FBI Protected Assassin’s Boyfriend Then Vanished – Charlie Kirk Case Just Got Weirder

the physical I believe in physical evidence. I believe in you know, contradictory testimony that might raise an eyebrow, that might require you to dig a little bit deeper. And we've got a really important one today, and that's regarding TPUSA.

there was no discrepancy. UVU prohibited Turning Point USA from flying drones for security purposes during the event, but did allow a Turning Point USA media production drone to briefly fly over the location before the event to collect limited b roll footage. First of all, how could this be defamatory if I had no idea about any of this? Second, I find this explanation absurd.

any sense. You tell me why a high level political pundit who's going to a college campus of which you know that there will be serious security threats the college campus allows for the media team to fly a drone to get b roll essentially just overhead shots of the crowd. But they refuse to allow the security detail to fly a surveillance drone to make sure that there are no threats on the roof from which a lethal round is then fired. Is that not odd to you? Does that

not rub you the wrong way? Do you not go? Hmm? That does seem off. So set aside the more far fetched claims that Kansas has made and just deal with that. Just deal with what is actually meaningful here. And I

think that's extraordinarily meaningful. Moreover, it's meaningful because if you are a high level security team, which Charlie Kirk's team does appear to have been lots of military veterans, guys that had decades of experience, you would think that they'd be more than equipped to deal with a college campus event like this, particularly given that they've done it countless

times with Charlie Kirk as their protectee. And yet when they are told, sure, you can fly a drone for b role from the media team, but the security team cannot keep it a drone up during the actual event in which we are trying to keep our protectee alive, you say, okay, you say, no problem. Really, I think that's odd. I would say that it's unbelievable, But there's spend so much weirdness with this case that at this

point it is believable. It's just bizarre, Like, why would you not go to the campus overseer and say, hey, we'll just fly a drone during the event for security purposes and not worry about the b role. Can we prioritize our protect ese security as opposed to the media production side of this event, seeing as that's probably more important. Apparently not. Apparently they didn't think that that was necessary.

And the great irony in all this is that the only reason we know this is because TPUSA sent a cease and assist letter to Wolves and Finance the guy who just did that video, basically telling him to back off, that he got a bunch of things wrong and he's got to be quiet. Essentially, now, I haven't dug deep enough to know how accurate his reporting was, so I'm not going to go to the mat defending his evidence or lack thereof, But I will say, I don't think

it's really helping your case. I don't think it's helping your street cred or your reputation. If you're going to start sending season assist letters to YouTubers. I assume Canice will be next, and I hope I won't be, seeing as I haven't made any claims about TPUSA. I've literally just covered this case and said what I think is weird, and what I think is often what I think is right, and what I know just a genuine inquiry. But it

certainly doesn't scream transparency now, does it. It certainly doesn't make you feel content that this organization is being totally transparent and allowing for a full investigation, not just from the officials, the legal officials, but also the internet, like do you want to know who took out your boss? I would hope so, and if not, well, then prepare

for additional questions to be asked. Speaking of transparency issues, when it comes to the prosecution of Silo Robinson, you now have the judge essentially critiquing the videographers that are at one of the court hearings in which they filmed

Tyler Robinson and were able to read his lips. Whether or not that was accurate, I don't know, but he says that that violated their rules about not having a camera on Tyler Robinson during the case, which now makes me fear that he's going to call for the cameras to be removed entirely.

We've got one other new bit of information when it comes to the Charlie Kirk case, and this was an anonymous kind of testimony from an alleged relative of Lance Twiggs, the guy friend girlfriend of Tyler Robinson.

because this is actually what they were saying. Robinson, Delete this exchange, Robinson. My dad wants photos of the rifle, he says, Grandpa wants to know who has what. The Feds released a photo of the rifle and is very unique. He's calling me right now, not answering, Robinson. Since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty die hard. Maga. I'm going to turn myself in willingly. One of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff. You are all I worry about.

of them. Based off of her defense of them being real is that while they were in discord chats gaming and so there's nothing really off about it. Two dudes saying my love and all that. Yeah, not normal in the gaming world, actually, ma'am.

I find that very very concerning. Why would we be beding that level of resources to defend a guy who was the significant other of Tyler Robinson. I want you to really think about this one, because you may be thinking, oh, well, that's maybe that's normal. No, No, that's definitely not normal.

A four man security detail implies that this guy is an asset of some sort, and then we don't even know for sure that he's going to be testifying against Tyler Robinson, and if you are protecting him to that level, it implies he is going to testify, in which case, okay,

maybe the security detail is justified. However, you pull the security detail after four months, anybody else feeling like there's something off about that, because I certainly do, That doesn't make any sense to me, and I'll tell you what it looks like to me, or what it makes me suspect, is that Lance Twiggs was in fact an asset of theirs prior. His relative is essentially saying he has no intention of cooperating. He just talked to them basically against

his will. However, they then go to the end of the earth defending this guy. But they stopped the security detail. Well, he would still obviously be in jeopardy. If he was in jeopardy over the past four months, He's still in jeopardy. So what changed there? That doesn't make any sense, And it kind of makes you wonder if he was on their radar prior. When these weirdos are communicating in discorder group chats and saying all sorts of strange stuff, perhaps

they were entrapped. Perhaps that's the kind of the key to unlocking this case. Now, I'm not making any allegations. I don't know that for a fact. I'm just saying there's a lot of strangeness with the fact that you would have a four man FBI security detail on the boyfriend of a assassination suspect, very very strange, and honestly as strange as that was doesn't give a stranger than this.

Apparently there was a movie that was being GoFundMe funded, crowdsource funded about a decade ago that was going to be about an assassination plot, and Erica was going to be in it. This was before I think it was before she even had ever met Charlie, and certainly before they were married. So I'm not saying it means anything. I'm just saying, what the hell. There's so many strange storylines in this entire story. I don't know what to

make of it. It sure would be nice if we could get honest answers from I don't know everyone involved, his wife, TPUSA, Twigs, I mean, whoever was in the orbit of this story on that day. It would be great if we could actually get some transparency as to what people were saying to one another, what transpired, what other footage might exist out there. It just seems as if we need a heck of a lot more help before we're going to figure out or be content with

the prosecution of Tyler Robinson. And speaking of you know, a lot of people keep saying we need more shows from you, we need more shows. I'm like, look, I am not going to flood the zone covering a story without new information. I'm not going to do the daily thing. I think that that has diluted this investigation. I think that Candice owns show like twenty percent of the episodes are of significant value when it comes to this investigation.

The rest are kind of fluff or or you know, painting with too broad a brush that I think ultimately tarnishes a legitimate inquiry into this. So I'm not going to participate in that. I am only going to cover things when I think that they are meaningful, when there are new information, when there's things that actually jump out at me as being an angle that no one else has talked about. And that's that's what I'm doing here.

So I will say, though, once the trial starts, oh you bet, you yeah, I'll be covering it daily because that's when we will actually get to hear from the people involved in this and we will actually get testimony. When we actually get evidence, that will be the time where I'm going to lock in because I still very much care about this case. I just don't want to flood the zone with you know, junk science and guessing

that's I don't think it helps anybody. There are some really important things that are happening that we don't have to guess about. So let's talk about that for a second.

showing a movie that hurt his feelings. And she goes on to talk about other stuff, but you get the point. I cannot believe that this is happening in my own town, my own city. I immediately tweeted at Governor Ron DeSantis obviously did not get a response despite it going fairly viral. And it's just, I mean, I think we're all thicking the same thing, right are we? British? Did I wake up in a red coat today? And my British I don't have a good British I don't have any good

accents actually, come to think of it. But man, and I'm pretty sure she's referencing Randy Fine or some other Floridian politician, but it's just it's amazing to me that these cops after the entire lockdown era. Granted the lockdowns weren't nearly as vicious in Florida, but after the lockdown era, after J six and everything else that we've gone through as a people, as a country, they still take their

marching orders. There's still these are American cops going door to door talking to people about what they say on the Internet. And just to be very clear, what this woman said wasn't a call for violence. It wasn't even close. It didn't even approach that. In fact, she's pointing out the hypocrisy of American politicians, her representatives, who are so

hypocritical when it comes to the issue of GODZ. Basically, what she's saying is, this is her politician, her representative, who's constantly calling for the death of the Palestinians, simultaneously saying that you can't have a movie about the plight of the Palestinians because it hurts his feelings. Like that's a totally rational, justifiable claim to make. It's not threatening, it's not violent in nature, there's literally nothing wrong with it.

It is as crystal clear protected First Amendment speech as you will ever come across. And this is exactly where we are headed. And this is exactly what the ihr A definition of anti Semitism leads us down the path to. And this is exactly why despite the fact that James Lindsay and others like to call my cadre of people the woke right, they are the woke right. I'm not calling No one in my camp is calling for hate

speech laws. No one in my camp is calling for extra protections under the law for people that look like me or have my religion. I'm not doing any of that, literally none of it. In fact, I'm calling for the exact opposite. I want no one to have that. But this is the woke right. This is the right wing version of woke. This is the right wing version of a protected class. And we all know which class makes

their exception. Whereas you know, LGBTQ whatever, as this lady's complaining about, that's the class that they want protected is Jewish or Israeli. And what's the very obvious counter argument, how about no protected classes? How about we're all Americans? How about if you violate my rights, that means that you violated my right. How about if you commit a crime against me, you committed a crime against me or anybody else, regardless of how they look, or what they

worship or anything else. That's so obviously the American perspective on these things, and yet it is increasingly the minority perspective, and that ladies and gentlemen is something we should be concerned about. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Ron DeSantis didn't respond, given that this was him not that long ago.

people who are looking for protection for their assets. It's central banks and billionaires too. In fact, they are stockpiling gold and silver. So I think it's a worthwhile endeavor to try and protect your assets, just as I've done by at least looking into precious metals. Gold Coat specializes in helping people protect their savings with real assets gold and silver, and they make it very simple. Just go

to Clint likes gold dot com. You'll get a free twenty twenty six gold and silver kit and you could qualify for up to ten percent in free bonus silver or gold, but only while supplies last. Head over to Clint likes gold dot com again, that's Clint Likes Gold dot com. Thank you again to gold Co. I can't tell you how badly I want to live in a country or in a time where our politicians are not especially local level politicians, state level politicians are not commenting

on foreign matters. Whatsoever. But there is one area of the world that every American politician, all the way down to the fucking dogcatcher, has to have an opinion. That's Israel. Every single time. Unfortunately, the opinion is always slanted in one direction, as evidence by Pam Bondy, who was introduced by Miriam Adelson just yesterday.

of fucking problems in this country. Like I don't know if you noticed, but Donald Trump was almost assassinated the J six ole kerfuffle. You ring a bell, created a bio weapon, released it on us, forced us to get something that didn't actually protect us from it, and endangered us.

then act that way in governance. They carry out these policies, they create hate speech laws in defense of one protected class, well simultaneously lamenting hate speech laws and all of this other woke nonsense when it came to these other protected classes, where all of the sane, rational Americans are saying to themselves, I just want equal treatment under the law, regardless of who you are, what you look like, what religion, whatever.

It shouldn't be relevant. But according to Miriam Adelson, that's why she loves Pambondi. And there's been exactly zero Deep State people arrested under her tenure of over a year now.

Very important to recognize that Democrats and Republicans exact same rhetoric, not a coincidence. These people don't agree on fucking anything. If you were to say the sky is blue, the Democrats yell it's pink. That's just how it works, right, So you got to ask yourself, how is it that they all come to the same conclusion. They hate each other,

they disagree on everything. But on this though blockstep you had Ben Shapiro and Gavin Newsom sitting down with one another yesterday talking about whether or not Israel Palestine was the genocide. They both agreed it wasn't shocking, right. And this is the crazy thing for Gavin Newsom. It would be incredibly popular for him to come out and say, yes, I opposed it genocide or ethnic cleansing or whatever term he wants to apply to it. I oppose it wholeheartedly.

In fact, so much so I would stop aid to Israel over this indiscretion. Now he would lose Ben Shapiro, that's for sure, but he would gain a massive voting base. But you know what, he can't be the nominee if he says that because all of the pro Israel bucks will fizzle and fade away. So he's got to. He's got to even though he knows that in terms of the electorate, in terms of getting votes, it would be a huge win for him to see that. Because the reason I'm not putting this in moral terms is because

Gavin Newsom has zero morals. He has zero unique thoughts that are actually founded in his own emotional calculus or his own intelligence. It is always one hundred percent based off of what advances him in terms of power. That's it. Trust me. As a California refugee. Let me just tell you, if you think Gavin Newsom ever says something you agree with, just recognize the only reason he's saying it is because it might get him a crumb of more power. That's

his entire motivation in life. But point being even knowing that, because trust me, if I know what Gavin Newssen knows it, it would be hugely beneficial for him to say that I oppose what happened in Godza. That's all he's got to say. Nope, can't do it though, can't do it, And basically no politicians can because they are instantly unelectable, or in the case of mtg or Thomas Massey, they are instantly either thrown out or put under massive pressure. It's just it's awful.

stopping it. But on the law enforcement side, what we're doing is at every level, we are taking a zero tolerance approach towards anti Semitism wherever we find it.

And I feel it. Believe me, I feel it. I think about it all the time. But is that a winning strategy? Does that actually improve things long term? Does that improve our circumstances the condition of our nation? Does it actually improve it? And in this instance, I actually

think it might, And I'll explain. First off, I think that there is something to be said for keeping holy ground holy, essentially preventing rabble rousers from entering places of worship to just stir shit, because that's really all they were doing. They just go in there, they scream at them, call them Nazis, and shit, these are just like Christian churchgoers. I mean, it's about as irritating as a thing. Now,

is anybody truly harmed? I guess not. But do you want to live in a civilization where more and more of these radicals just enter, be it a Christian church or a synagogue or whatever else. And if it were limited to that, maybe I wouldn't have such a I guess retaliatory approach when it comes to analyzing this. But these are the other things that are happening in the same past couple days.

of the damage that he took from those blows. But let me tell you bad, really bad, just gushing blood. It was terrible. I'm cutting it so that hopefully we can keep this episode rolling. It's not just the protesters in the church. It's a confluence of all of these things that is making me feel as if someone's got to take a stand. And unfortunately, and I know this because a good friend of mine is from Minnesota. You know, Minnesota. Nice is what it's known for. The people there are

so nice. And I really do believe, even though I disagree with Gad said on damn near everything, at this point, I do agree with one aspect of his claim, which is this is essentially toxic empathy or suicidal empathy, that the people are so nice that they won't even defend themselves, defend their hometown, city, state, country, nothing like. They are so beaten down that they cannot stand up for themselves.

And you know, there is a side of me, as a Tenth Amendment guy that just says, look, if the people of California don't want to stand up for themselves, or New York or Minnesota, then just let them be overran. There is an instinct, like my libertarian instinct decentralized that is kind of where I come down on these things.

But the truth is, with federal elections, you don't really have that luxury to just say, well, sure, California can let in fifty million people if they wanted to, Okay, well, then just recognize that through the Electoral College, essentially California and their voting, which will obviously go to the Democrats, will be just a landslide in favor of the Democrats, and every federal election, not to mention all the congressional

seats that they would get. And you say, well, but these people wouldn't have the right to vote until California allows them to vote, Like that'll happen already is happening on very very very low levels. But that's the whole plan here, folks, obviously. So unless you're going to have a massive secessionary movement where like Florida becomes its own state, which now I don't feel really comfortable about given that they're doing these you know, social media post thing operations.

But if we're going to remain the United States, whether we're going to have to have a few things that everybody abides by, and unfortunately, as long as we have federal elections, it seems to me that immigration law has to be one of them. And if the domestic population doesn't want to cooperate, or if they want to chase around ice agents and honk it them and threaten, what

are we to do. Are we to just accept that paradigm and say, well, the local population doesn't want it, so therefore this state gets to have as many illegal immigrants as they befit. Is that really going to be an acceptable thing moving forward? I would argue probably not. Are we going to allow the most loud and violent amongst us to ultimately dictate the terms by which we structure our civilization moving forward? And I would say probably

not a good idea. If you want lunatics that are almost all socialists screaming at the top of their lungs as to what they want to see moving forward, and we all just go, well, they're the loudest and the most violent, so that's what we're going to do. I would argue, you're going to regret that very very fast. You're going to regret that. And if you're still not sold, here's what Don Lemon had to say, about the churchgoers.

only if you're a white male pretty much. And so yeah, I absolutely one hundred percent, but it's an antimpt tactic. And you know, I said, I don't understand how I've become the face of it when I was a journalist. I do understand that I'm the biggest name there. My producers were saying, I said, how did I become the face of this? And my producer said, Don, You're a gay black man in America.

you do less views on YouTube than I do. So calm down with the ego thing there, and then the cherry on top of the woke Sunday is, oh, I'm a gay black man. So that's obviously why we're upset with you. No, Don, we're upset with you because First Amendment protections don't really cover private property. I know, really controversial stance there. You don't have a right to come into my house and protest. And last I checked, most churches are private property, if not all, and therefore you

don't have a right to protest there. You are at minimum trespassing and at maximum violating the Face Act. So do you think that Don Lemon was in defense of Owen Shroyer, who was covering the protest on j six and ultimately got jailed for a while, I would argue probably not. In fact, I'm pretty certain Don Lemon was not speaking out in defense of Owen. So I'm not going to defend Don Lemon on this one. Sorry, but I will say this, this situation is so complex it

actually requires additional nuance. Let me show you what I'm talking about.

like that is ultimately reckless. I mean, not just for himself, But I don't think it helps us moving forward to try and bring out the worst elements on both sides of this just to make some sort of political point. It's not dissimilar to kind of how Antifa behaves, where it bleeds, it leads. There's no such thing as bad press, you know, I just don't like it. But let me show you what I'm talking about. The clip I just showed you actually happened before he was assaulted in the vehicle.

It's what sparked that secondary attack. I want you to pay attention or rewind it if you need to go back and look at how many cameras are there. There are basically as many cameras as there are people, and there's probably fifty people in that shot, and it looks like there's about fifty cameras and I'm not talking like cell phones, I'm talking professional cameras. Jake Lane knows exactly what he's doing. He goes right to the heart of the media and he basically as a provocateur, it provokes

people into attacking him. Now that doesn't justify them attacking him. They shouldn't be and they should be absolutely charged for assault. But I'm just saying, does that look organic to you to be as salted in front of fifty, you know, street journalists. I would argue that didn't happen by accident. So now to the macro point I've been building too.

As many of you are already familiar with the term Cloward Piven, and essentially it's a situation in which you've been led down a path where you have two different choices, and both of them result in what the powers that be want you to do, and we are in one

of those right now. So I want to be very clear that while I personally think that the illegal immigration crisis is so important that there has to be major deportations for this country to have any hope of a future, that does not mean that I am just lockstep defender

of ice. For instance, that woman that was shot a couple of weeks ago, I didn't do an episode on it because I thought it was marginal enough of a case that I didn't really have a firm opinion on it, and I still don't really have a firm opinion on it. I think that she made terrible, terrible miscalculations. I also think that that cop really didn't need to fire that

second and third shot and take her life. Now, it could be argued that maybe that first shot was fatal, in which case, you know, you drive your car into somebody even if it's unlikely to kill them. They don't know that in that instant and they react. So anyways, setting that aside, I want you to understand the circumstances by which we got here, because I think it's really important when you're you're too deep in the weeds. You got to take a step back and actually look at

how did this forest bloom. I know I'm mixing my metaphors. After the Heart Seller Act in the I think it was the nineteen fifties, maybe the early sixties, there was just massive amounts of immigration that started to take hold in America and it basically grew exponentially, and then just a fever pitch under Joe Biden where it was Some estimates are between three and five million annually, so anywhere from twelve to twenty million came in over the past

four years. That is such a dramatic change of the demographics in this country that you really don't have a choice but to react. But it didn't just start then. You had decades of this. And to be clear, this was really a bipartisan issue. For the longest time. There was not a party that was hardline deport them all the way the Trump Maga movement is. Even in the two thousands, the George Bush administration had a term for this.

It was very popular. They talked about comprehensive immigration reform, but what it usually included was both pathways to citizenship plus some sort of embassy for the illegals that were already here, and it was going to be comprehensive. You were going to have immigration reform on all sides so that the legals that were here become citizens, are some are deported, and then you also have faster path for immigrants to come in. And that was just twenty years ago.

So the point being is that the changing demographics in this country, the opening of the borders, or the increasingly opening of our borders has been a bi partisan affair for about fifty years before the Maga Trump movement came along. And I'm not sure at what exact point the Democrats recognized that a majority of the first generation illegal immigrants

would come in and vote for the Democrats. But at some point they did realize that and they said, well, we're going to let in all of them, and they just stopped doing border control, and certainly that happened effective twenty twenty. And the circumstances that that creates is essentially waking up one day and not recognizing your hometown, feeling as if you're a stranger in the state you grew up in. I felt it myself in California. I'm sure many of you have felt the same way. So here's

where the Cloward Pivens strategy comes in. You were left with two choices. You have one choice, which is to just say, well, these ic deportations are too disruptive and the people are just not having it, so we're just going to stop, which is kind of the Joe Rogan pathway.

If you don't do anything about the border, then you just have a slow demolition of your rights through electoral politics and ultimately the bankrupting of your country and diminishing of your centate of living. Or you go the police state route to get rid of the immigrants, in which case you live in a police state, and that's not much of a win either. Now, setting inside the fact that Joe Rogan voted for Trump, and it's a little bit bizarre from the thing Trump was talking about deporting

like ten or twenty million people. You thought he was just going to be deporting gang bangers. You think there's that many gang bankers legals like, No, So yeah, there was going to be a lot of people that were going to be deported that you probably don't feel was necessary. But I think the bigger point is this, after Reagan gave amnesty in the nineteen eighties, California was lost forever.

My beautiful home state was lost to the Democrats forever. Now, when I say it was lost to the Democrats, don't take that as an endorsement of the fucking Republicans. That's not what I'm doing. I'm just saying there is an expeditious demolition of your way of life when Democrats are in power. There was a slightly slower demolition of your liberties when the Republicans are power, especially at the state level. Trust me when I tell you I watched it happen

in real time. California was destroyed both by illegal immigration in the decades of Democrat control with a brief hiatus when Arnold Schwarzenegger was the governor as a Republican who was in fact a Democrat. So it's been Democrat control for forty years. So my position is this, and it's a very complex one. I'm not going to tell you

how to feel about this or what to do. I'm just going to tell you the conclusion I've come to for our survival's sake, supporting as expeditious and as civil liberties defending a deportation regime as can be mustered, that is what needs to happen. Simultaneously, and equally as important, we should be demanding that our civil liberties be upheld, that surveillance technology like Palanteer does not get greenlit. It

is happening right now, I might add. So my protestations and my warning about this has not worked so far, which is why I wanted to dedicate this portion of the show to it. Because I think public understanding as to what's happening when it comes to our civil liberties,

our privacy rights, the diminution of them. It's very important that we're all aware of the game that's being played, because it's basically a head's eye win tails, you lose type of circumstance, with I being the government, the federal government, the powers that be. I don't believe that it's an accident that they put us in this lose lose position. But I do believe that of all of the bad

options on offer, that is the best answer. That there does need to be deportations, but there also needs to be serious voicing of our concerns when it comes to civil liberties and rights violations, and if we can walk that razor's edge, we might get through this and salvage what's left of our country. I do want to say, big surprise interview. I just heard about Josie the Red Hill Libertarian got to interview Nick Fluntes in person. He was on IRL last night, so I wanted to give her a plug.

other things. So I think it'd be a very interesting conversation. I think we're both sincere about America first and putting this country first, but I think we have slightly different, maybe significantly different prescriptions on how to get there. So I think it'd be a very interesting conversation. So hopefully

that'll happen. If you want to see that happen, make sure you subscribe because that will increase the likelihood he wants to come on Hit the like button, Leave a comment down below, and I will catch you guys next time. By the way, sorry, I'm going to be out of town, going to Texas to do a bunch of live sporting events with my brother and my stepdad. It's going to be a blast. But I'm gonna be gone for six days. So I will see you a week from today, most likely.

Love you. Someone mentioned, hey, you should go on with Liberty Lockdown. I said, I don't know that I've ever heard.