place. That's not possible. That's why we have a second amendment and you protect yourself. It's not the federal government. No, it's not possible. Ian, it's you. Amy Klobuchar today was talking to Cash Patel at the Senate hearing and she had this really great statement for about two minutes before it turned

into garbage. And she was saying, I'm sorry for your loss. This political violence is really bad. Charlie Kirk, you know, shouldn't have been killed. There was Minnesota lawmakers. They also died. cash said, I'm sorry for your loss as well. This isn't really bad. And then she said the rights doing it and we need to ban guns. Banning guns will not do any. You cannot, like, this is the conversation I have with security. There is no such thing as perfect security. It's impossible. The government cannot keep you safe. It is impossible. The government struggles to keep itself safe. So what are we, what are we talking about then? No one's allowed to carry knives like in the UK. So then they carry screwdrivers and they ban screwdrivers.

So then someone carries a cricket bat and they ban that. And then someone has a padlock and they're like, you're going to wrap a shoelace around that padlock and ban that. People will find a way. And this is the terrifying reality of hyper-partisan, hyper-polarization, and conflict. That there is nothing the federal government can do that will stop a single lunatic leftist from taking a knife, showing up at a conservative event

and in a split second that knife can take on a lot of people. I kept thinking about things we've all talked about and particularly where's the off ramp a question that's been in my head for a week thinking about Phil and I made a video about it today on YouTube

I'm the off ramp. You are the off ramp if you want to be. It's a constant struggle. It will never stop. It's like driving through a road and we're taking shots, we have a mission. But beyond that,

we should also be, very careful to like project what charlie's reaction to this would be because the next closest person is erika kirk and she was very explicit that we need to crush this political violence and and she gave trump the green light to do what he needs to do to end this so it's like we should also be very careful like projecting oh charlie was the free speech guy it's like he he was but the the paradigm has changed this is not just free speech explicitly they're literally sending they're sending explicit threats in Minecraft because they think that's like a loophole

and it's like enough look I I get death threats myself I got a very explicit one today on on X and I retweeted it just because I want to make sure that these things are public but the fact of the matter is like you said Erica Trump made

the point alright I'm sorry Erica Kirk Kirk made the point that this is not just about a free speech issue and I understand everyone here is talking about, you know, how can the government do this? How can the government do that? The government has shown, has in the past, gone to pretty, pretty sizable lengths to stop terrorism. We have a whole, we had a whole war on terror, and there are all of the levers of power

that the federal government had to use during the war on terror. They still have. They, and they actually use them. What? And look what we're dealing with. Well, that's true, but they haven't, they haven't used them against the left. They ended up turning them towards the Republicans, to be honest with you. But the point that I'm making is, there are things that the government can do. Nothing will ever be perfect. I'm not saying that they can protect every single person completely and totally. And Ian, you brought up the Second Amendment.

Look, are you talking to? I mean, I'm the guy that always carries, right? I'm the guy that always has guns on him. So it's not like, I don't understand what you're saying. saying, and it's not like I'm saying, oh, we should offload our individual protection to the government. But this isn't about just protecting individuals. This is about going after the organizations, because Antifa, even though they are a, they're not a specific organization, they are a loosely affiliated group of people, there are still ways to go after them. And the

government should be doing that. And that activity, that operational, that operational, by the government will put pressure on people that might say things or might take matters into their own hand. They're going to say, I don't know, it's not worth it for me to make these jokes. And it's not, again, it's not going to be perfect. I'm not a fan of the Zapp Branigan method. And that is sending in wave after wave of your own men until the killbots reach their preset killbot kill limit. And then they just power down. And what I mean by that is the idea that the left has explicitly stated that they will kill us and they are and it's happening and we are concerned that it will escalate the idea that we will just keep sending the most

prominent into the fray in the exact same way is kind of a dumb idea like hoping at some point leftists just get tired of of it and stop so now to be fair leftist violence is the most pronounced the way i've often described it is that if you actually read and watch the news leftist violence happens the most. They lie, of course, through institutions and manipulation to claim it's the right, but that's not true. However, violence aligned with twisted right ideologies tends to be what I would call more acute. So you get a crazy guy who goes on like a racist shooting rampage or something. Now, for the left, they've taken the spotlight with even the most violent of shootings in the past couple of years. We've had now several transgender mass shooters. It's

rather alarming. And so even what we would describe as the blunt already being on the left, but I'm sorry, what we describe as the acute being right wing is now being dominated by the left. And the blunt, which has always been left wing, is also dominated by the left wing. So they've clearly taken the cake. Even Stephen Marsh, who's a liberal, has admitted this in his article for the independent. So the argument is, what I'm saying, we should not just be, hey, Charlie Kirk, his life was taken by a leftist because he was doing these things. Let's send a bunch of more people to go do the exact same thing and just like send him into the battlefield to fight the killbots. there is an argument, to be honest, that maybe if we were like, hey, everybody, let's all go out and do the exact same thing out in the open where people are going to try and shoot you. Because if you die, then America snaps to attention because if another political assassination will be devastating, this country would fall apart overnight. I think what we actually do is we assess the circumstances and adapt our strategies. We don't stop. We double down. But we don't just say,

hey, I should continue my college event and go out and stand in the public in front of several hundred people with an event that's impossible to secure. That makes no sense. Yeah, it's a multi-tiered solution. It's not any one thing. Their free speech is the long goal, of course, the constitution of holding that. And then in the immediate situation, you need to tamp down on terrorist organizations. And using the federal government for that, I fully agree with you. I have a question for you.

I also, though, I'm concerned about what the definition of terrorist is. I do want to discuss that. But real quick, I have a question for the audience, and I have a question for you guys here. I've only talked about this somewhat privately, but considering what's going on, I think it's fine to ask this question publicly, although I was thinking before I should, but I will. What do you think would happen in the United States if another prominent, right-aligned personality was assassinated in a similar fashion in the span of a week or two? Patrick Bet David said, basically, we just said that that could be the end of the end of it. You would get tit-for-tat violence potentially, but the thing about the United States, the way it's structured, like our cities are structured, is it doesn't facilitate a right-wing mass mobilization just because people, like, conservatives live in the suburbs in rural areas, so they can't just, like, drive into downtown and park to riot. So you wouldn't see any, like, rioting.

The left, on the other hand, can mobilize overnight, riot, et cetera, et cetera. The question is. So you would get tit-for-tat violence. The truth of the matter is that maybe the Republicans would benefit a next. in the next midterm election, but I frankly believe that... You think nothing would happen? For the most part, people have very short memories, unfortunately. The attitudes in the country might be tense for a bit, but writ large...

So hold on, let's rephrase. Just make sure I get what you're saying correctly. Yeah. If following one week after Charlie Chris's assassination, another prominent high-profile conservative is assassinated... Say Tucker Carlson. You think people would go, huh? They wouldn't go, huh?

Donald Trump may attend their funeral. Pam Bondi would put out a strong statement. I'm sure many congressmen, including some Democrat congressman, would condemn it. But writ large, it would affect the electorate up until maybe the midterms that may be coming up in a year or so, a little bit over a year and a half or what have you. But we have short memories. And the president literally got shot and was almost assassinated. And if nothing happened there, I don't really see why it would go anywhere further or much crazier if it was some commentator. because he lived because he lived i honestly think that at the point that we're at right now

that might get conservatives to protest and demonstrate in the street now not i'm not talking about i'm not talking about actually doing anything i'm not talking about big riots but i think that like you would see a lot more vigils because they're i mean even with with charlie there are candlelight vigils you would see more conservatives going and doing things again not rioting this wouldn't be like i'm not implying that it would be like it would be like it's as if a, you know, a prominent Democrat got killed. But I do think that you might see conservatives out doing more vigils, doing more of what, doing more of what they did for Charlie.

I think that if within the span of a week or two, following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, another prominent conservative voice personality was killed, you would get, there would be extreme anger and rage manifesting in isolated areas among the right. But the right doesn't have anything to protest in this regard. It's left as extreme violence. What you'd likely see is, first, a lot of public attendance to meetings.

There'd be people, you'd have meetings. It's like really, really low to stuff. Something you probably wouldn't even notice. I believe that Donald Trump would issue a direct statement over the threat of far-left terror expanding. Because of the shock to the system that was Charlie Kirk's death, I think they said only four NFL teams didn't honor him. short memory? No, no, no, no, no. Nearly every single football stadium

had a moment of silence for Charlie Kirk. The Yankees did. In Vegas and the Marquise, they put memorials for Charlie Kirk. There were a moment of silence from across the border. All of these mainstream institutions, the New York Times put a memorial

on their menu bar. If, when there's been of a week, another shock like that happened, you'd get the boot down by Trump, and I believe the Democratic Party would, basically cease to exist. And I'm saying if it was explicitly like a Democrat ideologically aligned individual who did it, Trump would come out and say, this has crossed the line. We are entering

into extreme, you know, territory. This country cannot handle this level of violence. And I'm saying the same thing, meaning you get more celebrations from the left, you get more mockery, you get more lies. I think this country would overnight, overnight, it would be unrecognizable to you. This is when Donald Trump invokes the Insurrection Act with impunity. This is when federal law enforcement is dispatched and there are no Democrats willing to step up against it because they know what the left did to incite it. There will be some Democrats that would say things like this is crossing a line and it shouldn't happen, but for the most part, they'd be terrified. They'd be saying, I don't know what to do because all of my constituents are terrified of the assassins, not of law enforcement, and they want the law enforcement. so those Democrats shut up. Donald Trump then goes in. Ice enforcement. You'd get pockets of leftist

insurgency. They're already doing it. And what was it? Two guys got seriously injured. One guy in Chicago got nearly run over and shot and killed the illegal immigrant happening in Florida. That kind of stuff would expand. I don't think what I think is actually terrifying in this context is. Did you guys know that two guys tried planting a bomb on a Fox News truck in Utah? Did you guys know that a ICE officer was trying to arrest an illegal? who then sped off and was dragging him so he shot and killed the guy. And I believe that happened again in Florida shortly after. There are stories that are terrifying that are in the news that we're not actually talking about. These are domestic issues where we are seeing the left engage in serious violence and it's swept under.

So my fear is if we are dangerously close to the precipice, the Charlie Kirk assassination was several things. he was a moderate that terrifies people he preached debate and free speech and they killed him horrifying he was young that really scares people he had a family and his family watched him die that terrifies people all of these are compound compounding effects but i hate to say this and i hate to be crude but i believe the most impactful issue relating to charlie kirk's death was that the gruesome way in which he died visibly to the public, which shocked regular people to their core to see, not in a movie, but the actual merciless killing, which resulted in such a horrific injury that everyone watched. Whether or not you knew who he was or did not, regular people cried

when they saw that because it's a horrific graphic moment. That terrifies people. So everyone's on edge right now. I do agree with you to a certain extent a lot that people have a short memory because already we're starting to see more and more liberals come out with glee and lie about Charlie Kirk a week out. But it's kind of like an overheating. The pot has boiled over and is starting to simmer down. We are dangerously close if something comparable happened. The pot's popping. I struggle to see a coherent response from the current administration already to respond to Charlie Kirk's assassination is why I'm so skeptical of if they were, God forbid, another attack on

some prominent conservative that they'd have a much better way of responding. I don't foresee them again really cracking down on free speech laws, even though that's kind of the first thing that they went to. I don't know if I need to recite this because we've heard this argument a million times. If a Democrat administration were to get in, they'd abuse these hate speech laws against the Republicans. I'm going to stop you there because we're well beyond that argument, meaning we've already watched Democrats arrest the frontrunner for their opposing party. The argument that if Democrats win, our speech is threatened, is ridiculous because I'm actually more concerned about who they're going to execute an arrest.

Yep. All right. The anti-free speech laws are antithetical to our Constitution. So let me make the point again. Throwing a full bucket of water onto your kitchen floor is a bad idea. It'll cause water damage. But when your house is on fire, it's exactly what you should do. Sure, but Democrats argue that about the Second Amendment.

And I disagree with them on that, on the Second Amendment. say, you know, there's too much. I think it's fair to point out that some people are stupid and other people are not. The point is, when they make arguments that hate speech is an existential threat, we know they're psychotic. When we make the argument that assassinating Charlie Kirk and threatening death on conservatives for voting for Trump is an existential threat, that's a fact base because Charlie Kirk was killed. So the point is we can't question people's speech. Democrats will do bad things to us. You mean like kill people or try to put the president. in prison, which they're still trying to do.

They're just stuck because he's in the presidency and they can't prosecute him. What was the, today, what was the program that the, that Cash Patel and I think. Arctic, what is it, Arctic tundra or Arctic Fox? Arctic Frost. The government, they use the, they're using the government. Let's do this. I'm sorry to cut into Super Chat time. Here's a story.

Before you do, I got to go. I'm actually hosting Inverted World tonight. Shane Cashman's going to be out. So I'm going to be over there. It starts at 10 p.m. on inverted world. I believe YouTube's going to send you over. over there. Check it out. I'll be there. Thank you guys for having me tonight. Excellent conversation, guys. See later, man. Bye.

Here's a story from The New York Post. FBI Arctic Frost probe targeted nearly 100 GOP groups, including Charlie Kirk's TPUSA. This, of course, was exposed by Senator Grassley in the hearing with Cash Patel earlier. They say an FBI investigation launched in the wake of the 2020 election scrutinized nearly 100 Republican and GOP-aligned groups, including Turning Point USA. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley published files related to the probe condemned, sorry, code named Arctic Frost during a panel hearing saying the records revealed Arctic Frost was much broader than just an electoral matter and that the investigation expanded to Republican organizations. Some examples of the groups that Ray, that Ray's FBI sought

to place under political investigation included the Republican National Committee, Republican Attorneys General Association and Trump political groups, Grassley went on. Let me just make it clear. The argument that, oh no, we can't because Democrats would later, Democrats already did. And we are, let me, let me say this. I would, I think the left wants a civil war in this country because it is the only way they can destroy the Constitution, which basically protects us. It's tattered to shreds. It isn't the only thing that protects us, but that written document makes it very difficult for the left to make dramatic revolutionary change. Where a civil war to happen, they can rewrite whatever they want. So they are intentionally

creating circumstances by which this conflict arises. Democrats are more than happy to oblige. They have tried, they arrested Trump several times. They have tried to put him in prison. They are still trying to put him in prison, but it's frozen because Trump is currently president. A left-line individual said that Charlie was too hateful to be negotiated with, and so this assassin allegedly, you know, innocent until proven guilty, but it looks like the evidence

they've released so far is pretty damning. This left-line individual shot and murdered Charlie Kirk. We are in an untenable circumstance. They're issuing death threats and veiled threats, publishing addresses, trying to get prominent individuals killed. What can we do? We can say, hold on, we are not going to go after them because they've used loopholes in how they speak so that we can't prosecute them.

They've used loopholes in how they commit acts of physical violence and vandalism so we can't prosecute them. So we'll sit back and let them do it. And what will you get? The far left will riot, smash, burn, destroy things. And we'll sit back and say, but you can't prosecute because we can't figure out who individually they are. And they'll keep doing it. And if you try to prosecute them under conspiracy, we saw what happened in D.C., they'll sue you, and they'll win.

That's when we follow the liberal rules, the classical liberal rules, which we believe in. We want to. But unfortunately, as the founding fathers stated, these rules only work for a moral and, and what do they say, moral and religious? Virtuous. Virtuous, was that it was? It's religious and moral people to John Adams. Yes, religious and moral people. That means we create rules and we say, we agree we're trying to live together and we'll abide by these rules. Meanwhile, homie's got aces up his sleeve. And he's like, you got it, buddy. You're going to keep playing with them? It's a rock and a hard place. You're going to flip the table. Now there's no game for anybody. This is the challenge. The FBI was going after Charlie Kirk's organization, T.P. USA. They targeted him. I don't know where we go from here. I don't, I have no. This is insane. My prediction was going to be that we've already seen the prosecution of prominent liberals.

You've got Letitia James being prosecuted, I believe she's got criminal charges for what mortgage fraud. Did they actually launch the charges? Adam Schiff now, I believe his shift similarly. So this game is expanding. Is there any reason to believe it stops? Honest question. People tell me I'm fearmongering for asking this question. I am looking at this like a.

simple math problem, two plus two equals what? You're not going to change the answer. So if they try to arrest Donald Trump, it is entirely predictable that Donald Trump's DOJ and others, a lot of Trump would then go after these individuals in any way they can. Mortgage fraud, they found away. They killed Charlie Kirk. What happens next? Trump says, Pam Bondi says, we're going to go after them. Someone asked Trump, but I think those protests are still of their free speech as I'm not so sure. It's predictable. Two hyper-polarized sides, neither will back down because both sides want to maintain their moral worldview. And I'll keep it real simple.

In what reality will a conservative agree to live in a country that legalizes child sex changes? They're going to say no to that. And I know this is just one granular political issue, but it's an example. There are issues by which conservatives say, I will not abide. And the liberals look at them back and say, neither will I. then what? That's why some people have been advocating for years now national divorce, which wouldn't solve the problem because, you know, if Arizona got split from the rest of the country, or look, Arizona needs water from other places. The Great Lakes have a lot of it.

There's food shipped all over this country. There are trade routes that are entwined. And if resources were cut off, including weapons and military, then you are going to get fighting. Imagine what would happen if the Colorado River got damned upstream from L.A. because they said we have no negotiating no treaties with you imagine if these states went to California and said because there's no longer a federal government overseeing this we're willing to give you water but your 13 million people in L.A. are going to have to tithe to us war. So I hope and I beg that we are not going to escalate and I say it every time maybe this is the time people finally wake up but take a look at what Medea San did. This guy published a fake

a list of fake quotes from Charlie Kirk. They are out of context, spliced, so that it makes Charlie's sound really, really bad. Why? Because he wants to make sure liberals feel okay with the fact that one of them murdered him. So they can say, yes, just assassinations are bad, but look how awful this guy was. And then liberals go, yeah, assassinations are bad, but he was the devil, right? That's where we're at. What happens next?

political violence has become unapproved and acceptable a part of our political process such that you're seeing people like Medi Hassan after the fact try to like tacitly say that it was okay not explicitly say it but like saying oh look at all these terrible quotes he had or look what he said about Gaza or look at he'd probably argue that Charlie Kirk supported the genocide alleged genocide in Gaza and therefore it's justified in killing him or whatnot but as we're seeing the more, this become more acceptable, I think there's no reason to see, um, to predict less political violence in our political process. I think it would be naive to think otherwise. I think people are continuing to dehumanize the other political side. People on the left think conservatives simply aren't human. They think that Zionists simply aren't human. We've been seeing violence, um, towards them. And I mean, we've also been seeing it in the reverse. Some people on the right also dehumanize people on the left, um, such to the degree that I wouldn't be surprised if we saw political violence against them in the future as well.

It's also unfortunate that it seems that this violence is effective in their goal. They managed to take out a major figure on the right that will be irreplaceable. I mean, that's why these condemnations from the left are just useless because they're saying, okay, it's wrong that Kirk died, but then they add so many qualifiers onto it so they can signal to their side that, well, I still think, I'm still dehumanizing. Don't worry. I'm still saying he's a fascist Nazi, but I have to put this in here for PR reasons that it's wrong that he was killed. So it's like, even in their condemnations, it's still not turning the temperature down whatsoever.

And this is only coming from the left. I mean, if this happened to a left-wing person, the entire right would say this is wrong, full stop. Here's one for you. Let's get as personal as I can. In December of last year, I was informed by my legal team that the DOJ had basically had effectively dropped their investigation of the Russian individuals purportedly secretly funding tenant. it was gone. As quickly as it emerged, they said, nope. And I was telling them, no, no, no, no, I want all this stuff released. They have besmirched my good name. We had nothing to do with anything untoward. And what are you going to do? You can't make the DOJ. Lauren Chen came out recently and issued a statement that it was formally dropped in all capacity in April. To this day, Democrats still lie and say it's true. So let me just make sure this is very clear to everybody.

not only was it formally dropped and their argument is yeah well Trump's DOJ did it they stopped investigating and basically called it off in December and I reported I stated that at the time and they ignore it I think it's fair to fair to state that the intention the whole time in targeting tenant was to it was an October surprise yeah it was intended to smear me Benny Dave and others what take a look at what Dave's content was it was America's funny as home videos. I'm not kidding. It got limited traction, no disrespect, but he was making videos where he was watching

funny videos online and reacting to him. And they claimed that that was Russian propaganda. What is the culture war show? We had a discussion recently on religion and AI. AI. We're doing one on exorcisms and demons, totally unrelated to politics for the most part.

It was all lies. They came out and made some wild claims. The DOJ did this. Issued a press release. Now, I just heard recently that Cash Patel issuing these statements was unprecedented regarding these assassination. There was an article written by some liberal Democrat guy saying that it is a former FBI that is unheard of for the head of the FBI to come out and make statements like this. Mayor Garland did.

He gave a press conference where he talked about this. How weird? How often does he do that? How often does he issue these press conferences? He doesn't. Never did. And then right after the election, they told my least. legal team, there was no investigation the case was basically over. What was the point of it in the

first place? Two people no one ever heard of that we can't confirm exists in a faraway country did something we can't prove. They never published any evidence, but the Democrats act like it's true. I think it's political. I think what the FBI is doing political. I think it's fascinating when I say it is civil strife, political civil war, cold civil war or whatever. People are like laughable. And then you look at what they're doing. The FBI went after turning point. Charlie Kirk is dead now. I think it's broader than people realize, and I think people should have realized the moment they put Trump in cuffs, I mean, figuratively, the moment they took his mug shot,

Trump's at the top. If they're going to go for the king, imagine what they're going to do for everybody. They're going to try to do everybody else. He wasn't kidding when he said, they're coming after you. I'm just in the way. 100%. It's the truest thing you ever said. Well, I mean, look, the whatever, Arctic Frost or whatever, that proves it.

Yeah. You know, the fact that the FBI was investigating parents for going to PTA meetings and saying that they didn't like the curriculum. That proves it. This isn't, this isn't some kind of theory or hypothetical. Like the federal government has been used against conservatives ever since 2012 with the IRS scandal with Lois Lerner. We do need to go to chats. So we're going to jump to chats. I know we went way long on this one, but I apologize.

It's just this one's got me going. one. And I got a shout out of a sponsor too while we still have time. And it's one of my favorites, guys. Shout out to Beam Dream over at shop, B-E-A-M.com. I drink this every single night. It is amazing and delicious and I absolutely love it. Helps me sleep. It's got meltona. It's got the good stuff. Let me read a little bit for you. We're constantly pulled in a hundred directions between news, politics, work, and family. Sleep is the first thing to suffer. Trust me, I felt it every day. And I got to be honest, I didn't even realize my sleep was not as good as it could have been. That's what was really crazy to me as I was like, I don't know. I think I'm fine,

right? I started drinking this every night. After like two or three days of having a glass before bed, I started to wake up, like jumping up full strength. Crazy. My watch right now has made an 82% readiness. That's wild. Anyway, so what I appreciate the most is it's not a quick fix. It's got magnesium, alphanine. It's got other natural ingrained. It's got melatonin. Just 15, calories, no added sugar. It tastes really good, by the way. So if you're struggling with sleep or just want to wake up feeling better, Beam Dream, it's made a big difference for me. And right now, they've got a discount code up to 40% off when you use promo code Tim Pool or use the link in the description below. Check out shop, B-E-A-M.com slash Tim Pool. And I legit

mean it. Like, Beam, I love you guys. Holy crap. Not only is it helping me sleep, but it's just a delicious cup of hot cocoa before bed, which is, and you don't need an excuse for, but I got one, so I'll take it. This stuff's amazing. Let's try and grab as many of your chats and rants as we can. I apologize for going long today, but you see me go off on those rants. Cremitt says evidence, the Bible is true. In Genesis chapter 1-4, God made male and female, and the enemy spurred division and murder. Today, evil is trying to destroy male and female and encourages murder, same MO, same enemy. You know, I'll tell you this. There are lot of things. There are a lot of things that I, uh, that I'm seeing. It's, I don't know.

Demons, man. I made that video. It's time to bring back exorcisms. I think demons are real. You should, you guys should check it out. It's on the Tim Pool channel on Rumble and YouTube. Shandage Wilder says the ABC news clip just goes to show that MSM will stop at nothing to control the narrative. It's sickening. Hi, Adam can't wait to get the book and read it from a lectern like a patriotic bus. Adam wasn't actually set to come today. He was next month. I thought something like that would happen. If had something, like that happened before, but we caught it in time. Because if someone says something, like, so basically what happened was, and I'm, and I'm, I'm not on the emails, but I guess he emailed

about October 16th, then our team responded. And then, like, two emails later, he, like, they say, like, the 16th works, and they think the 16th is not referring to September because they missed October, and he thinks it's October, and then we screw up. All right. Shane H. Wilder says, dang, I'll have to buy Tate's book instead, standing tall, the Tate Brown story. I don't know if I'm literate enough to write a book, but I'll try. Deplorable sense says, don't be naive. Timcast was also spied on during Arctic Frost. I bet, which is probably how they did all that tenant garbage.

Oh, man, you think they have stuff on it? You think they could access the before show video, too? Oh. Poking around? Oh, no, they might publish literally me speaking without a script exactly how I feel to everybody. I record five hours a day. I literally say, like there's nothing left for me to say outside of everything I already say. other than like

you know who I really don't like but you know I'm like when the cameras are off I'm like that Alex Stein oh I'm kidding taking our guests I was on the phone with Alex early before the show taking our guess Wayno Malio says Phil

no one expected a political commentator to be assassinated in public either I think Trump's replay to the question was very concerning yeah that's what's big for me I think it's not like when you mentioned Trump like Trump's a politician he's someone that people view as no longer

as like this social media guy or like a guy that was on TV, like they view it's like this is a normal person who is engaged in politics outside of being in politics. I think that's what changes for me. That's what changes the whole thing for everybody. Yeah. That's different. Well, there's a lot of compounding factors. Definitely. His wife and children watched. Totally. Yeah. I do think for most people, because I've asked a lot of people about it. And I think what made them cry was the gruesome nature of his killing him. Yeah. Cerno said we're like in PTSD still because everyone saw the video and you're not supposed to see those things as a human. Yeah, man. I've told the story numerous

times about a car accident I saw and the dude's legs were mutilated and I have a feeling that I've never been given a word for literally. And I'm sure like combat vets and people who have you know EMTs and first responders and all that and cops know that feeling. But it's it's so rare in our society. I don't know there's a word for it. Horror. Yeah. Not enough. I saw like I saw a dead child in Africa and the second time I've ever felt that feeling was a and I saw Charlie so it's like I don't even ought to begin to describe it it's uh it's like feeling I would describe it as feeling fear anger and sadness bald up hyperconcerated in your chest at the exact same time yeah yeah and sadness precisely I know it's like we don't got a word for it the Germans probably do they have

wild words shot in seven German words yeah um it armadaya says the messages released are only the ones that are relevant to establishing probable cause. The county attorney is not going to release two full days of messages when most are irrelevant in the case. Agreed. That's why transposition seems to make most sense. That, and the ellipsies as well. Because I'm sure there was stuff in there like,

hey, take my braid out of the freezer if you can. I'm going to put it in the fridge for me. You know, like, nobody needs to hear that. Nobody cares. All right. Let's see what we got. We'll grab some more chats. We got a few minutes. I see people are commenting here. What is this one? kilogram gaming says one thing I've realized is when the next 10 to 15 years the same people who think the political violence is okay will be able to run for the presidency our youth are watching the video in schools and some teachers are encouraging it i wish that answers or ideas to help i don't it's sad

This is the idea that I've tried to convey quite a bit. In 2018, I was in a group chat with a lot of D.C. Politico's talking about this stuff. And they said, I was crazy because the U.S. government would never allow a civil war. And I said, you don't understand the issues that we're seeing will become the highest levels of government. And that's what's happening. These 20-year-old, like, it's seven years ago. When I'm in my late 20s and this gamer gaze, 12 years ago, I'm 27 and that gamer gays, gate is starting or whatever. I'm in my 20s. I'm not running for office. I'm not involved deeply

entrenched in the stuff. I'm on the ground filming stuff in various countries doing whatever. The people who are involved in that culture war become hyper-polarized, but they're not in positions of power. 15 years later, AOC is in Congress. Not even 15, 10 years later. And now you have one of these partisans in government. And there's rumors she'll run for the Senate. There's rumors she might run for president. And you have many of these prominent liberals who 10, 15 years ago were just goofy liberals arguing on the internet. One of them is going to become president. And they believe, and it's going to be one of those people who are like, imagine what would happen if like Nick Fuentes was president, right? And I'm not saying, I'm just saying his position

with the authority of government. There are a lot of, a lot of things. that he doesn't want, that he would advocate for removal of, and they're more, they're further right than the average person in this country. The left similarly. Imagine if AOC was president. She's going to advocate for things that middle, regular people don't want. The hyper-polarization is apparent, and sooner or later, one of these people is going to be president. Here's a question for you guys. Here's a question for Elad. The election is AOC versus Fuentes, who you vote for? Oh, they've, now that we don't have Charlie Kirk

They're both anti-Israel Now that we don't have Charlie Kirk to beat out Fuentes in the 2048 Republican primary If it's between Fuentes and AOC How old is Nick? I think he's late 20s In 20s, something like that Yeah, yeah, he still got a decade before he can run

Well, let's just say it's, you know, 10, 10, 15 years or whatever And Nick Fuentes, what do you guys think? Who you vote for? can I go back to my like abstaining as a journalist response like as a journalist like I like to not participate I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate go ahead waste your vote what are we getting as the libertarian candidate Dave Smith oh I mean there is something to be said anti-Israel version of every party there is something to be said is like with the composition of zoomers you're going to get if not those names by proxy you will get those two ideological I don't think they'll ever get a libertarian that... Oh, no, no, I... You're not going to get a Dave Smith.

No, no, but... I'm saying Fuentes AOC. I mean... Gryper or leftist? Even if it's not... And even as Groyper, it's going to be in that neighborhood, for sure. I mean, if you look at Instagram Reels.

The gen... Oh, I know. It's hilarious. Yeah. It's like, Gen Z is just spam blasting Fuentes. Yeah. So I'm like, even if it's not like a, you know, Catholic, you know, tradgath or whatever, it's going to be like on that degree of right-wing.

It was funny. There was one of these. reels, and it was me talking about a Fuentes reel. And it was like, the funniest framing ever, it was like Tim Poole who hates, in all caps, Nick, and refuses to debate him, even admits that Fuentes videos are going viral, take a look at this clip or whatever. And I was like, I don't hate the guy, what? I don't refuse to debate.

Is it so weird how they frame these things? Wait, so same question back to you, A or C are Nick Fuentes, who you're picking. Nick? Yeah, Nick. I guess Nick has to run. It's not even a hard question, but, but I'll, but, but, I'll, but, you know, explain because I'm just hoping the left grabs that and they say yeah because aOC is psychotic she's a liar she's a grifter and uh i never said either was good but like an aOC presidency yeah not interested

you say goodbye to property rights yeah exactly an overt commie say goodbye to property rights and as soon as you have if you don't have property rights you don't have an economy your economy falls apart people don't invest. Not to mention, I think it's fair to say that while Nick has said things that are quite offensive and controversial, they've lied about the guy quite a bit too. Yeah. Yeah. And so my view largely is neither would be my first, fifth or even tenth choice. But that's why I asked the question because it's funny to ask. If he wasn't so conspiratorial about Israel, like Israel's got a lot of influence and stuff. But if it wasn't like, everything's the Jews, you'd be like, I could be like, well, you know, he's got, he's got good points

on some stuff. You know, if we got to, we got to go to the uncensored portion of the show where we'll continue this conversation, which should get interesting. So smash that like button. Share the show with everyone, you know, subscribe, follow me on X and Instagram. More importantly, a new channel on YouTube and Rumble. It's at Tim Poole. I put up a video today

commenting on the idea that the assassination of Kirk will lead to a civil war, which I argued, I don't think we are in one, but Moon on YouTube, that's the channel name, made a really great mini-doc breaking down where we currently are. It's a surface level. So I also have a video that's popping off. It's called Hyped now on YouTube. You need to put a hype tag on it. And it's titled, It's Time to Bring Back Exorcisms.

And that's at Timpool. Check it out. Rumble.com slash Timcast, IRL in a little bit. Do you want to shout anything out, Tate? Yeah. I feel like I've now completed the gauntlet. I've sat in every chair at this table for a show. So I've completed the gauntlet. Yeah, you can follow me on X and Instagram. I've never done that. There we go. Yeah, X in Instagram, Real Tate Brown. follow me there. Yeah, never surrender. Speed running every position in the company, just a few months into your... I'm on my Marker Rubio arc.

That's good one. Alad Iliahu on all platforms, White House correspondent here at Timcast. Thanks for tuning in, everybody, Phil. I am Phil that remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. You can follow the band on Apple Music, Amazon music, Pandora, Spotify, YouTube, and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. We will see you all at rumble.com slash Timcast, IRL right now.

We're switching over. See you there, it's going to be fun.