September 11, 2026 • 50 mins
A year and a day ago, American political activist Charlie Kirk was murdered during a public debate at Utah Valley University. While his name was unfamiliar to many, he was a rising superstar in the world of U.S. conservatives. In the first chapter of this special two-part series, Ben, Matt, and Noel explore Kirk's origin story, his skyrocketing popularity -- and why a growing number of people don't buy the official narrative of his assassination.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies, history is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio. Hello?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Welcome back to the show. My name is Matt.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
My name is Noel. They call me Ben.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
We're joined, as always, with our super producer, Dylan, the
Tennessee pal Fagan.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Most importantly, you are you. You are here.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know. Guys,
as you can hear, my throat is still not 100% post-travel.
But I got to say, I really enjoyed the recent
strange news program that I wasn't able to make. Especially, Noel,
when you pointed out how disturbing it is that so
(01:00):
many acts of violence hit the headlines every day now.
And so many things are happening that tons of homicides
get ignored unless the person is, like you said, of note.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Well, and to just, you know, remind everyone, that was
me catching myself doing that.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
Like, literally, you know. Well, oh, I didn't know someone
important got killed.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
Like I said that out loud and it just I
had to kind of take a beat and like look
at myself and be like, what the hell?
Speaker 3 (01:31):
But also Matt then was like, yeah, we all do
that and we're programmed to do it. And it's not good.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Right.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
It's not ideal.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
I mean, it's.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
It's also a function of the endless information age that
we're all inundated with. The most heinous crimes, corruption, assassination attempts,
even actual murders, they seem to fade from the headlines
within moments. And this is why we are returning to
a tragedy that we can argue exhibits some of the
same tendencies. You guys, we're recording on September 4th, but
(02:05):
this episode, is going to be coming out on September 11th.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
It might be a two-part series.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
It's a year and a day since Charlie Kirk was
assassinated while speaking on stage at Utah Valley University on
September 10th, 2025.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Yeah, and I mean, even when it happened, I was
saying off mic that we really haven't had a chance
to dissect this as a.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Group, whether on mic or off.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
But I think we all at least acknowledge when it happened,
it was starting to take on some JFK magic bullet
type vibes.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Yeah, there are incredibly intricate theories that you can find
online in like all across the Internet, but on specific
dedicated websites that go through step by step by step
these alleged versions of events that don't line up with
the original ones. which is one of the primary reasons
(03:01):
we're talking about this, because it's so prevalent. And it
was immediately prevalent, you guys. We've talked before about how the, well,
we're doing this on September 11th. The September 11th attacks,
they took a while before a lot of these curated
theories started to hit, right? And we remember loose change
(03:22):
9-11 and then everything that proliferated after that. We are
now in that age where we have access to everything
all the time. People are just putting stuff on the internet.
And almost immediately after this death that we're going to
be discussing today, there were ideas about what actually allegedly happened.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Fully formed. Yes. Overnight. And then proliferate. To your point, Matt,
just out there instantly.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Almost as if someone or a few factions of people
were waiting. for the opportunity to propose something like these conspiracies.
And also, the additional part, people got in hot water
for asking too many questions about what happened.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Oh, yeah.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
And I know we're going to dive into the minutia
of all of the various odd occurrences following it, like...
bulldozing the site more or less and the lack.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Of like forensic gathering.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
And then there's the whole social media aspect of it.
I mean, it's fascinating on so many levels. And for
my money, I just want to say didn't care for
that man. But that's not what we're here to litigate today.
So for him or against him out there in the audience,
I'm going to do my best to not as a
horrible thing, this way to say it, but assassinate this
man's character because, you know, he already got assassinated for real.
(04:39):
So let's not I'm not going to add insult to injury,
but I do just want to make it clear that
I was not a fan of this man, did not
deserve to die.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
And with that, let's let's pause for a word from
our sponsors, then introduce Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Here are the facts.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
So Charles James Kirk. which is objectively a cool name
and makes me think of Star Trek.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
It gives Star Trek, yeah. Thank you, I was thinking
the same thing.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
He's born in Chicago on October 14th, 1993. And folks,
this means that he was only 31 years old when
he was murdered. He joined political movements very early on.
He was starting out in high school and he briefly
flirted with college, but eventually dropped out to become a
(05:28):
full-time political activist And it's almost entirely due to his
interactions with a guy named William Thomas Montgomery, or Bill
to his friends. So Bill is a veteran. He is
a storied businessman, a pioneer in the marketing game, and
he's also a prominent conservative activist. He sees young Kirk,
(05:52):
Charlie Kirk, giving a speech at Benedictine University and And afterwards,
he's like, I got to talk to this kid. And
he connects with Charlie Kirk. And Bill says, look, you
can go to college whenever. I need you now. You
should become a full-time activist. You are what our movement needs.
And so together, even though Bill was not listed as
(06:17):
an official co-founder, together, he and Charlie Kirk created this
organization called Turning Point USA or TPSA.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
TPSA. Yeah, since we love an acronym. For sure.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
Ben, maybe I just want to make sure that I'm
getting my facts straight. Is this the guy, I mean,
clearly a bit of a power behind the throne kind
of situation, but is this the guy that also introduced
him to Erica Kirk? Are there stories behind that about
him kind of being like, this is someone who could
also be incredibly important in our organization? And then Charlie
(06:49):
said to him, like, I'm going to date her.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
That was the story that I had heard. There might be.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
Was there another individual, though, that became real close with
Charlie related to TPUSA?
Speaker 3 (07:00):
I think this is the guy.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
I think so. I just want to point out there.
There's a lot of information that has been swirling around
the Internet that is coming from somebody that I particularly enjoy.
That's a comedian named Sammy Obeid, O-B-E-I-D. He has made
in the past, like beginning in October of 2025, a
(07:22):
month after the shooting, several long stand-ups about this event
and about Charlie Kirk and specifically about Erica Kirk. And
in those videos, Noel, he goes into great detail about
Erica Kirk and her journey towards Turning Point USA and
her relationship with Charlie Kirk. And it's a comedienne. making observations.
(07:48):
And I think maybe there are a lot of people
out there taking it as 100% truth, like it's coming
from a place of journalism, which I'm not saying Samuel
Bade's not checking his facts necessarily. It's just not a
journalist reporting facts, right? It's someone making observations.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
No, but also there's a certain amount of, and it's
really neither here nor there whether this is the guy
that introduced him or not, because my point is even
that's mythologized.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
They're meeting. they're falling in love.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
The whole nature of their relationship, like there's a video
of Charlie Kirk talking to his baby, like saying, this
is where mommy and daddy met and had a burger
and telling it like this great American love story. And
then when you really look into it and hear different accounts,
it seems like the reality of their meeting It may
have been a little more coordinated and a little less
of this whirlwind magical romance.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
We do know that they began dating at least in
2019 in New York City. But as far as an
actual rom-com or a meet-cute, we'd have to learn more
about that.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Well, he interviewed her for a position.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
It was a business interview. But then in 2019, they
began dating.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
That's right. But the way he tells it is.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
When I interviewed mommy right here and this burger joint,
and I wanted to, you know, talk to her about
being a part of our organization. Then I realized, I
don't want to hire you. I want to date you.
And he says that like a point of pride.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
It's odd.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Well, on Britannica, even it states that she went in
for that 2018 job interview at a restaurant in New York.
And then Charlie Kirk would later recall saying, quote, forget
this job interview. I want to date you. And they
were engaged in December, 2020 and married in May, 2021.
So it is like, That is part of the lore,
I guess, of the couple, the public facing story.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
And didn't mean to jump the gun straight to Erica,
but to your point, Matt, this is a very lore
intensive discussion. A lot of lore that's created by both sides,
people who hated the man and people who loved the
man and wanted to see him elevated to either while living,
incredibly influential, powerful person, or after the fact, after his passing,
(09:58):
martyr and, you know, some sort of like more powerful
than an individual, a symbol, right?
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Right, right.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Almost like Che Guevara's quote, you know, shoot fool, you're
only killing a man. We know that these guys we
were talking about originally, Bill Montgomery and Charlie Kirk, they collaborated.
very well, very closely, all the way up to summer
of 2020. And to that earlier point we're making about
(10:26):
this organization and this man being despised and adored, if
you were a supporter of what Turning Point was standing
for and stands for today, then they were speaking your
gospel to you, right? They were against COVID and against
COVID vaccinations. They were in the front lines of the
(10:47):
culture war. they actually ended up changing some of their
stances around COVID in 2020 because Bill Montgomery passed away
due to complications of a COVID infection. So they actually
went back and erased a little bit of history. Yeah.
But Turning Point soldiered on. If we want to learn
(11:08):
more about the group, there's a lot we could get into.
They're a nonprofit PAC, a political action committee, They evangelize
for conservative values in high schools, colleges and universities. They're
Wu Tang in it. They want the children.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Right.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
And they they want to identify, educate, train and organize
students to, quote, promote the principles of freedom, free markets
and limited government. So it's not original.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
No. Well, I was going to say, guys, growing up
in high school, did you all have like the young
Republicans or young conservative type groups in your school? And
I don't know what the overarching organization of that is,
but this to me seems just like a really, really,
really weaponized extension of that with incredible deployment capabilities of
(12:01):
kind of getting these folks to get out into the community.
And then, of course, we end up with Charlie Kirk
really just becoming an absolute star. by trolling students on
college campuses. So he did end up going to college
after all, didn't he? Right, right.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Just maybe not the way he had originally imagined. That's
a pretty solid point because you can also see similar
activities with pundits like Ben Shapiro, who loves going and
having these debates that can be at times problematic. And look, folks, again,
to the point about originality, If you have spent time
(12:38):
in the United States, you're already familiar with what an
organization like Turning Point wants to do. They're pushing for
lower taxes on businesses and high net worth individuals. They
want to focus on a very American interpretation of Christianity
and then also an emphasis on limited government, so removing taxes.
(12:59):
various regulations. They also want to abolish some governmental agencies
or bodies and then push those responsibilities into the hands
of private industry.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
So for critics, this is terrible.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
For supporters, this is awesome.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
You know, it reminds me a lot of our episodes
on the Atlas Network.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Seems like a very similar organization. I've been over here
attempting to find some kind of connection between the Atlas
Network and Turning Point USA. And it just seems like
they're connected by dollars. At least that's what I'm seeing.
I'm not seeing like a lot of individuals. So maybe
if you're listening to this and you've got better information,
(13:40):
we'd be interested in individuals that cross between those two organizations.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Which definitely, it would be statistically surprising if none of
that overlap existed. We also know Turning Point worked with ALEC.
So please check out our episode on ALEC. Those are
the folks who write out lobbyist and industry-inspired legislation to
(14:06):
be rubber-stamped by members of Congress. It's a very real conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Is that a think tank? Conservative think tank, you might
call it?
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Yeah, it's in that realm or that genre for sure.
I mean, Turning Point also is different than Though it's
not unique, it's distinct in that it focuses so heavily
on proselytizing to younger Americans, and it also rakes in
a bleep ton of money in the process. Dylan and Jordan,
(14:37):
our editors, went ahead and said bleep ton to save
us the sound effect.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Nice.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Nice. I want to go ahead and just put American
Legislative Exchange Council. I couldn't remember what the acronym stood for. Alec, Ben,
that you mentioned there.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Oh, man.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
We still haven't been to an ALEC meeting, but we'll see.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
We'll see.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Turning Point also has a bunch of mega donors, people
and companies with very deep pockets who have real life
money on the line when it comes to taxes and regulations.
These guys are so good at what we call electioneering.
Like you mentioned earlier, Noel, they had this phenomenal reach
(15:17):
to get people to the polls on local, regional, and
national levels. They were like, the Tea Party movement times 10,
because they were also AstroTurf. They like to pretend it's
a viral, bottom-up, grassroots thing. A bunch of kids who
have nothing in common but their shared values got together
(15:39):
and started taking action. But the issue is, at every
step of the way, this organization and its initiatives are
being funded by very powerful, sometimes very shady people that
would occasionally prefer not to be identified in public. They
wanted quiet money.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Guys, you ever see like when a needle drop happens
in a movie or a TV show and you got
subtitles on and you song you've known for a long
time and the lyric pops up and you're like, I
was today years old when I realized that's what he
was saying. In the Radiohead song, Electioneering, he says, cattle
prods and the IMF, a trust I can.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Rely on your vote. And a million years never realized
he was saying. It's where he goes, yeah, yeah, yeah.
No idea. I love it. Sorry, I had to bring
it up. That just tickled me.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
International monetary.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
100%. But again, electioneering, yes.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
We'll pause here for a word from our sponsors and
hopefully we'll return. And we're back. They did make a
bunch of money from 2012 to 2023, Turning Point had
raised $ 389 million that we know about. And just a
(16:53):
few years later, in 2025, the year Kirk was murdered,
the organization had raised, guys, darn near half a billion dollars.
And even more importantly, even more important than the money
was Kirk's Rolodex. This was the envy of lobbyists across
the country. this network of 50,000 plus donors, some of
(17:17):
whom ran the most powerful outfits in the world. And
so with all that success, there's a lot of controversy.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Well, imagine the pressure now that gets placed on Charlie Kirk.
Now that he's in that position, this 18 year old
kid or whatever he was when he got met by
Montgomery and is getting pushed, you know, down this track,
he was, he was a YouTuber, you know, he was
a person who was making their money in their stake
at fame, doing what he was doing, right? He believed
(17:47):
in something, perhaps, but he found a pathway forward for himself.
Now he's getting gathered in by all these older folks
who are like, ooh, we can use this. And as
you're saying, Ben, with that Rolodex, it becomes one of
the most important things. Now, if you go through Charlie,
you can get to the people that you want to
get to.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
Well, the conservatives have never been the best at reaching
the younger demographic, you know?
Speaker 3 (18:11):
It would seem.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
I mean, that's obviously changed significantly as the sea has
changed towards, you know, Republican kind of domination.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
You can't really accomplish that without flipping the youth.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
But historically, wouldn't you guys say that it seemed like
being a young Republican was not particularly in vogue?
Speaker 1 (18:31):
In the 90s and early 2000s. That's what I'm referring to. Yeah,
it was definitely different. It was a different environment because—
the rise of media being compromised or the rise of
very conservatively slanted media had not yet come to pass.
So I, I totally agree with you there on sort
(18:51):
of the info ecosystem. We, we also know, okay, we
know turning point got, it came under fire for so
many things. They coordinated directly with the Donald Trump campaign
a few years back with the chase, the vote initiative.
And that's, that might seem like a hair splitting one
(19:11):
to some of us in the audience tonight, because in
this country, in the U S if you are an
independent nonprofit political group, you can champion any candidate you want.
You can say, Hey, count Ben face for president.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
That's our organization.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
But the tricky part of the law is that you're
not supposed to directly interact with a campaign itself. You
could say, Hey, We're fans of Kamala Harris or we're
fans of Donald Trump or something like that. But you
can't go to them in secret and say, OK, how
do we do this?
Speaker 3 (19:46):
What do we do?
Speaker 1 (19:47):
It's a law that's confusing to me. and I think
it's confusing to a lot of people outside of the
Beltway gang.
Speaker 4 (19:54):
Which probably means that it isn't followed particularly closely.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
We know it isn't.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Because of the existence of country clubs and golf courses
and high-end restaurants. It's just what it is.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
There's not a way to stop it. That's right. Is
the thing. That's right.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
In the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, we got an
episode on them as well, folks. They eventually drew back
their criticism and they said, get this, they said, look,
what Turning Point is doing in this election cycle, in
this campaign, it's not against the law that we had. Instead,
(20:34):
their literature that they're passing out and their scripts are
They don't count as public communication, coordinated communication or coordinated
expenditure of funding, which is, again, a bull bleep.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
Didn't the FEC just more or less get abolished or
disbanded or entirely hamstrung by the current administration as if
they were doing much to begin with?
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Am I confusing that with another body?
Speaker 1 (20:59):
The FCC has definitely been compromised.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
No, no, no.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
I'm talking about the Federal Election Commission.
Speaker 4 (21:04):
Like, in advance of midterms, there was a lot to
do made over Trump firing some key appointees to the FCC.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
You're absolutely right, Noel. Yeah, and they already were a really... Toothless. Yeah,
they were an organization with some really deep problems. And
one of the biggest criticisms about the FCC is that they.
In theory, they exist to ensure there are fair debates, right?
(21:35):
And that the elections aren't ginned up. But in practice,
a lot of people are going to tell you that
they exist to keep the two-party grift going, to prevent
third parties from reaching national attention. And there's validity to
that accusation.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
Well, and that's a good point, Ben.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Maybe it's a separate point, but the One of the
reasons I think it would behoove the powers that be
to just get cozy, cozy, cozy with someone like Charlie
Kirk and Turning Point USA is because they are reaching
the levels that could approach that of a valid reason
to start a third party. And I think we're seeing
(22:14):
that now. It's like Marjorie Taylor Greene and a lot
of these defector. Republicans talking about starting another party that
still has, quote unquote, Republican, what's the word, beliefs or values,
but is not aligned lockstep with Trumpism.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Right.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
So kind of the removing the cult of personality, right?
Providing an alternative.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
Or a new cult of personality, because you could argue
that Charlie Kirk, more powerful than Trump.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Among certain demographics, definitely. I mean, we also know that
they did work together. He had a seat at the
Hall of Presidential Power. They helped organize the Stop the
Steal protests. They were a key player in that. And that,
as we recall, ultimately led to the storming of the U.S.
Capitol during the March to Save America rally on January 6th, 2021.
(23:07):
And folks, I remember very well Uh, exactly when that happened,
because we were still, uh, recording in, we were recording
in our office.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Right.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
When January 6th. Yeah. Or yeah, I.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
Remember that we had, we had plans to work on
something else and we said, Oh, nope. Guess we got
to do this episode.
Speaker 4 (23:34):
All I remember was seeing, it's like, I remember where
I was when nine 11 happened. I was in the
computer lab at a Westside high school in Augusta, Georgia.
And when January 6th happened, I was on my couch.
I think with my kid, but I was watching it
on TV. And I just remember texting with Conal Byrne
about it. It must have been related to something else,
(23:55):
but we were just both like.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
What the fuck? What's going on, man? I'll never forget that.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
They were part of that. They were part of what
happened that day in January. And there were more and
more controversies, like we were alluding to, surrounding their partnerships
with other groups because these things all network, right, at
a level that LinkedIn could barely dream of. But I
do think before we move on, we've got to mention
(24:24):
something that is incredibly strange and dangerous and has echoes
of pre-World War II Germany, the professor watch list. You
guys have all heard of this one, right?
Speaker 3 (24:36):
No, I don't think I might know it in theory,
but I don't know it by that name. Tell us.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Oh yeah, in 2016, Turning Point created a specific website
to list, to name and shame academics that they believe
were discriminating against conservative students, were promoting anti-American values or
pushing leftist propaganda on these malleable, young, vulnerable minds.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
There is an interview on Channel 5, the YouTube channel,
which I think is really fantastic and has some really
great documentary stuff, really cool journalistic work. And it's with
Hunter Biden and the Channel 5 guy, whose name I'm
totally forgetting, Andrew something, and Nick Fuentes, who is a
Charlie Kirk-esque kind of figure, even more divisive perhaps, a
(25:27):
little on the Ben Shapiro tip. And it is fascinating
because it gave me for the first time a glimpse
into how these young people were turned down turned into
into that type, into the Nick Fuentes and Ben Shapiro's
of the world and Charlie Kirk's of the world. And
they had legitimate grievances. That's the fascinating part about it.
(25:48):
They I mean, like what you're describing, Ben, is absolutely blacklisting.
You know, it harkens back to, you know, the Red
Scare kind of tactics and all of that. But it's
like when you have a group of people that have
maybe more conservative beliefs that who are made to feel
(26:09):
like they are completely invalid and they're deplatforming people left
and right. And I'm not saying that's not for good reason,
because I think many of those deplatforming instances were, but
it causes people to become more radicalized and more extreme.
And it's that pendulum swing, you know, from like hardcore
liberalism to mega, mega hardcore conservatism. And it happens in
(26:34):
the youth. And that's what Turning Point USA was trying
to push forward.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
They definitely have gotten a foothold there and been extremely
successful in some of that stuff. I'm just thinking about
Nick Fuentes because there's a separate episode that we've been
looking at in covering some of the activities of Nick Fuentes,
like the America First Political Action Committee and some of
the other things. Again, going back to January 6th and
well beyond and things that may be coming there with
(27:03):
the Groypers. and all of that.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
He was a big grouper guy.
Speaker 4 (27:06):
Can I just really quickly say, when I say legitimate grievances,
I just mean I can empathize with the way they
were made to feel like completely invalidated and like, you know, nothing.
And then that's a way to radicalize people and to
have them seek out more radical perspectives. I'm not saying
these are good people. I'm not saying these are perspectives
(27:27):
that deserve to be given air. I'm just saying that
If you're a young conservative and you're living in the
era of Obama and hard left politics, I could see
that radicalizing you.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
Yeah, you can understand someone's perspective without agreeing with them.
And I think that's exactly what you're saying here. The
reason the professor watch is supporters say it's well-intentioned and
it's nice bulwark against all this crazy commie stuff that's
infiltrating their kids' heads. But the reason I find it
(27:58):
so personally offensive is is that this is like doxing people.
This isn't just like saying, hey, fewer students go to
this professor's class, or hey, get this professor fired. This
puts those people and their families in clear physical danger.
That's the ultimate consequence of this kind of stuff. And
(28:22):
it doesn't, at that point, you know, you can't go
to someone's family and say, hey, we didn't mean for
this to happen because in that case it did happen.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
You know what I mean? You can't spell culture war
without war.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Right. Yeah. I mean, and this is, again, I know
I kept saying it is a front lines of the
culture war and it's very, very helpful for a lot
of these rich donors. It's their way into the zeitgeist.
And Kirk was like, man, you were talking about possibly
being more popular than Donald Trump in certain circles.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
There was all this, All this talk of him running
for office, even a little bit of scuttlebutt about a
possible presidential bid down the line.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
We don't know.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
What way his career would have gone because his life
was brutally cut short at that outdoor debate, which again
was like very, like you guys said, it's a very um,
ginned up kind of debate. Uh, but this was a
very popular one. There were something like 3000 people in
the crowd. It, the debate had just, just kicked off
(29:32):
and it barely begun. Kirk was answering a question regarding
transgender communities in the United States when he was shot
in the neck by a sniper. This is the official story.
And the sniper was positioned on the roof of a
building about 142 yards away. So he gets rushed to
the hospital while he was trying to answer that question.
(29:56):
He's pronounced dead. A manhunt goes for 33 hours. And
they arrest, eventually, a guy named Tyler James Robinson, 22
at the time, a very young dude himself. He had
surrendered to the sheriff, confessed the crime to his parents.
As we speak, and there's very recent news about him,
as we speak, Robinson is in custody. He has pled
(30:18):
not guilty to all of the charges.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Wasn't he only just arraigned, or there was just some
kind of progress in his prosecution? Yes, just a few
days ago, yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
And this is just the beginning of the story, you know,
because like we were saying at the top, not within weeks,
not within days, but within hours of the news going public,
social media was flooded with all sorts of allegations and
conspiracy theories from the right as well as from the left.
(30:51):
Everybody was getting into this. One thing that they could
all agree on was that something felt fishy about the story.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
And then people who.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
Were saying the wrong things about Kirk, right, who himself
was a very big proponent of free speech, they found
themselves with targets on their back.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
It was a crazy time because so many human beings
were at that event in real time shooting video. So
when it occurred, there are dozens, if not hundreds of
videos of the assassination as it occurred. I mean, that's
that i'm trying to think of another really big high
profile assassination or assassination attempt it reminds you the one
(31:32):
that was on um the president right where there were
so many people filming at the time and official cameras rolling.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
Yeah i love when they uh moved the cameras and
raised that flag to get that perfect photo out.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
And i'm just saying you can then as just any
one person go through that footage look at it analyze
it and use your own lens and go oh wait
but What about this? What about that? What's going on here?
But what about that person in the background? Is that
a drone? You know, it becomes an endless source of
(32:03):
ideas and potentials.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
Well, it's a good point, Matt.
Speaker 4 (32:06):
I mean, not even to mention how high-resolution footage is
these days where you can, like, isolate and zoom and, like,
look at faces in the background.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
I remember us.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
Slow motion.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
It's a brooder times 10,000.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
A million percent. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
I remember when it happened, we all– Maybe it wasn't Kirk.
Maybe it was the Trump thing. But we were all
looking at faces in the background and someone making signals.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
We got swept up in that, man. Big time.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
That's in this one, too. There's people on the side
that have been overanalyzed. It's pretty intense.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
And while we're all taking a quick snort of our
favorite confirmation bias, we're going to take a quick break.
for a word from our sponsors, and we're diving headlong
into the conspiracies. Here's where it gets crazy. That sounds
(33:03):
better when my voice is all messed up, you guys.
All right, the first conspiracies, as we know, within 34 hours,
they focused on this alleged assassin, Robinson. And we're saying
alleged because he hasn't been convicted yet, even though he
did confess to his parents and to his roommate, who
(33:24):
we'll have to talk about. People were sharing all these
doctored photographs of this 22-year-old, and some of them would
show him wearing what appeared to be pro-Trump merch, like
a Make America Great Again hat. There were rumors that
claimed he was a registered Republican and donated to the
Trump campaign. or that he was in fact a registered
(33:47):
member of the Democratic Socialist Party. Like, think Mamdani. So
you have your average, let's say you're not super politically active,
you're your average social media user. It's September 11th, 2025.
You're reading this stuff that your algorithm is feeding you,
and some of it's clearly contradictory. So everything we know
(34:11):
about psychology tells us that the average person, again, we're
not saying anybody's dumb here, the average person is going
to sip that confirmation bias, and they are going to
go with the narrative that best jibes with their pre-existing
values and their framework for experiencing the world. You just
jump in and run your laps on the great hamster
(34:35):
wheel of internet BS. I feel like we miss this
point a lot when we talk about this process. These
people are a lot of them are not purposely trolling
or making stuff up. They're just not diving too far
past the headline because they've heard what confirms what they
wanted to hear, believed to be true. Dopamine casino kicks in.
(34:57):
So what you, you give it a video 60 seconds,
maybe if you're lucky and then you like it and
you repost it and you send it to your friends,
that kind of thing was definitely happening. And those people
were jerks. They were trying to figure out what was
going on too.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
And to that point, I mean, there also are a
hell of a lot of folks on the Internet, surprising
I know, that just want to watch the world burn
and then just want to use something like this as
a way to be divisive, as a way to hurt people.
Whether they look at it that way or what do
they call it, just getting their lulls, you know. But
(35:33):
there is a dark current of that kind of anarchy, anarchism,
that is strong. And I mean, obviously in the world,
but the internet is the perfect place to get stuff
like that going. And there are folks out there that
have a real knack for it. And this is a
perfect storm situation where stuff like that doesn't just piss
people off. It creates the potential for violence. It creates
(35:57):
the potential for people to act.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Rage baiters, trolls. And it gets even darker, Noel, because
we would later learn that state actors had been waiting
for an opportunity like this. It wasn't all just, you know,
lonely basement, 4chan loving stereotypes. We're talking about the asymmetric
info war armies of Russia and China and Iran. They
(36:24):
pounced on this. They launched their armies of bots, right?
They focused on dividing the United States domestically even further
and And they would push their own foreign policy objectives
along the way. So now all of a sudden, somebody
on Twitter is reposting Elon Musk's hot take on Charlie Kirk.
(36:45):
And they're saying, well, this is, you know, insert most
inflammatory thing I could say here. And also, Taiwan is
not an independent country. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (36:56):
I'd love to jump into the lone actor thing. Of
it all, I guess, because one of the theories that
I remember finding incredibly convincing and unusual was the rifle
itself and like how quickly he was able to disassemble
it and, you know, throw it in a backpack and
(37:18):
like how pieces of it were found and things like that.
And it just seemed like the kind of stuff that
only a trained, like highly trained individual could do.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
I'd love to just talk about that briefly, because I
think I'm not quite hitting that one, as I remember it.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
We also have to mention that AI non-state actors were
in the mix here. They were spreading all this misinformation
just because it was good for the algorithm. And somebody
would agree with what you just said there, Noel, about
the rifle, would be Roger Stone, a somewhat controversial political
activist in his own right. He swore up and down
(37:54):
that the assassination... had the markings of a professional state-level hit.
It was just too buttoned up, too seamless, in his opinion,
for a kid like Robinson to pull it off. So
he was saying, look, this Robinson guy is either assisted
by heavy hitters, pro-hard cases experts, or he was placed
(38:15):
as a scapegoat or a patsy. So the real assassins
are either an enemy nation, a rogue cabal in our
own government, or straight-up terrorists. So even in people on
the left, we're also bringing up some of the things
you mentioned, like how could this, how could this kid
have first off have aim like that 142 yards away?
(38:39):
How could they additionally be able to, you know, break
down the weapon, hide it? How were they able to
leave the scene and kind of get away for 33 hours,
you know, and what would have happened if they didn't confess?
Could they have hold up somewhere in the hinterlands of Utah?
It's a very big, empty place.
Speaker 2 (38:58):
So guys, we've got two versions of Lone Wolf Assassins. Well,
we have three, I guess. We have three really interesting,
different categories and flavors of Lone Assassins in history from
the 1960s. We've got Lee Harvey Oswald, who stated out loud,
I'm a patsy, as he's going in just before he
(39:20):
gets taken out of the game, and he is no
longer either a patsy, Or anything else. He just is
whatever the official story says he is. And that's what
he did.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
Right?
Speaker 2 (39:28):
Because he's dead now. there's nothing to go against. You
got James Earl Ray, who languished in prison after the
death of Martin Luther King Jr., and he died in
prison just before a civil jury found out that MLK,
or let's say a civil jury decided that Martin Luther
King Jr. was killed by the government via conspiracy. And
then we've got Sirhan Sirhan, which, guys, I don't even
(39:51):
know how to categorize that one.
Speaker 4 (39:53):
Isn't that Manchurian Candidate kind of? There's conspiracies surrounding that.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
That's Sirhan Sirhan's own statement.
Speaker 4 (40:00):
Got it.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
That's what I thought.
Speaker 2 (40:01):
Yeah, I mean, you know, somebody who remains in prison
to this day and says, hey, I didn't do it
and is never going to get out of prison. And
it's almost like the, oh, I'm just going to say
it this way. The label of crazy gets applied to somebody.
And now anything that person says in the future is
kind of, we can get rid of, we don't have
(40:24):
to think about it, thought terminating, cliche thing. He's just crazy.
That's the official story. I do wonder if this particular
human being, this lone actor, fits in any of these
rubrics at all, you guys? Because it feels like he
is currently attempting to defend himself as this trial is beginning.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
Right, to avoid the death penalty. So pled not guilty
to all of the charges. There were quite a few charges.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
But actually seeing somebody play out in a trial like this,
there was all kinds of weird stuff with James Earl
Ray through the trial, like pushing him to plead a
certain way and eventually getting him to plead guilty, even
though he says he didn't want to plead guilty. I'm
just wondering... Do you see him as somebody who is
just an individual fighting against those charges fully, or are
(41:14):
they just going through the motions?
Speaker 1 (41:17):
It's very strange. We can get to that. Let's do
that now. All right, just like how these other state
powers or bad faith actors would try to push their
own agendas or narratives on the death of Kirk, if
they even thought he was dead, because the other conspiracists
were saying he faked his death. Just like they were
(41:39):
trying to put their narratives on that murder, they were
also trying to put narratives on Robinson himself. For example,
because like I said, there are a lot of culture
war hobby horses that people are trying to foist into
the conversation here. We know that Kirk was murdered while
(41:59):
answering a question about the alleged ties that he had
spoken about in the past, his belief, not ours, between
transgender people and mass shootings. So this led, and this
is still happening in conservative circles, it led some conservative
commentators to say that this guy, Robinson, is a patsy.
(42:20):
The real assassin is an unidentified transgender person who got
away and became a ghost in the wind. And then
from there, they pushed and push even further to say,
we need more discrimination basically against the trans population of.
Speaker 3 (42:38):
The United States.
Speaker 4 (42:39):
And if I'm not mistaken, we're going to get into
the bullet casing of it all. Um, but I think
there was some, uh, theories pushed around. There were bullets
recovered with some sort of pro trans message. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
There was definitely one bullet that came up in, uh,
in the court proceedings a few days ago, as we record,
that had the engraving, Hey, Fascist, Catch, in all capital letters.
But I had also heard some stuff about what you're
remarking on there, too. And we do have to say
that Robinson may well have been motivated by the anti-trans
(43:19):
or anti-LGBTQ stances of Kirk and his associates, because he
was in a romantic relationship with his roommate, who's a
transgender individual. And this, coupled with the engraving on the bullet,
very similar to the tactics employed by Luigi Mangione when
he allegedly assassinated that UnitedHealthcare executive, Brian Thompson, this starts
(43:46):
to add up more and more for that angle. We
also know Robinson texted his partner confessing to the crime.
And the roommate cooperated with investigators with the FBI, had
said they have no idea what Robinson had planned. They
are in FBI protection now.
Speaker 3 (44:03):
Ben, help me out here on this.
Speaker 4 (44:05):
I am finding some of the other reported engravings. One was,
if you read this, you are gay. And another was
part of the lyrics to the Italian anti-fascist protest song,
Bella Ciao. But I'm All I'm seeing in terms of
confirmed bullets recovered was the hey, fascist catch.
Speaker 1 (44:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (44:27):
Have you heard about that? If you read this, you're
gay in the Bella Chao one.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
I had heard about that one, Noel, but I wasn't
able to confirm it. All we could confirm, at least
so far, was hey, fascist catch.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
Got it.
Speaker 1 (44:40):
At least that's what prosecutors have brought to court.
Speaker 4 (44:44):
I guess my point is, I think initially, because of
this whole internet theory explosion. People heard engraved bullet, divisive, weird,
kind of Riddler-esque, you know, cryptic messages. People just kind
of started making up their own to confirm who they
wanted the assassin to be.
Speaker 3 (45:05):
Right, yeah.
Speaker 1 (45:06):
Like I'm saying, the pre-existing narrative that they wanted this
to fit with their world. We also have to say
there are still so many other conspiracy theories. The idea
that Kirk was indeed killed, but not by a bullet
at all. Not by a sniper, not by Robinson, by
an exploding microphone.
Speaker 3 (45:24):
That sounds familiar, Ben. Exploding walkie talkies.
Speaker 1 (45:27):
Right. This is one you guys that I remember some
of us were talking about pretty in depth off air years,
years back. But we've all heard that story, right? That
was shrapnel from an exploding mic that got him in
the neck.
Speaker 3 (45:42):
Well, I haven't seen it.
Speaker 4 (45:43):
It's not something that I'm interested in seeing, but I
have a friend who always goes out and watches the
Faces of Death videos that are now everywhere on the
internet when things like this happen, and apparently it is
just an absolute gusher of an explosion from Kirk's neck.
Speaker 2 (45:58):
I would say I've watched it, unfortunately, many times, and
the first instance, the moment that it occurs, it is not.
It is very strange the way the way it looks,
the way his shirt moves up and towards his neck
and then appears to get shot there. Um, I would
(46:19):
just say it's really, it makes sense that these organizations
that are so interested in having advertiser friendly content wouldn't
want a video of someone's assassination to be floating around.
Let's say on YouTube, right? Or Instagram or the primary
places where you might find a video like that. They
don't want that there. that's not good for advertisers. It
(46:43):
is weird when it is the assassination of such a
prominent human that we can't just have access to that,
which is actually, that's evidence, right guys? Like the video
of the shooting is evidence of it happening. Videos surrounding
the event, you know, an hour before and an hour
(47:03):
after that's like evidence. And maybe that's just for law enforcement.
Maybe that's just for investigators, but it does seem, I
don't know, weird that we're not really supposed to look
at it. And it's not like I want to sit
here and look at somebody's death. I want to analyze
what it looks like happened and compare that to what
I'm being told, you know, by a government source or
by ABC News. And I think a lot of us
(47:24):
have that. And that's why there are websites, guys, like
whokilledck.com that I was looking at yesterday. And it had
a detailed description. massive set of entries based on the
Rode Wireless Pro lavalier that was clipped onto Charlie Kirk's
chest the moment that he died. And there were huge diagrams, pictures, links, explanations.
(47:49):
And guess what? This morning when I came on to
bring it up again so I could talk to you
guys about specifics, it's getting an invalid SSL certificate. This
website was the best example of curated material around the
wireless law of explosion theory that I've ever seen. And
today it is not working. And I keep refreshing it
(48:11):
as it is telling me to do. It says, if
you're a visitor, please try again in a few minutes.
The SSL certificate presented by the server did not pass validation.
I was literally on it last night gathering information. That's weird.
Speaker 3 (48:25):
Sure is. I'll tell you what else is weird. Ben,
I'm anxious to hear your thoughts on this one.
Speaker 4 (48:30):
The college campus, Utah Valley University, where this took place,
the very next day, if I'm not mistaken, decided to
start a little construction project that involved paving.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
Over the area where the murder took place.
Speaker 1 (48:46):
And folks, we're going to pause here. This is going
to be the end of our first part of a
two-part series, Exploding Mike's The Assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
Hey, and while you're waiting for the second episode to
come out, it would be cool if you would check
out something for us and just see what you think.
And it might help temper some of the discussion in
part two. There's an article titled Iran-Linked Networks Amplify False
Claims After Charlie Kirk Killing. Researchers say it was put
out by Iran International September 18th, 2025. We couldn't find,
(49:18):
a similar article from The Guardian or another place like that,
but it's very interesting to read that article and then
think about potentially information coming our way that is counter
to the official narrative and what would be the purpose
of another country doing that. I think it's a really
good way just to round out our thoughts as we
(49:38):
continue on.
Speaker 1 (49:39):
And the best way to round out our thoughts is
to get your thoughts. Invade our mind spaces. There are
a number of ways to contact us.
Speaker 3 (49:49):
There sure are.
Speaker 4 (49:50):
You can find us at the Handle Conspiracy Stuff or
Conspiracy Stuff Show on your social media platform of choice.
Speaker 2 (49:55):
We have a phone number. It is 1-833-STD-WYTK.
Speaker 3 (49:59):
Call it.
Speaker 2 (50:00):
See what happens. We also have a way to contact
us via electronic mail.
Speaker 1 (50:05):
That's correct. We are the entities that read each piece
of correspondence we receive. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes
the void rides back. We'll see you for part two.
We can't wait for you to join us. In the meantime,
we'll see you out here in the dark. Conspiracy at iHeartRadio.com.
Speaker 2 (50:39):
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies, history is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio. Hello?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Welcome back to the show. My name is Matt.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
My name is Noel. They call me Ben.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
We're joined, as always, with our super producer, Dylan, the
Tennessee pal Fagan.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Most importantly, you are you. You are here.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know. Guys,
as you can hear, my throat is still not 100% post-travel.
But I got to say, I really enjoyed the recent
strange news program that I wasn't able to make. Especially, Noel,
when you pointed out how disturbing it is that so
(01:00):
many acts of violence hit the headlines every day now.
And so many things are happening that tons of homicides
get ignored unless the person is, like you said, of note.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Well, and to just, you know, remind everyone, that was
me catching myself doing that.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
Like, literally, you know. Well, oh, I didn't know someone
important got killed.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
Like I said that out loud and it just I
had to kind of take a beat and like look
at myself and be like, what the hell?
Speaker 3 (01:31):
But also Matt then was like, yeah, we all do
that and we're programmed to do it. And it's not good.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Right.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
It's not ideal.
Speaker 4 (01:39):
I mean, it's.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
It's also a function of the endless information age that
we're all inundated with. The most heinous crimes, corruption, assassination attempts,
even actual murders, they seem to fade from the headlines
within moments. And this is why we are returning to
a tragedy that we can argue exhibits some of the
same tendencies. You guys, we're recording on September 4th, but
(02:05):
this episode, is going to be coming out on September 11th.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
It might be a two-part series.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
It's a year and a day since Charlie Kirk was
assassinated while speaking on stage at Utah Valley University on
September 10th, 2025.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
Yeah, and I mean, even when it happened, I was
saying off mic that we really haven't had a chance
to dissect this as a.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Group, whether on mic or off.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
But I think we all at least acknowledge when it happened,
it was starting to take on some JFK magic bullet
type vibes.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Yeah, there are incredibly intricate theories that you can find
online in like all across the Internet, but on specific
dedicated websites that go through step by step by step
these alleged versions of events that don't line up with
the original ones. which is one of the primary reasons
(03:01):
we're talking about this, because it's so prevalent. And it
was immediately prevalent, you guys. We've talked before about how the, well,
we're doing this on September 11th. The September 11th attacks,
they took a while before a lot of these curated
theories started to hit, right? And we remember loose change
(03:22):
9-11 and then everything that proliferated after that. We are
now in that age where we have access to everything
all the time. People are just putting stuff on the internet.
And almost immediately after this death that we're going to
be discussing today, there were ideas about what actually allegedly happened.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
Fully formed. Yes. Overnight. And then proliferate. To your point, Matt,
just out there instantly.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
Almost as if someone or a few factions of people
were waiting. for the opportunity to propose something like these conspiracies.
And also, the additional part, people got in hot water
for asking too many questions about what happened.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Oh, yeah.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
And I know we're going to dive into the minutia
of all of the various odd occurrences following it, like...
bulldozing the site more or less and the lack.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Of like forensic gathering.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
And then there's the whole social media aspect of it.
I mean, it's fascinating on so many levels. And for
my money, I just want to say didn't care for
that man. But that's not what we're here to litigate today.
So for him or against him out there in the audience,
I'm going to do my best to not as a
horrible thing, this way to say it, but assassinate this
man's character because, you know, he already got assassinated for real.
(04:39):
So let's not I'm not going to add insult to injury,
but I do just want to make it clear that
I was not a fan of this man, did not
deserve to die.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
And with that, let's let's pause for a word from
our sponsors, then introduce Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Here are the facts.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
So Charles James Kirk. which is objectively a cool name
and makes me think of Star Trek.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
It gives Star Trek, yeah. Thank you, I was thinking
the same thing.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
He's born in Chicago on October 14th, 1993. And folks,
this means that he was only 31 years old when
he was murdered. He joined political movements very early on.
He was starting out in high school and he briefly
flirted with college, but eventually dropped out to become a
(05:28):
full-time political activist And it's almost entirely due to his
interactions with a guy named William Thomas Montgomery, or Bill
to his friends. So Bill is a veteran. He is
a storied businessman, a pioneer in the marketing game, and
he's also a prominent conservative activist. He sees young Kirk,
(05:52):
Charlie Kirk, giving a speech at Benedictine University and And afterwards,
he's like, I got to talk to this kid. And
he connects with Charlie Kirk. And Bill says, look, you
can go to college whenever. I need you now. You
should become a full-time activist. You are what our movement needs.
And so together, even though Bill was not listed as
(06:17):
an official co-founder, together, he and Charlie Kirk created this
organization called Turning Point USA or TPSA.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
TPSA. Yeah, since we love an acronym. For sure.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
Ben, maybe I just want to make sure that I'm
getting my facts straight. Is this the guy, I mean,
clearly a bit of a power behind the throne kind
of situation, but is this the guy that also introduced
him to Erica Kirk? Are there stories behind that about
him kind of being like, this is someone who could
also be incredibly important in our organization? And then Charlie
(06:49):
said to him, like, I'm going to date her.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
That was the story that I had heard. There might be.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
Was there another individual, though, that became real close with
Charlie related to TPUSA?
Speaker 3 (07:00):
I think this is the guy.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
I think so. I just want to point out there.
There's a lot of information that has been swirling around
the Internet that is coming from somebody that I particularly enjoy.
That's a comedian named Sammy Obeid, O-B-E-I-D. He has made
in the past, like beginning in October of 2025, a
(07:22):
month after the shooting, several long stand-ups about this event
and about Charlie Kirk and specifically about Erica Kirk. And
in those videos, Noel, he goes into great detail about
Erica Kirk and her journey towards Turning Point USA and
her relationship with Charlie Kirk. And it's a comedienne. making observations.
(07:48):
And I think maybe there are a lot of people
out there taking it as 100% truth, like it's coming
from a place of journalism, which I'm not saying Samuel
Bade's not checking his facts necessarily. It's just not a
journalist reporting facts, right? It's someone making observations.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
No, but also there's a certain amount of, and it's
really neither here nor there whether this is the guy
that introduced him or not, because my point is even
that's mythologized.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
They're meeting. they're falling in love.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
The whole nature of their relationship, like there's a video
of Charlie Kirk talking to his baby, like saying, this
is where mommy and daddy met and had a burger
and telling it like this great American love story. And
then when you really look into it and hear different accounts,
it seems like the reality of their meeting It may
have been a little more coordinated and a little less
of this whirlwind magical romance.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
We do know that they began dating at least in
2019 in New York City. But as far as an
actual rom-com or a meet-cute, we'd have to learn more
about that.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Well, he interviewed her for a position.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
It was a business interview. But then in 2019, they
began dating.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
That's right. But the way he tells it is.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
When I interviewed mommy right here and this burger joint,
and I wanted to, you know, talk to her about
being a part of our organization. Then I realized, I
don't want to hire you. I want to date you.
And he says that like a point of pride.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
It's odd.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Well, on Britannica, even it states that she went in
for that 2018 job interview at a restaurant in New York.
And then Charlie Kirk would later recall saying, quote, forget
this job interview. I want to date you. And they
were engaged in December, 2020 and married in May, 2021.
So it is like, That is part of the lore,
I guess, of the couple, the public facing story.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
And didn't mean to jump the gun straight to Erica,
but to your point, Matt, this is a very lore
intensive discussion. A lot of lore that's created by both sides,
people who hated the man and people who loved the
man and wanted to see him elevated to either while living,
incredibly influential, powerful person, or after the fact, after his passing,
(09:58):
martyr and, you know, some sort of like more powerful
than an individual, a symbol, right?
Speaker 3 (10:04):
Right, right.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Almost like Che Guevara's quote, you know, shoot fool, you're
only killing a man. We know that these guys we
were talking about originally, Bill Montgomery and Charlie Kirk, they collaborated.
very well, very closely, all the way up to summer
of 2020. And to that earlier point we're making about
(10:26):
this organization and this man being despised and adored, if
you were a supporter of what Turning Point was standing
for and stands for today, then they were speaking your
gospel to you, right? They were against COVID and against
COVID vaccinations. They were in the front lines of the
(10:47):
culture war. they actually ended up changing some of their
stances around COVID in 2020 because Bill Montgomery passed away
due to complications of a COVID infection. So they actually
went back and erased a little bit of history. Yeah.
But Turning Point soldiered on. If we want to learn
(11:08):
more about the group, there's a lot we could get into.
They're a nonprofit PAC, a political action committee, They evangelize
for conservative values in high schools, colleges and universities. They're
Wu Tang in it. They want the children.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Right.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
And they they want to identify, educate, train and organize
students to, quote, promote the principles of freedom, free markets
and limited government. So it's not original.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
No. Well, I was going to say, guys, growing up
in high school, did you all have like the young
Republicans or young conservative type groups in your school? And
I don't know what the overarching organization of that is,
but this to me seems just like a really, really,
really weaponized extension of that with incredible deployment capabilities of
(12:01):
kind of getting these folks to get out into the community.
And then, of course, we end up with Charlie Kirk
really just becoming an absolute star. by trolling students on
college campuses. So he did end up going to college
after all, didn't he? Right, right.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Just maybe not the way he had originally imagined. That's
a pretty solid point because you can also see similar
activities with pundits like Ben Shapiro, who loves going and
having these debates that can be at times problematic. And look, folks, again,
to the point about originality, If you have spent time
(12:38):
in the United States, you're already familiar with what an
organization like Turning Point wants to do. They're pushing for
lower taxes on businesses and high net worth individuals. They
want to focus on a very American interpretation of Christianity
and then also an emphasis on limited government, so removing taxes.
(12:59):
various regulations. They also want to abolish some governmental agencies
or bodies and then push those responsibilities into the hands
of private industry.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
So for critics, this is terrible.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
For supporters, this is awesome.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
You know, it reminds me a lot of our episodes
on the Atlas Network.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Seems like a very similar organization. I've been over here
attempting to find some kind of connection between the Atlas
Network and Turning Point USA. And it just seems like
they're connected by dollars. At least that's what I'm seeing.
I'm not seeing like a lot of individuals. So maybe
if you're listening to this and you've got better information,
(13:40):
we'd be interested in individuals that cross between those two organizations.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Which definitely, it would be statistically surprising if none of
that overlap existed. We also know Turning Point worked with ALEC.
So please check out our episode on ALEC. Those are
the folks who write out lobbyist and industry-inspired legislation to
(14:06):
be rubber-stamped by members of Congress. It's a very real conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Is that a think tank? Conservative think tank, you might
call it?
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Yeah, it's in that realm or that genre for sure.
I mean, Turning Point also is different than Though it's
not unique, it's distinct in that it focuses so heavily
on proselytizing to younger Americans, and it also rakes in
a bleep ton of money in the process. Dylan and Jordan,
(14:37):
our editors, went ahead and said bleep ton to save
us the sound effect.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Nice.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
Nice. I want to go ahead and just put American
Legislative Exchange Council. I couldn't remember what the acronym stood for. Alec, Ben,
that you mentioned there.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Oh, man.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
We still haven't been to an ALEC meeting, but we'll see.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
We'll see.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Turning Point also has a bunch of mega donors, people
and companies with very deep pockets who have real life
money on the line when it comes to taxes and regulations.
These guys are so good at what we call electioneering.
Like you mentioned earlier, Noel, they had this phenomenal reach
(15:17):
to get people to the polls on local, regional, and
national levels. They were like, the Tea Party movement times 10,
because they were also AstroTurf. They like to pretend it's
a viral, bottom-up, grassroots thing. A bunch of kids who
have nothing in common but their shared values got together
(15:39):
and started taking action. But the issue is, at every
step of the way, this organization and its initiatives are
being funded by very powerful, sometimes very shady people that
would occasionally prefer not to be identified in public. They
wanted quiet money.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Guys, you ever see like when a needle drop happens
in a movie or a TV show and you got
subtitles on and you song you've known for a long
time and the lyric pops up and you're like, I
was today years old when I realized that's what he
was saying. In the Radiohead song, Electioneering, he says, cattle
prods and the IMF, a trust I can.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Rely on your vote. And a million years never realized
he was saying. It's where he goes, yeah, yeah, yeah.
No idea. I love it. Sorry, I had to bring
it up. That just tickled me.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
International monetary.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
100%. But again, electioneering, yes.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
We'll pause here for a word from our sponsors and
hopefully we'll return. And we're back. They did make a
bunch of money from 2012 to 2023, Turning Point had
raised $ 389 million that we know about. And just a
(16:53):
few years later, in 2025, the year Kirk was murdered,
the organization had raised, guys, darn near half a billion dollars.
And even more importantly, even more important than the money
was Kirk's Rolodex. This was the envy of lobbyists across
the country. this network of 50,000 plus donors, some of
(17:17):
whom ran the most powerful outfits in the world. And
so with all that success, there's a lot of controversy.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Well, imagine the pressure now that gets placed on Charlie Kirk.
Now that he's in that position, this 18 year old
kid or whatever he was when he got met by
Montgomery and is getting pushed, you know, down this track,
he was, he was a YouTuber, you know, he was
a person who was making their money in their stake
at fame, doing what he was doing, right? He believed
(17:47):
in something, perhaps, but he found a pathway forward for himself.
Now he's getting gathered in by all these older folks
who are like, ooh, we can use this. And as
you're saying, Ben, with that Rolodex, it becomes one of
the most important things. Now, if you go through Charlie,
you can get to the people that you want to
get to.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
Well, the conservatives have never been the best at reaching
the younger demographic, you know?
Speaker 3 (18:11):
It would seem.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
I mean, that's obviously changed significantly as the sea has
changed towards, you know, Republican kind of domination.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
You can't really accomplish that without flipping the youth.
Speaker 4 (18:23):
But historically, wouldn't you guys say that it seemed like
being a young Republican was not particularly in vogue?
Speaker 1 (18:31):
In the 90s and early 2000s. That's what I'm referring to. Yeah,
it was definitely different. It was a different environment because—
the rise of media being compromised or the rise of
very conservatively slanted media had not yet come to pass.
So I, I totally agree with you there on sort
(18:51):
of the info ecosystem. We, we also know, okay, we
know turning point got, it came under fire for so
many things. They coordinated directly with the Donald Trump campaign
a few years back with the chase, the vote initiative.
And that's, that might seem like a hair splitting one
(19:11):
to some of us in the audience tonight, because in
this country, in the U S if you are an
independent nonprofit political group, you can champion any candidate you want.
You can say, Hey, count Ben face for president.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
That's our organization.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
But the tricky part of the law is that you're
not supposed to directly interact with a campaign itself. You
could say, Hey, We're fans of Kamala Harris or we're
fans of Donald Trump or something like that. But you
can't go to them in secret and say, OK, how
do we do this?
Speaker 3 (19:46):
What do we do?
Speaker 1 (19:47):
It's a law that's confusing to me. and I think
it's confusing to a lot of people outside of the
Beltway gang.
Speaker 4 (19:54):
Which probably means that it isn't followed particularly closely.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
We know it isn't.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Because of the existence of country clubs and golf courses
and high-end restaurants. It's just what it is.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
There's not a way to stop it. That's right. Is
the thing. That's right.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
In the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, we got an
episode on them as well, folks. They eventually drew back
their criticism and they said, get this, they said, look,
what Turning Point is doing in this election cycle, in
this campaign, it's not against the law that we had. Instead,
(20:34):
their literature that they're passing out and their scripts are
They don't count as public communication, coordinated communication or coordinated
expenditure of funding, which is, again, a bull bleep.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
Didn't the FEC just more or less get abolished or
disbanded or entirely hamstrung by the current administration as if
they were doing much to begin with?
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Am I confusing that with another body?
Speaker 1 (20:59):
The FCC has definitely been compromised.
Speaker 4 (21:01):
No, no, no.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
I'm talking about the Federal Election Commission.
Speaker 4 (21:04):
Like, in advance of midterms, there was a lot to
do made over Trump firing some key appointees to the FCC.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
You're absolutely right, Noel. Yeah, and they already were a really... Toothless. Yeah,
they were an organization with some really deep problems. And
one of the biggest criticisms about the FCC is that they.
In theory, they exist to ensure there are fair debates, right?
(21:35):
And that the elections aren't ginned up. But in practice,
a lot of people are going to tell you that
they exist to keep the two-party grift going, to prevent
third parties from reaching national attention. And there's validity to
that accusation.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
Well, and that's a good point, Ben.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
Maybe it's a separate point, but the One of the
reasons I think it would behoove the powers that be
to just get cozy, cozy, cozy with someone like Charlie
Kirk and Turning Point USA is because they are reaching
the levels that could approach that of a valid reason
to start a third party. And I think we're seeing
(22:14):
that now. It's like Marjorie Taylor Greene and a lot
of these defector. Republicans talking about starting another party that
still has, quote unquote, Republican, what's the word, beliefs or values,
but is not aligned lockstep with Trumpism.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Right.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
So kind of the removing the cult of personality, right?
Providing an alternative.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
Or a new cult of personality, because you could argue
that Charlie Kirk, more powerful than Trump.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
Among certain demographics, definitely. I mean, we also know that
they did work together. He had a seat at the
Hall of Presidential Power. They helped organize the Stop the
Steal protests. They were a key player in that. And that,
as we recall, ultimately led to the storming of the U.S.
Capitol during the March to Save America rally on January 6th, 2021.
(23:07):
And folks, I remember very well Uh, exactly when that happened,
because we were still, uh, recording in, we were recording
in our office.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
Right.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
When January 6th. Yeah. Or yeah, I.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
Remember that we had, we had plans to work on
something else and we said, Oh, nope. Guess we got
to do this episode.
Speaker 4 (23:34):
All I remember was seeing, it's like, I remember where
I was when nine 11 happened. I was in the
computer lab at a Westside high school in Augusta, Georgia.
And when January 6th happened, I was on my couch.
I think with my kid, but I was watching it
on TV. And I just remember texting with Conal Byrne
about it. It must have been related to something else,
(23:55):
but we were just both like.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
What the fuck? What's going on, man? I'll never forget that.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
They were part of that. They were part of what
happened that day in January. And there were more and
more controversies, like we were alluding to, surrounding their partnerships
with other groups because these things all network, right, at
a level that LinkedIn could barely dream of. But I
do think before we move on, we've got to mention
(24:24):
something that is incredibly strange and dangerous and has echoes
of pre-World War II Germany, the professor watch list. You
guys have all heard of this one, right?
Speaker 3 (24:36):
No, I don't think I might know it in theory,
but I don't know it by that name. Tell us.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Oh yeah, in 2016, Turning Point created a specific website
to list, to name and shame academics that they believe
were discriminating against conservative students, were promoting anti-American values or
pushing leftist propaganda on these malleable, young, vulnerable minds.
Speaker 4 (25:05):
There is an interview on Channel 5, the YouTube channel,
which I think is really fantastic and has some really
great documentary stuff, really cool journalistic work. And it's with
Hunter Biden and the Channel 5 guy, whose name I'm
totally forgetting, Andrew something, and Nick Fuentes, who is a
Charlie Kirk-esque kind of figure, even more divisive perhaps, a
(25:27):
little on the Ben Shapiro tip. And it is fascinating
because it gave me for the first time a glimpse
into how these young people were turned down turned into
into that type, into the Nick Fuentes and Ben Shapiro's
of the world and Charlie Kirk's of the world. And
they had legitimate grievances. That's the fascinating part about it.
(25:48):
They I mean, like what you're describing, Ben, is absolutely blacklisting.
You know, it harkens back to, you know, the Red
Scare kind of tactics and all of that. But it's
like when you have a group of people that have
maybe more conservative beliefs that who are made to feel
(26:09):
like they are completely invalid and they're deplatforming people left
and right. And I'm not saying that's not for good reason,
because I think many of those deplatforming instances were, but
it causes people to become more radicalized and more extreme.
And it's that pendulum swing, you know, from like hardcore
liberalism to mega, mega hardcore conservatism. And it happens in
(26:34):
the youth. And that's what Turning Point USA was trying
to push forward.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
They definitely have gotten a foothold there and been extremely
successful in some of that stuff. I'm just thinking about
Nick Fuentes because there's a separate episode that we've been
looking at in covering some of the activities of Nick Fuentes,
like the America First Political Action Committee and some of
the other things. Again, going back to January 6th and
well beyond and things that may be coming there with
(27:03):
the Groypers. and all of that.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
He was a big grouper guy.
Speaker 4 (27:06):
Can I just really quickly say, when I say legitimate grievances,
I just mean I can empathize with the way they
were made to feel like completely invalidated and like, you know, nothing.
And then that's a way to radicalize people and to
have them seek out more radical perspectives. I'm not saying
these are good people. I'm not saying these are perspectives
(27:27):
that deserve to be given air. I'm just saying that
If you're a young conservative and you're living in the
era of Obama and hard left politics, I could see
that radicalizing you.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
Yeah, you can understand someone's perspective without agreeing with them.
And I think that's exactly what you're saying here. The
reason the professor watch is supporters say it's well-intentioned and
it's nice bulwark against all this crazy commie stuff that's
infiltrating their kids' heads. But the reason I find it
(27:58):
so personally offensive is is that this is like doxing people.
This isn't just like saying, hey, fewer students go to
this professor's class, or hey, get this professor fired. This
puts those people and their families in clear physical danger.
That's the ultimate consequence of this kind of stuff. And
(28:22):
it doesn't, at that point, you know, you can't go
to someone's family and say, hey, we didn't mean for
this to happen because in that case it did happen.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
You know what I mean? You can't spell culture war
without war.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Right. Yeah. I mean, and this is, again, I know
I kept saying it is a front lines of the
culture war and it's very, very helpful for a lot
of these rich donors. It's their way into the zeitgeist.
And Kirk was like, man, you were talking about possibly
being more popular than Donald Trump in certain circles.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
There was all this, All this talk of him running
for office, even a little bit of scuttlebutt about a
possible presidential bid down the line.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
We don't know.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
What way his career would have gone because his life
was brutally cut short at that outdoor debate, which again
was like very, like you guys said, it's a very um,
ginned up kind of debate. Uh, but this was a
very popular one. There were something like 3000 people in
the crowd. It, the debate had just, just kicked off
(29:32):
and it barely begun. Kirk was answering a question regarding
transgender communities in the United States when he was shot
in the neck by a sniper. This is the official story.
And the sniper was positioned on the roof of a
building about 142 yards away. So he gets rushed to
the hospital while he was trying to answer that question.
(29:56):
He's pronounced dead. A manhunt goes for 33 hours. And
they arrest, eventually, a guy named Tyler James Robinson, 22
at the time, a very young dude himself. He had
surrendered to the sheriff, confessed the crime to his parents.
As we speak, and there's very recent news about him,
as we speak, Robinson is in custody. He has pled
(30:18):
not guilty to all of the charges.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Wasn't he only just arraigned, or there was just some
kind of progress in his prosecution? Yes, just a few
days ago, yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
And this is just the beginning of the story, you know,
because like we were saying at the top, not within weeks,
not within days, but within hours of the news going public,
social media was flooded with all sorts of allegations and
conspiracy theories from the right as well as from the left.
(30:51):
Everybody was getting into this. One thing that they could
all agree on was that something felt fishy about the story.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
And then people who.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
Were saying the wrong things about Kirk, right, who himself
was a very big proponent of free speech, they found
themselves with targets on their back.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
It was a crazy time because so many human beings
were at that event in real time shooting video. So
when it occurred, there are dozens, if not hundreds of
videos of the assassination as it occurred. I mean, that's
that i'm trying to think of another really big high
profile assassination or assassination attempt it reminds you the one
(31:32):
that was on um the president right where there were
so many people filming at the time and official cameras rolling.
Speaker 4 (31:38):
Yeah i love when they uh moved the cameras and
raised that flag to get that perfect photo out.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
And i'm just saying you can then as just any
one person go through that footage look at it analyze
it and use your own lens and go oh wait
but What about this? What about that? What's going on here?
But what about that person in the background? Is that
a drone? You know, it becomes an endless source of
(32:03):
ideas and potentials.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
Well, it's a good point, Matt.
Speaker 4 (32:06):
I mean, not even to mention how high-resolution footage is
these days where you can, like, isolate and zoom and, like,
look at faces in the background.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
I remember us.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
Slow motion.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
It's a brooder times 10,000.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
A million percent. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
I remember when it happened, we all– Maybe it wasn't Kirk.
Maybe it was the Trump thing. But we were all
looking at faces in the background and someone making signals.
Speaker 3 (32:29):
We got swept up in that, man. Big time.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
That's in this one, too. There's people on the side
that have been overanalyzed. It's pretty intense.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
And while we're all taking a quick snort of our
favorite confirmation bias, we're going to take a quick break.
for a word from our sponsors, and we're diving headlong
into the conspiracies. Here's where it gets crazy. That sounds
(33:03):
better when my voice is all messed up, you guys.
All right, the first conspiracies, as we know, within 34 hours,
they focused on this alleged assassin, Robinson. And we're saying
alleged because he hasn't been convicted yet, even though he
did confess to his parents and to his roommate, who
(33:24):
we'll have to talk about. People were sharing all these
doctored photographs of this 22-year-old, and some of them would
show him wearing what appeared to be pro-Trump merch, like
a Make America Great Again hat. There were rumors that
claimed he was a registered Republican and donated to the
Trump campaign. or that he was in fact a registered
(33:47):
member of the Democratic Socialist Party. Like, think Mamdani. So
you have your average, let's say you're not super politically active,
you're your average social media user. It's September 11th, 2025.
You're reading this stuff that your algorithm is feeding you,
and some of it's clearly contradictory. So everything we know
(34:11):
about psychology tells us that the average person, again, we're
not saying anybody's dumb here, the average person is going
to sip that confirmation bias, and they are going to
go with the narrative that best jibes with their pre-existing
values and their framework for experiencing the world. You just
jump in and run your laps on the great hamster
(34:35):
wheel of internet BS. I feel like we miss this
point a lot when we talk about this process. These
people are a lot of them are not purposely trolling
or making stuff up. They're just not diving too far
past the headline because they've heard what confirms what they
wanted to hear, believed to be true. Dopamine casino kicks in.
(34:57):
So what you, you give it a video 60 seconds,
maybe if you're lucky and then you like it and
you repost it and you send it to your friends,
that kind of thing was definitely happening. And those people
were jerks. They were trying to figure out what was
going on too.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
And to that point, I mean, there also are a
hell of a lot of folks on the Internet, surprising
I know, that just want to watch the world burn
and then just want to use something like this as
a way to be divisive, as a way to hurt people.
Whether they look at it that way or what do
they call it, just getting their lulls, you know. But
(35:33):
there is a dark current of that kind of anarchy, anarchism,
that is strong. And I mean, obviously in the world,
but the internet is the perfect place to get stuff
like that going. And there are folks out there that
have a real knack for it. And this is a
perfect storm situation where stuff like that doesn't just piss
people off. It creates the potential for violence. It creates
(35:57):
the potential for people to act.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Rage baiters, trolls. And it gets even darker, Noel, because
we would later learn that state actors had been waiting
for an opportunity like this. It wasn't all just, you know,
lonely basement, 4chan loving stereotypes. We're talking about the asymmetric
info war armies of Russia and China and Iran. They
(36:24):
pounced on this. They launched their armies of bots, right?
They focused on dividing the United States domestically even further
and And they would push their own foreign policy objectives
along the way. So now all of a sudden, somebody
on Twitter is reposting Elon Musk's hot take on Charlie Kirk.
(36:45):
And they're saying, well, this is, you know, insert most
inflammatory thing I could say here. And also, Taiwan is
not an independent country. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (36:56):
I'd love to jump into the lone actor thing. Of
it all, I guess, because one of the theories that
I remember finding incredibly convincing and unusual was the rifle
itself and like how quickly he was able to disassemble
it and, you know, throw it in a backpack and
(37:18):
like how pieces of it were found and things like that.
And it just seemed like the kind of stuff that
only a trained, like highly trained individual could do.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (37:27):
I'd love to just talk about that briefly, because I
think I'm not quite hitting that one, as I remember it.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (37:33):
We also have to mention that AI non-state actors were
in the mix here. They were spreading all this misinformation
just because it was good for the algorithm. And somebody
would agree with what you just said there, Noel, about
the rifle, would be Roger Stone, a somewhat controversial political
activist in his own right. He swore up and down
(37:54):
that the assassination... had the markings of a professional state-level hit.
It was just too buttoned up, too seamless, in his opinion,
for a kid like Robinson to pull it off. So
he was saying, look, this Robinson guy is either assisted
by heavy hitters, pro-hard cases experts, or he was placed
(38:15):
as a scapegoat or a patsy. So the real assassins
are either an enemy nation, a rogue cabal in our
own government, or straight-up terrorists. So even in people on
the left, we're also bringing up some of the things
you mentioned, like how could this, how could this kid
have first off have aim like that 142 yards away?
(38:39):
How could they additionally be able to, you know, break
down the weapon, hide it? How were they able to
leave the scene and kind of get away for 33 hours,
you know, and what would have happened if they didn't confess?
Could they have hold up somewhere in the hinterlands of Utah?
It's a very big, empty place.
Speaker 2 (38:58):
So guys, we've got two versions of Lone Wolf Assassins. Well,
we have three, I guess. We have three really interesting,
different categories and flavors of Lone Assassins in history from
the 1960s. We've got Lee Harvey Oswald, who stated out loud,
I'm a patsy, as he's going in just before he
(39:20):
gets taken out of the game, and he is no
longer either a patsy, Or anything else. He just is
whatever the official story says he is. And that's what
he did.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
Right?
Speaker 2 (39:28):
Because he's dead now. there's nothing to go against. You
got James Earl Ray, who languished in prison after the
death of Martin Luther King Jr., and he died in
prison just before a civil jury found out that MLK,
or let's say a civil jury decided that Martin Luther
King Jr. was killed by the government via conspiracy. And
then we've got Sirhan Sirhan, which, guys, I don't even
(39:51):
know how to categorize that one.
Speaker 4 (39:53):
Isn't that Manchurian Candidate kind of? There's conspiracies surrounding that.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
That's Sirhan Sirhan's own statement.
Speaker 4 (40:00):
Got it.
Speaker 3 (40:00):
That's what I thought.
Speaker 2 (40:01):
Yeah, I mean, you know, somebody who remains in prison
to this day and says, hey, I didn't do it
and is never going to get out of prison. And
it's almost like the, oh, I'm just going to say
it this way. The label of crazy gets applied to somebody.
And now anything that person says in the future is
kind of, we can get rid of, we don't have
(40:24):
to think about it, thought terminating, cliche thing. He's just crazy.
That's the official story. I do wonder if this particular
human being, this lone actor, fits in any of these
rubrics at all, you guys? Because it feels like he
is currently attempting to defend himself as this trial is beginning.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
Right, to avoid the death penalty. So pled not guilty
to all of the charges. There were quite a few charges.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
But actually seeing somebody play out in a trial like this,
there was all kinds of weird stuff with James Earl
Ray through the trial, like pushing him to plead a
certain way and eventually getting him to plead guilty, even
though he says he didn't want to plead guilty. I'm
just wondering... Do you see him as somebody who is
just an individual fighting against those charges fully, or are
(41:14):
they just going through the motions?
Speaker 1 (41:17):
It's very strange. We can get to that. Let's do
that now. All right, just like how these other state
powers or bad faith actors would try to push their
own agendas or narratives on the death of Kirk, if
they even thought he was dead, because the other conspiracists
were saying he faked his death. Just like they were
(41:39):
trying to put their narratives on that murder, they were
also trying to put narratives on Robinson himself. For example,
because like I said, there are a lot of culture
war hobby horses that people are trying to foist into
the conversation here. We know that Kirk was murdered while
(41:59):
answering a question about the alleged ties that he had
spoken about in the past, his belief, not ours, between
transgender people and mass shootings. So this led, and this
is still happening in conservative circles, it led some conservative
commentators to say that this guy, Robinson, is a patsy.
(42:20):
The real assassin is an unidentified transgender person who got
away and became a ghost in the wind. And then
from there, they pushed and push even further to say,
we need more discrimination basically against the trans population of.
Speaker 3 (42:38):
The United States.
Speaker 4 (42:39):
And if I'm not mistaken, we're going to get into
the bullet casing of it all. Um, but I think
there was some, uh, theories pushed around. There were bullets
recovered with some sort of pro trans message. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
There was definitely one bullet that came up in, uh,
in the court proceedings a few days ago, as we record,
that had the engraving, Hey, Fascist, Catch, in all capital letters.
But I had also heard some stuff about what you're
remarking on there, too. And we do have to say
that Robinson may well have been motivated by the anti-trans
(43:19):
or anti-LGBTQ stances of Kirk and his associates, because he
was in a romantic relationship with his roommate, who's a
transgender individual. And this, coupled with the engraving on the bullet,
very similar to the tactics employed by Luigi Mangione when
he allegedly assassinated that UnitedHealthcare executive, Brian Thompson, this starts
(43:46):
to add up more and more for that angle. We
also know Robinson texted his partner confessing to the crime.
And the roommate cooperated with investigators with the FBI, had
said they have no idea what Robinson had planned. They
are in FBI protection now.
Speaker 3 (44:03):
Ben, help me out here on this.
Speaker 4 (44:05):
I am finding some of the other reported engravings. One was,
if you read this, you are gay. And another was
part of the lyrics to the Italian anti-fascist protest song,
Bella Ciao. But I'm All I'm seeing in terms of
confirmed bullets recovered was the hey, fascist catch.
Speaker 1 (44:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (44:27):
Have you heard about that? If you read this, you're
gay in the Bella Chao one.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
I had heard about that one, Noel, but I wasn't
able to confirm it. All we could confirm, at least
so far, was hey, fascist catch.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
Got it.
Speaker 1 (44:40):
At least that's what prosecutors have brought to court.
Speaker 4 (44:44):
I guess my point is, I think initially, because of
this whole internet theory explosion. People heard engraved bullet, divisive, weird,
kind of Riddler-esque, you know, cryptic messages. People just kind
of started making up their own to confirm who they
wanted the assassin to be.
Speaker 3 (45:05):
Right, yeah.
Speaker 1 (45:06):
Like I'm saying, the pre-existing narrative that they wanted this
to fit with their world. We also have to say
there are still so many other conspiracy theories. The idea
that Kirk was indeed killed, but not by a bullet
at all. Not by a sniper, not by Robinson, by
an exploding microphone.
Speaker 3 (45:24):
That sounds familiar, Ben. Exploding walkie talkies.
Speaker 1 (45:27):
Right. This is one you guys that I remember some
of us were talking about pretty in depth off air years,
years back. But we've all heard that story, right? That
was shrapnel from an exploding mic that got him in
the neck.
Speaker 3 (45:42):
Well, I haven't seen it.
Speaker 4 (45:43):
It's not something that I'm interested in seeing, but I
have a friend who always goes out and watches the
Faces of Death videos that are now everywhere on the
internet when things like this happen, and apparently it is
just an absolute gusher of an explosion from Kirk's neck.
Speaker 2 (45:58):
I would say I've watched it, unfortunately, many times, and
the first instance, the moment that it occurs, it is not.
It is very strange the way the way it looks,
the way his shirt moves up and towards his neck
and then appears to get shot there. Um, I would
(46:19):
just say it's really, it makes sense that these organizations
that are so interested in having advertiser friendly content wouldn't
want a video of someone's assassination to be floating around.
Let's say on YouTube, right? Or Instagram or the primary
places where you might find a video like that. They
don't want that there. that's not good for advertisers. It
(46:43):
is weird when it is the assassination of such a
prominent human that we can't just have access to that,
which is actually, that's evidence, right guys? Like the video
of the shooting is evidence of it happening. Videos surrounding
the event, you know, an hour before and an hour
(47:03):
after that's like evidence. And maybe that's just for law enforcement.
Maybe that's just for investigators, but it does seem, I
don't know, weird that we're not really supposed to look
at it. And it's not like I want to sit
here and look at somebody's death. I want to analyze
what it looks like happened and compare that to what
I'm being told, you know, by a government source or
by ABC News. And I think a lot of us
(47:24):
have that. And that's why there are websites, guys, like
whokilledck.com that I was looking at yesterday. And it had
a detailed description. massive set of entries based on the
Rode Wireless Pro lavalier that was clipped onto Charlie Kirk's
chest the moment that he died. And there were huge diagrams, pictures, links, explanations.
(47:49):
And guess what? This morning when I came on to
bring it up again so I could talk to you
guys about specifics, it's getting an invalid SSL certificate. This
website was the best example of curated material around the
wireless law of explosion theory that I've ever seen. And
today it is not working. And I keep refreshing it
(48:11):
as it is telling me to do. It says, if
you're a visitor, please try again in a few minutes.
The SSL certificate presented by the server did not pass validation.
I was literally on it last night gathering information. That's weird.
Speaker 3 (48:25):
Sure is. I'll tell you what else is weird. Ben,
I'm anxious to hear your thoughts on this one.
Speaker 4 (48:30):
The college campus, Utah Valley University, where this took place,
the very next day, if I'm not mistaken, decided to
start a little construction project that involved paving.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
Over the area where the murder took place.
Speaker 1 (48:46):
And folks, we're going to pause here. This is going
to be the end of our first part of a
two-part series, Exploding Mike's The Assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
Hey, and while you're waiting for the second episode to
come out, it would be cool if you would check
out something for us and just see what you think.
And it might help temper some of the discussion in
part two. There's an article titled Iran-Linked Networks Amplify False
Claims After Charlie Kirk Killing. Researchers say it was put
out by Iran International September 18th, 2025. We couldn't find,
(49:18):
a similar article from The Guardian or another place like that,
but it's very interesting to read that article and then
think about potentially information coming our way that is counter
to the official narrative and what would be the purpose
of another country doing that. I think it's a really
good way just to round out our thoughts as we
(49:38):
continue on.
Speaker 1 (49:39):
And the best way to round out our thoughts is
to get your thoughts. Invade our mind spaces. There are
a number of ways to contact us.
Speaker 3 (49:49):
There sure are.
Speaker 4 (49:50):
You can find us at the Handle Conspiracy Stuff or
Conspiracy Stuff Show on your social media platform of choice.
Speaker 2 (49:55):
We have a phone number. It is 1-833-STD-WYTK.
Speaker 3 (49:59):
Call it.
Speaker 2 (50:00):
See what happens. We also have a way to contact
us via electronic mail.
Speaker 1 (50:05):
That's correct. We are the entities that read each piece
of correspondence we receive. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes
the void rides back. We'll see you for part two.
We can't wait for you to join us. In the meantime,
we'll see you out here in the dark. Conspiracy at iHeartRadio.com.
Speaker 2 (50:39):
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!