Second Shooter on the Roof? Unraveling the Charlie Kirk Conspiracy

In this episode of Liberty Lockdown, host Clint Russell dives into the controversial assassination of Charlie Kirk, questioning the official narrative surrounding suspect Tyler Robinson and highlighting inconsistencies like missing rooftop footage and bullet trajectory issues. He discusses allegations of a cover-up, including a witness claiming a second person in tactical gear was on the roof, and critiques the FBI’s handling of the case, drawing parallels to past controversies like the Epstein files. Russell also addresses attempts to cancel figures like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens for their commentary, tying their non-interventionist stances to broader political pressures. Additionally, he expresses concern over escalating U.S. foreign policy, particularly Trump’s recent statements on Ukraine, and shares a personal reflection on his father’s terminal cancer diagnosis, emphasizing the importance of truth and relationships. MyPillow.com promo code Lockdown Check out my show over on Fountain: https://www.fountain.fm/show/nUTYcMtl4yMuoKHljZWu Become a supporting member of Liberty Lockdown here!: https://libertylockdown.locals.com/ This is where I do monthly AMA's for supporting members only Super valuable stuff! Twitter: https://twitter.com/LibertyLockPod Pickup LL shirts over at https://www.toplobsta.com/products/ll-lakers?_pos=5&_sid=e7319ba4a&_ss=r&variant=40668064186434 NEW DESIGNS JUST DROPPED All links: https://www.libertylockdownpodcast.com/ Linktree: https://linktr.ee/libertylockdown As always, if you leave a five star review on Apple Podcasts with your social media handle I'll read it on next weeks show (audio version only)! Love you long time Liberty Lockdown presents a variety of opinions, sometimes opposing and controversial. They are not representative of the host of the podcast. Guests are encouraged to express their opinions in a safe and equitable environment.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
It turns out Tyler Robinson almost got away clean, leaving
the scene with no evidence except for a detailed text
message confession about how he used his firearm to eliminate
the acquired target and then got into his vehicle and
was on the lamb for eight hundred hours. Pay no
attention to the fact that we now know that the
FBI has footage of the shooter taking the shot, and

(00:23):
they specifically cut the video they released to start just
after that part. Obviously not because he never took the shot,
probably never even had the rifle on the roof, but
because of redacted. Pay no attention to the old man
actively causing a distraction to help the shooter escape, or
to the more than ten strange flying objects that have

(00:44):
been located in the cell phone footage, or to the
fact that the wound doesn't match the shot, or to
the fact that we are being shown a fabricated text
message chain, or to the new photo that surfaced of
bro stopping by dairy Queen for a little blizzy while
he's the subject of a statewide manhunt. Trust the FBI
to get to the bottom of it, just like they
did with the Epstein files.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
They said that he took it apart and then put
it back together again. Do you know how much time
it would take to do that if you were highly skilled,
to disassemble again, to disassemble a rifle so that you
can get it into a back and then somehow reconnects
it once he gets off the roof. I don't buy
the assembly of reassembly. I do not buy that. They
said he had a screwdriver up there. Fuck yourself.

Speaker 3 (01:26):
Welcome to Liberty Lockdown. This is Clint Russell and Syop
season is upon us, lazies and gentlemen. Holy crap. I've
never seen a more benign speech given by someone and
more outrage created by it than that which happened with
Tucker Carlson yesterday and today. And the outrage is just blazing.
It's unbelievable. It feels like an op to me. Honestly,

(01:50):
I'm gonna play you that clip in a second, but
before I do, I wanted to just get into some
of the things that have happened since we last talked
you and I. Obviously there's been a lot of additional
information when it comes to the attack on Charlie Kirk,
and from my vantage point, it has not been satisfactory.
I don't feel satisfied as the narrative that we're being

(02:11):
told Ian just did a good job just laying out
a kind of a laundry list of the inaccuracies or
I don't know, just stuff that doesn't quite add up.
So I'm not going to recap all of that. But
I did want to say I have not talked about
in any of the prior episodes bullet trajectory, different locations.

(02:31):
I hope you guys have noticed. I have not gone
down the avenue of mister cia sleeve palm gun. I've
never even mentioned the people doing umpire signs, or a
third base or first base coach like he's an MLB coach.
I don't think most of these are anything. That's my

(02:51):
honest opinion. Could I be wrong, sure, But when I
look at it, like, assume for a second that you
believe that this was an op being ran to take
Charlie Crok out, not just from this one loan Nutter,
but rather a full on op by intel agencies, our
own government or foreign whatever. I don't see any reason

(03:12):
in the world to have someone standing in the line
of fire to signal as if they couldn't and to
do a physical signaling as if we don't live in
electronic age where maybe you have if you do want
it to happen at a particular time, you wouldn't have
a button on your phone that you hit and it
goes to the gunman and they know you're gonna actually
stand with I don't know, ten thousand people or thousands

(03:34):
of people all standing around live video recording. This is
why I've tried, I really have tried to distill down
things that are potentially viable and things that I think
are nonsensical. And I haven't even brought up the nonsensical
things because I think they are a waste of your time.
So for those that are upset with me doing these

(03:55):
episodes on this topic, one, I don't care. I think
that what matters most is the truth and justice, and
that's what I'm actually interested in here, and I think
that's how you honor Charlie Kirk as much as remembering
his memory and his legacy and everything else, is to
make sure that they have the right guy. Is that
not a primary concern? And I've been just bombarded with

(04:19):
criticisms from people not to me specifically most of the time,
some of it has been directed at me specifically, But
there's this kind of whiplash anger that's being stirred up
by people that are going, Oh, everybody that's talking about
this is just doing it for clicks and blah blah blah.
It's like, dude, No, do you trust the FBI, the
same institution which covered up for the Epstein situation for

(04:40):
years and years decades? No, you don't. Do you trust
the local cops, probably not. Do you trust the news
media certainly not. Do you trust the politicians to tell
you the truth? Absolutely not. So do you have any
agency institution that you considered to be reputable? No? I don't,

(05:03):
and neither do you. So that's the reason I'm doing it, because,
regardless of whether or not I'm right, I'm at least
interested in getting to the bottom of this. I'm at
least interested in the truth. Are there some people that
are doing this for clickbait reasons and to manipulate algoes? Sure,
I'm sure there are. That's inevitable with any topic. But
I think at the end of the day, is it valuable?

(05:25):
Is it valuable to have people digging? Yes? Yes, it
is because if you care about justice, if you care
about the truth, well, then digging can't hurt that. And
if you think that they're doing it for nefarious purposes,
don't watch. It's real simple. But this whole trust the
experts thing is bizarre to me, especially after the lockdown

(05:46):
in covid Era, to have people immediately reverting to it.
We don't know the bullet caliber, so we can't talk
about whether or not this is viable. The biggest story
that came out in the past twenty four forty eight
hours is that, despite being allegedly at thirty out six,
it went directly into his neck and it's stuck there.
As you noticed. I have not talked about this up

(06:07):
until now because this is not my expertise. I am
talking out of school. I am being open about that.
But I have shotguns, okay, Like, I'm not a total
idiot with this stuff, and I don't think you have
to be an expert to go that doesn't quite make sense.
And I'm sure most of you watching are not experts
when it comes to trajectory, bullet dynamics and the physics

(06:28):
of firing a gun and everything else, and you need
to be that to then come to the conclusion that
really his neck stopped it, and according to the surgeon
or at the corner and the TPUSA guy who talked
about this, it's because it was a miracle, because had
it not, it would have injured or killed people behind. Look,
it's a nice story, and if it is true, great,

(06:52):
If it actually happened and it saved someone's life behind him, fantastic,
He's again, he gets to be lionized and even more
of a hero than he already was. It's fantastic. That's
not really the point I'm making. The point I'm making
is it doesn't sound viable, it doesn't sound realistic. Do
you honestly think that one hundred and fifty yards out
the thirty odd to six is going to just stop

(07:14):
in its tracks in one of the softest parts of
a human body. Does that make any sense to you?
It shouldn't. So, as I said when this news first broke,
there's a distinct possibility that it hit the spine and
then it basically directed downward. Okay, that's a possibility. Also,
in my very initial reporting was that this is a

(07:36):
product of a bulletproof vest ricochet. And that's the reason
because if it were to ricochet, obviously the trajectory and
the velocity would have decreased tremendously. Therefore, perhaps there is
no through and through. Okay, that's possible. But then the
reporting comes out not wearing a vest in the New
York Times. I think it was a New York Times.
Moves is the post. His wife, Erica is talking about it,

(07:59):
and she says, the day before this event, she was
imploring him to wear a vest, to wear body armor,
and he said no. So I'm gonna take her out
her word. There has been conflicting and reporting on this,
so I will revise if it changes. But in the meantime,
I am under the impression that he was not wearing
a vest. Therefore this entire theory that it hits basically

(08:23):
the surface area at the very top of the vest
that's not adequate to stop it. Therefore it redirects it
into his neck. I don't think that's what happened. So
that means that what we're seeing in this video and
I can't show it to you, and you know why,
is a entry wound that does not look like an
entry wound. And if it were, it still doesn't make

(08:44):
sense that there wouldn't be an exit wound because it's
such a soft part of human anatomy. That doesn't mean
that I'm right, It just means that would be very
unusual if that's what happened. And I don't even like
talking about this portion of the story because it is
so graphic even to talk about it. It's graphic to
think about, and it's sad. At the end of the day,
this is a loss of a life and a good

(09:06):
person and none of this should have happened, and he
didn't deserve this, and I hate to talk about it.
But again, if I'm interested in justice for this guy
what I consider to be basically a colleague of mine,
and I have to talk about it. I have to
be honest about it. I'm not coming up with any conclusions.
I haven't done that at all. There's a lot of
people out there that have said definitively X did it,
or these people definitely didn't do it. I haven't said

(09:28):
that at all. Tyler very well could have been the
lone gunman. He also could have just been a participant
in this op as well. I'm not trying to remove culpability.
A lot of people are like, we have to destroy
the left, Clint, you cannot be talking about this being
anything other than the Left, because this is our opportunity
to destroy them, So shut up. That's not how I

(09:52):
want to live my life. I'm not interested in becoming
a mouthpiece for your vengeance against Left. Despite how absolutely
miserable they made my life over the past fifteen years
in terms of censorship and the whole woke environment, I
hated it as much as you at least, But setting
that aside, I'm not going to lie and try and

(10:14):
frame my political opponents to then lend credence to the
government's plans to demolish them. If you want to go
after the Left, go after them because they've broken the law.
How about that? Are we just going to throw away
law and order in pursuit of political vendettas and vengeance.
I would say that's a very foolhardy way to approach things.

(10:36):
Other people disagree, that's your prerogative deduce. I don't think
that's a good course of action. I think that you
ought to uphold the justice system because it's already in tatters,
especially after the lawfare that was wielded against Donald Trump,
and a lot of people because of that now want
to utilize it for their own ends. I think it
will ultimately destroy this country. Sorry, I'm in alignment with

(10:58):
the classical liberals that have described me as well right
when it comes to this matter, That's how I feel.
I think it's true. I think that it was too
hard fought to get a justice system that actually does
do a decent job. It certainly wasn't perfect. But then
to just use it to crush your political opponents, it's
a mistake, especially when many in your political opposition are

(11:21):
genuine criminals. You don't have to concoct or craft bullshit
to go after them. Just tell the truth, actually pursue it.
So let's do that all right now. As for whether
or not I should be talking about bullet trajectory or
any of that stuff, look, I would rather not, as
I said, not an expert in that area by any stretch. However,

(11:43):
you could give us an autopsy, You could confirm what
the caliber of the bullet was. We don't even know
that for sure. We've been told repeatedly it's thirty ot six,
but that's because of the Mauser rifle, and it's almost
like an assumption at this point. But I don't think
that we actually no because if it is a lower
velocity piece of ammunition, perhaps it would not go through

(12:06):
and through like that. There are explicable reasons as to
why this story might be accurate, but not with the
ingredients that we have as of now. If it's thirty
out six, I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.

Speaker 4 (12:26):
Right out the back, yeah, completely unstopped, straight through, filled
the whole frame.

Speaker 2 (12:34):
Well, you see, the bully goes straight through.

Speaker 5 (12:36):
I didn't care the watermelon didn't know it was shot
until there was already an exit round.

Speaker 3 (12:41):
I don't think that it would just stop in the
surface area of the net like that. Seems unlikely. Be
cautious about it. It seems unlikely to me, and I
don't think most people are buying it.

Speaker 6 (12:53):
So I was in line with people for three hours,
talking to all the folks, and they were happy and prayerful,
and none of them that I spoke to believe that
the shooter that they got and they've arrested actually did it.
And they are the war room posse. It's zero percent,
and they were angry.

Speaker 3 (13:13):
And here's the other thing about digging and why digging
is valuable, is that when you tell people to shut up,
they assume that there's something that they're not supposed to
look at and maybe there's not. But if you're telling
people to shut up, they're going to talk more and
they're going to talk louder. So, if that's your intention,
if you just want people to be calm and quiet

(13:34):
and allow for the three letter agencies to do their
investigation because you trust and the results that they're going
to deliver, which I think is fucking nuts. But you're
free to do that if that's your worldview. But if
that's what you want, well, then you shouldn't be shouting
people like me down because guess what, just a couple
of days ago, actually just yesterday, Cash Betel comes out
and he says, we're deploying all of our assets, all

(13:56):
of our resources to make sure that we obviously they
think that they have the gunman, they're going to dig deeper.
They're going to actually look into the people who were
shouting that they were responsible, the people that were arrested
right after, the people that were giving hand signals, a
whole bunch of things that were theories that were generated
by the Internet, by people like me that were digging.
That's what's now being addressed by the head of the

(14:18):
FBI that's a good thing. And also, let me just
one more additional point before I get into the Tucker topic.
If you want to see Charlie Kirk's killer put behind
bars for the rest of his life or worse, then
if he's going to have a defense attorney worth of
dam they're going to ask these questions too. This is
not if, trust me, if a bunch of hair brain

(14:40):
podcasters that are just doing click bait and blah blah
blah are going to ask these questions, a defense attorney
is going to ask them as well. So this actually
strengthens the case for the prosecution, assuming that Tyler is
in fact the guilty party. These are questions that are
going to come up. So we're not doing damage to this.
We're not. Now, if you want to push back against

(15:01):
the people who have said adamantly he didn't do it,
XYZ did it, fine, I'm not one of those people.
I haven't said that at all. I've literally just said,
here's motives, here's potentials that like these are. This is
basically what a prosecution would look at if they hadn't
already concluded that this is our guy. And that's a
good way to look at prosecution that's a good way

(15:22):
to look at investigations because you want to make sure
you get it right. Because I'm not interested in making
sure that the FBI has a one hundred percent conviction rate.
I'm interested in the real perpetrator spending their life behind
bars or worse. That's what i want to see happen.
And to that end, I'm going to keep pursuing this
will I do it every day in and out. No,
I'm not gonna dedicate my show for the next six

(15:45):
months to figuring this out. But when there's new developments,
I'm going to dig in and make sure that we're
being told the truth because as of now, there's a
whole lot of holes in this plot, and I think
it's important that we fill those holes and we figure
out what the fuck happened. All right, let's talk about Tucker.

Speaker 5 (16:01):
It actually reminds me of my favorite story ever. So
it's about two thousand years ago in Jerusalem and Jesus
shows up and he starts talking about the people in power,
and he starts doing the worst thing that you can do,
which is telling the truth about people, and they hate it,
and they just go bonkers. They hate it and they

(16:23):
become obsessed with making him stop. This guy's got to
stop talking. We've got to shut this guy up. And
I can just sort of picture the scene in a
lamp lit room with a bunch of guys sitting around
and eating hummus, thinking about what do we do about
this guy telling the truth about us?

Speaker 7 (16:38):
We must make him stop talking.

Speaker 5 (16:42):
And there's always one guy with the bright idea, And
I could just hear him say I've gotten a idea.

Speaker 3 (16:45):
Why don't we just kill him.

Speaker 5 (16:47):
That'll shut him up, that'll fix the problem.

Speaker 3 (16:56):
So to me, that seems like a fairly benign analogy.
What Tucker Carlson is saying is that Jesus Christ was
killed for telling unpopular truths, and the people in power
took him out because they thought that would silence him
and therefore silence his ideas and therefore maintain their stranglehold
on power. He then analogizes that to what happened to
Charlie Kirk, saying that he was taken out for speaking

(17:19):
unpopular truths in the time that you weren't allowed to do.
That's the extent of the analogy that I took when
I first heard it. That's not what people are hearing
and it's largely because he said, I can imagine people
sitting around in smokefield rooms eating hummus, as if hummus
is exclusively a Jewish dish. It's not. It is definitely
originated and very popular in the broader Middle Eastern area.

(17:42):
It's a reach to put it mildly, But we've got
Arson Ostrovsky saying Tucker Carlson is a modern day neo Nazi.
What a disgusting and loathsome human being to use Charlie
Kirk's funeral to launch into an unhinged anti Semitic conspiracy theory.
Tirade is an unconstonable defilement of Charlie's memory, everything he
stood for Now, Just as I said earlier, I'm not
a gun expert, nor am I a theologian. However, I

(18:05):
don't think that it's a conspiracy theory to say what
happened to Jesus according to the Bible, according to biblical
scholars that I've heard, I've watched videos on that I've
listened to that I've read, in fact, that is what transpired.
That yes, the Pharisees turned Jesus over to the Romans
for him than to be crucified and put to death.
So I think he is saying that, But I don't

(18:28):
think what he was doing was comparing the motives behind
the two killings. He was not saying that the perpetrators
were the same people, and I think that the people
that are assuming he's saying that, it says much more
about you than it does about Tucker Carlson. If that's
a conclusion you came to because he said eating hummus, boy,

(18:50):
are you reaching? And I've been very open about the
fact that I think that's a possibility even And yet
I don't think that's what Tucker was hinting at. I don't.
If I did, I would say so. I think he
was just comparing the motives. That people in power don't
like truth tellers. That's true. That is universally true. People

(19:10):
in power, especially corrupt people in power, I should say,
don't like it when people tell the truth about those
in power. And he's saying that Jesus did it, and
so did Charlie, and hey, they both happen to have
been killed. So there's the comparison. If you want to
stretch and extrapolate further and use this as an opportunity
to try and cancel. Tucker Carlson be my guest. I

(19:32):
don't think it's going to work. It certainly shouldn't work.
But I'm going to question your motives because I think
you are actually doing what you're accusing Tucker Carlson of
doing that. You are trying to create controversy where there
is none, and I'm going to get some flag for this,
and I don't really care. I think that Kennis Owens,
whatever you think of her motives, most of the work
that she has done on this case over the past

(19:53):
ten days has been valuable, from getting this photo of
the kid and dairy queen to a whole bunch of
other reports that she actually saw the footage. She spoke
to a Turning Point USA person, the guy who reaches
in and grabs the memory cards from the cameras that
were TPUSA property, and she got him, allegedly, according to her,
to send her that footage or at least allow her

(20:15):
to view it. And she was the first person to
report that there was no blood from behind, implying that
there was no exit wound.

Speaker 7 (20:23):
There's nothing glory about this footage from the back. The
thing that really stood out to me and I just
kept asking him to replay it over and over and
over again. Is that there's no blood. There's no blood
from the back, there is no blood. What are we
to take from that? The only thing that could make

(20:44):
sense If what they're saying is true, and that person
took the shot from the place that they are saying
that individual took the shot from, it would suggest that
it was inside of Charlie, right, and they would know that.
The FEDS would have known that, they would have communicated
that they were never looking for a bullet because remember

(21:06):
one shot. So I'm very confused. I'm very confused, not
by what I saw, about what I didn't see, okay.

Speaker 3 (21:13):
Which was then confirmed a day later because of the
TPUSA employee and allegedly the surgeon or the autopsy or
the coroner who said that, yes, the next stop the bullet.
So if that's the case, then that's what the video
should show. We haven't seen that video, but Cannis Owens
had that information before that report came out. So my
point is that I think Cannas has been doing a service.

(21:37):
Regardless of what you think of her motives. Maybe she
is just interested in having the biggest stream. She certainly
has been millions of views on every episode. Congrats to her.
I don't really care. I don't care if that's her
motive or not. Are you doing good work or are
you not? Are you getting us closer to the truth
or are you taking us further away? In many of
those instances, she got us more information that will get

(21:59):
us close to the truth. For that, I applaud her,
as I said earlier. Does that mean that I think
she's right about everything? No, I don't. I'm not sure
that I'm right about everything, as I've been very open about.
But that's how I actually measure people. Are you getting
us closer to the truth or are you taking us
further away? And I think she has. I think Tucker
Carlson has. I think Ian Carroll usually does too. So

(22:22):
that's the reason I go to battle for these people.
That's the reason that I think the valuable asset in
this world. And guess what all of them have in common.
Over the past week, it started with candis Owans. Candis
Owans was being pushed to be canceled. There was just people,
a lot of them with the similar flag in their handles,
but they were all coming out saying candis Owans is

(22:43):
a lunatic, she's an anti semit, she's hateful, she's this,
she's that. You cannot have her on your platforms anymore.
I'm imploring all conservative podcasters or whatever to stop having
her on their show, as if that would actually defeat
Candis Owans, as if she doesn't have a bigger platform
than all of the people that might have her on
for the most part. Whatever. Anyways, but then it was

(23:04):
followed up with a many cancellation attempt against Ian Carroll.
I'll admit I think Ian Carroll got as Dave Smith
said out ahead of his skis, and Ian has acknowledged
as much that he said it basically definitively, and he
shouldn't have because he doesn't know for sure. I think
that was a mistake, But I think that his heart
is still in the right place, that he is actually
interested in the truth at the end of the day,

(23:24):
and I think he will absolutely if there's if, for instance,
if there is footage of Tyler on that roof firing
that gun, I think Ian will be the first to acknowledge. Okay,
I think we got our guy. That's my guess. Maybe
I'm wrong, but I think he probably would. I certainly would,
And just to rewind for a second, why the fuck
don't we have that footage. We do have footage of

(23:46):
allegedly Tyler running with allegedly with his rifle which we
can't see, and jumping off that roof and then going
across the lawn and into the parking lot. But that
footage shows it has an angle on it that should
allow us to see him in the prone position setting
up to fire. We don't see that part of the
footage has not been given to us. So again my

(24:08):
point is, if you don't want us to theorize and
say crazy, wild, nonsensical stuff, then give us the fucking footage,
show us what actually happened so that we don't have
to guess. Tell us what the caliber of the ammunition was.
Is that too much task? It shouldn't be. If you
have footage of the guy actually getting into position and firing,

(24:30):
which it looks like you should have that footage, put
it out. Let us. Actually, look, we've already seen horribly
graphic footage of this attack. It's not like seeing him
get in the prone position and fire is going to
ruin it. It's not going to ruin your case in court.
It's not going to ruin my mind or make it
so that it's impossible for me to sleep. In fact,

(24:51):
it wuld probably help me sleep because would actually feel
as if oh, okay, then looks like they did get
the guy, but you haven't shown us that you're withholding information,
and then you're lecturing us that we're demanding more information,
to which I say, fuck off, No, not gonna stop asking.
I'm going to stop demanding actually because you work for me,
or at least you're supposed to theoretically anyways. Point being,

(25:11):
so you've got this major cancelation attempt against Candie owns.
There's major campaign to lie about her relationship with Charlie Kirk,
saying that they're not friends, even though just less than
a year ago, Charlie Kirk said this.

Speaker 8 (25:23):
I want to actually talk about partnership. Candice owns. We
had her on the show and this is the best
and her new venture partnered with yours. But you guys
used to work together.

Speaker 9 (25:32):
Yeah, and again we've known each other. Boy, it'll be
seven years in November.

Speaker 8 (25:37):
So where did you guys meet, How did the relationship grow?
Did you guys bump heads in the beginning, or did
you guys.

Speaker 9 (25:42):
Like to shy, I She'll tell you this story exactly
the same. I met her at the David Horwitz Freedom Center.
David Horst is amazing, He's a legend in the conservative movement.
And I heard her speak and I offered her a job.
When I met her, I was like, come work for
us at Turning Point USA. And she was relatively unknown.
She had about forty five thousand Twitter followers. She was
red Pill Black at the time at YouTube. And I
basically said, if we work together a couple years, you're

(26:04):
gonna be biggest thing in the conservative movement. Like I've
never seen talent like this.

Speaker 3 (26:07):
Definitely sounds like they had a major falling out and
he secretly hates her, or when they lied and said, oh,
she hasn't been involved with TPUSA in many years. When's
the last time you saw candae Owns in person? Yeah?
Twenty fifteen?

Speaker 10 (26:22):
Wow?

Speaker 3 (26:23):
Okay, yeah, No, when's the last time she was at
a Turning Point event?

Speaker 6 (26:26):
Not in many years?

Speaker 7 (26:27):
How could you say that I have not spoken at
a Turning Point USA conference in the years?

Speaker 6 (26:31):
What?

Speaker 7 (26:32):
I literally went on tour with Churning Point USA and
college campuses last year.

Speaker 3 (26:36):
Fact Check false. She was actually at multiple TPUSA events
which Charlie hand picked the bookings, four in twenty twenty four,
just last year. So yeah, this alleged falling out doesn't
appear to be real. Now does that mean that every
claim that is made about their relationship is one hundred
percent true? No, it doesn't, But it does mean that
she was telling more of the truth than her distractors were,

(26:59):
and that should be remembered. They lied egregiously. She hasn't
delivered the receipts though, and for that I will be critical.
I think that she is doing a disservice to the
broader investigation that all of us independent researchers are doing
ourselves by not giving us that information. For instance, and
here's what I think would be not necessarily a smoking gun,
but a smoking gun when it comes to potential motive

(27:21):
for an alternative suspect, and that is this. She claims
that the one hundred and fifty million dollar offer was
declined by Charlie Kirk, and she knows this factually. How
do you know that? Do you have a copy of
the contract from Netanyahu or his associates offered to Charlie
Kirk or TPUSA that both shows those numbers and shows

(27:41):
him declining. Do you have communications between you and Charlie
that demonstrates that, in fact, yes, that offer was made legitimately,
and yes it was declined legitimately in the weeks leading
to his death. That is super important information. Now, even
if that did happen, which I tend to think it did.

Speaker 11 (27:58):
Israel offered him all one hundred and fifty million dollars
to be more pro Israel than they already were, to
be harder in their support for Israel and in particular
to support regime change in Iran, and Charlie Kirk refused
the money, and I have independently confirmed that. By the way,

(28:22):
I've heard that from four people, four people that I
trust that are in the know. So this is coming
from Canisowan's a friend of Charlie Kirk. This is coming
from Max Blumenthal, who purports to have a source. And
I have heard from a handful of people independently of
those sources that this offer was real and that Kirk

(28:46):
turned down the money. After Charlie Kirk turned down the money,
Netan Yahoo asked if he would come visit Jerusalem and
give him the re education tour.

Speaker 3 (28:58):
He refused that as well. Well.

Speaker 11 (29:02):
They offered to bribe him, they tried to re educate him.
He refused both offers. Does that mean that BB or
Israel was responsible. No, but it definitely shows a case,
and it definitely proves that Cannis's narrative is far closer
to the truth, including Ian An Tucker when it comes
to yes, Charlie Kirk was having a change of heart

(29:26):
when it came to the Israel topic, because if not,
it is odd that a guy who intends to continue
carrying water would decline such a handsome offer for financial
assistance to his organization, especially when he's under so much
pressure and losing donors because he refuses to deplatform people
like Tucker Carlson. And that ends with the final cancelation attempt,

(29:48):
which has been going rapid fire for the past twenty
four to forty eight hours, which is to deplatform Tucker Carlson. Haha, again,
good luck. I don't know how the fuck you're gonna
do that. His show is extraordinarily large, But anyways, that's
the new push. So who has been attempted to be canceled?
All of those people Candace first, Ian secondarily, and then

(30:08):
Tucker Carlson majorly. That's all over the past week or so. Okay,
let's also extrapolate back. Let's talk about this.

Speaker 3 (30:16):
Mike Johnson has a These are reports that just came
out about a week ago closed door meetings with Israeli
talking heads or spokespeople, I should say, and what is
their topic of discussion, That they're going to do everything
in their power to vet Republican political candidates to make
sure that we don't get more let's say, foreign policy

(30:39):
critical candidates like Marjorie Taylor Green or Thomas Massey into
the House of Representatives because it's creating a major problem
for them. So that's what happened about a week ago,
and then you have an effort to attack and cancel Candice.
Ian Tucker does.

Speaker 12 (30:56):
Seem like there is this intent with a faction on
the right. And I'm not saying they get paid by Cutter,
but I wouldn't be surprised that they did that just
wants to drive division between Jewish conservatives and Christian conservatives,
And it seems so completely blatant, and I hope other
people are seeing this, which are.

Speaker 13 (31:10):
When I look at what Candice is talking about on dayDay,
Tucker and day day. There a lot of these other
folks there. It is genuinely hard for me to conclude
that they want any other result than the expulsion of
the Jews from Spain, you know, back in the time
of Queen Isabella in the late fourteen hundreds. I mean,
is that literally your end goal? I think the goal
is definitely it's unambiguously to drive a wedge between Christian

(31:32):
conservatives like you and Jewish conservatives like me. That that
much is very clear. I think it's arguably even worse
than that. And they basically want a juden Rhine right.
They want an American right that does not have any prominent
Jews in it, and take into its logical conclusion, I
think it's probably not a far stress to say that
they want a United States without any Jews in it either.

Speaker 3 (31:49):
Now, what is the tie that binds between those five individuals.
But it's not that they're all lockstep on every single ideology.
Far from it. They are actually lots of major differences
of opinion, but they're all largely not interventionist when it
comes to foreign policy. And that is the tie that binds.
That is the unspoken commonality that is putting them in

(32:11):
the line of fire, and everyone's going to paint it
as ah. They're all hateful in any Semitic and their
conspiracy theorists and this and that smears. These are smear merchants.
These are propagandists that are trying to get people out
of the way because they actually talk about the legacy
of unconstitutional, illegal emor wards that largely destroyed the fabric

(32:32):
of this country and ended countless millions of lives unnecessarily,
and they're very hesitant to repeat those mistakes of the past.
And for that, I say God bless all of them.
That is way more important than whether what you're doing
is for clicks or not. I don't care. Where do
you lead us, where is your heart? Where are you
actually taking us in the future. If you are trying

(32:53):
to prevent World War three, if you are trying to
prevent more wasted resources and lives, you're on my team.
That's how I see it, pretty straightforward, and I consider
them all on my team in that regard. And coincidentally,
all of those people are trying to be removed from power,
and that includes Thomas Massey and Marjorie Taylor Green. Thomas Massey,

(33:15):
most notably because he's under the pressure of a couple
billionaires that were named in the Epstein files that are
funneling millions of dollars into hate and attack ads against
him in his district. These are not coincidental similarities. This
is a far reaching, well financed operation to try and
unseat these people, either from power or from positions of influence.

(33:37):
And I think you would be very naive not to
see it as it's happening. Tucker Katarlson, all these stupid
Boomer smears that are being levied, it's just laughable, honestly.
And if you're going to make me choose between Mark
Levin and Laura Luomer or Tucker Carlson and Candice, it's
not a hard choice, not a hard choice at all.

(33:58):
And I consider some of these people friends. Ian is
a friend for real. He's a good guy. He's a
really good guy. Good heart doesn't mean that he gets
everything right, neither do I. He is a good guy,
and I think he is headed in the right direction,
that he wants the truth.

Speaker 1 (34:11):
Subscribe to Liberty Lockdown, great podcast.

Speaker 3 (34:13):
Clint is Tight. That's how I have always measured people.
That's why I love Dave so much, because he and
I have some difference of opinion, not many, but I
just think that he's such a good dude. It's so
obvious to me that he is. Truth comes before anything,
It comes before part maybe not his family, but it
comes before party politics, libertarianism, the philosophy, any of that.

(34:34):
Truth is what is paramount. That's how I operate to
That's what matters to me most, the truth, and to
that end, that is why I pursue these things so doggedly.
I wish that I could just go, oh, man, Charlie
Kirk got taken out. That's terrible. Thank God. We have
the FBI, which is obviously going to get the guilty party,
and we'll get the full details as to why did it,

(34:55):
who else he may have worked with, what was his motive,
underlying motives to and he'll spend the rest of his
life behind bars, and there will be no copycats and
knock ons, because everybody knows that if you commit an
act of political violence in this country, you go away
and you're not lionized. You're not gonna have a bunch
of people holding up posters and saying how great you were.
Now that's gonna happen because the FBI comes down really

(35:17):
hard on people like that. I don't have any faith
in that. I would be literally an idiot if I
thought that was how these things are going to play out. Now,
I hope to be proven wrong. But until I am,
until I actually know what the fuck happened in Butler, Pennsylvania,
don't you dare tell me to not dig deeper. I
dug really hard on the Butler attack, and I pressed

(35:40):
as hard as I could, and there is still just
a massive void in that story. We don't even have
a motive. There's allegedly encrypted communications that come from the
assassin some foreign entities. We never got the contents of that.
We don't have a fucking clue. Donald Trump doesn't talk
about it. Everyone's just ah, that was so long ago.

(36:01):
It was like fifteen months ago. It was not that
long ago, and people just move on. That cannot be
the trend line in this country. We cannot have political
assassinations or attempted assassinations that lead to successful political assassinations
that just go unanswered, or have a Patsy take the fall.
Fuck all of that. What matters most is that this stops.

(36:21):
You do not want to live in a country where
that is commonplace, and it is becoming increasingly commonplace, and
is directed towards one side of the aisle. So take
it seriously. And if you think that me asking questions
because I don't know for sure, is in some way
not taking this seriously, you have totally inverted. In fact,
you're not taking it seriously. You should be digging. If

(36:42):
you think that I'm wrong, fucking dig on your own. Please.
I'm not trying to pretend like I'm some authority on
the truth here. I am just trying desperately to get
to the truth. And whoever gets us to it, you're
on my team. Today's episode is, as always, brought to
you by my pillow dot comun's promo code Lie. Just
get yourself some cozy stuff. Okay, Michael Lindell's cool as hell.

(37:04):
That rhymed didn't mean to and these pillows are just
tremendous my pillow dot com promo code lockdown. If you
buy some, I get a little spiff. If you don't,
it doesn't matter. It's a good product, good company, And
thanks for supporting me my Pullo dot com promo code lockdown.
If you want to support me directly at Liberty lockpot
on X subscribe there, I'll follow you back pause. We've
got major breaking news. I had basically a forty minute

(37:26):
episode that I had completely edited down, did all the
post production. It was perfect, it was beautiful, and then
dscript didn't have it basically had an upload failure and
I lost everything. As a consequence, the episode that I
was going to release today didn't get released. But because
of that, I now have a bunch of additional information
which will definitely end this episode with more questions than answers,

(37:50):
but also a bit more clarity. So I think it's
worth doing. Candice Owens, it's gonna upset some people, but again,
she has some breaking news that I think is actually
really valuable potentially, and we're going to go over it.
So let's do that right now.

Speaker 7 (38:03):
Said that they observed that individual the FBI, saying that
the shooter dropped on through it at twelve fifteen. Did
it makes sense to him? He said earliest it was
twelve twenty two that the individual ran across set up
took the shots, and I said, well, you must have
been there, because he then sends me I wanted to
see all of the metadata of when he took that footage,

(38:25):
and it the metadata begins at twelve twenty two and
goes into twelve twenty three, the very minute that Charlie
gets shot, and he says, yeah, I saw the shots.
I had just stopped recording about twenty seconds before the
shot rang out.

Speaker 3 (38:40):
I have to pause it here because I need to
give my standard disclaimers. This is anecdotal. We don't even
know that Candice isn't being fed false information, so let's
start there. She could be being lied to, and there
are definitely people that want to destroy her reputation further,
and I would not be surprised if that's the case. However,
I have seen this footage. We've all seen this footage.
It's not the best quality, but it does show someone

(39:03):
identifying that there is someone on a rooftop that is
overlooking the position where Charlie Kirk was ultimately attacked. So
it's worth noting if in fact, she was able to
contact the person who took that footage, and if this
is their testimony, and if they are correct about their
assumptions as to what they saw. This is incredibly important.

(39:25):
This might be the most important testimony that we've come
across so far, and the reason it's so important is
because it comes in stark contrast to what the FBI
has been telling us. It also would answer why it
is that, despite there being rooftop footage that would include
the actual perch, the actual spot from which the prone

(39:46):
sniper took the shot, we have not seen that footage.
We've seen a man, whoever it may be, running across
a rooftop, descending with a gun which we can't see
and running or the walking slash run across the lawn
and making his getaway, but that footage starts after the
shot has already been taken. We still don't have footage

(40:07):
of him actually taking that shot. So there's a missing
gap here. And the reason it's really important other than
all of what I just detailed, which obviously is very important,
but also because the description of the person on the
rooftop is different, which would imply that, in fact, there
was a second person on that rooftop. If he's accurate,
that's hugely important. So let's hear what she has to say.

Speaker 7 (40:30):
And he said that he told them a description of
what the shooter looked like, and it was not the
description that the entire world received less than twenty four
hours later of this person Tyler Robinson wearing jeans. Was
he wearing jeans? He said, no, Actually, this person was
dressed in tactical gear and he was wearing a face mask.

(40:53):
And he said, according to him, like I said, he
has a lot of experience with the guns. That this
person looked to him like a foreign agent. I don't
know if he's wearing all black how he got that,
but he said, there's no. He was very certain that
this person was skilled, knew exactly what he was doing,
and was highly trained, like a highly trained assassin, so

(41:14):
to speak.

Speaker 3 (41:15):
Okay, if there is a second person on that rooftop,
because I'm going to assume that there was not a
second shooter, given that there was only one shot that
was fired. Sure, perhaps there could be two people up
on the rooftop, also in sniper position, and only one
of them fires. That doesn't really make sense. Why would
you set up an operation like that. If you're going
to make sure that you take out your target, you

(41:35):
would both fire and make sure that you actually get
the job done. I'm sorry to be so grim about it,
but that's how these people think. The really notable aspect
of this is that they're wearing completely different clothing from
anything that Tyler has ever been seen in on that day,
so that would imply it is not Tyler Robinson, that
this was someone different, someone else. Also, he then goes

(41:57):
on to detailed the fact that the firearm utilized is
not the Mauser, that it is in fact a short
barrel of some variety, and he goes into detail, and
I think it's kind of a stretch to assume that
you can tell what type of rifle was being utilized
based off of the sound. However, if you've ever shot,
which I'm sure most of you have, you already know

(42:18):
that there are distinct sounds that come from different firearms.
And I think his point is well taken that a
mauser would have a deeper sound, the hunting rifle sound,
as opposed to a shorter barrel. And his assumption was
that in fact, this was a two two three, which
is exactly what I theorized in the beginning of this
episode that perhaps if it's not a thirty hot six,

(42:39):
then the idea of the bullet being lodged in Charlie's
neck makes more sense because it wouldn't have the same
force and same speed. It would be just a different
round and the same destructive capacity that a thirty out
six does.

Speaker 7 (42:52):
The gun that the FBI found was not the gun
that he saw. That the gun that he saw was smaller,
and I'm going to read you directly a text message
that he sent me, again protecting his identity. He said
watching the video of the impact, hearing the sharp crack
instead of a big hunting rifles boom, and seeing what

(43:14):
looked like a shorter rifle platform, albeit with the absence
of the shape of a standard thirty round magazine. The
assassin may have used a ten or twenty round magazine,
only expecting to shoot once or twice. I would guess
that he was shot with a Hornity V Max or
similar lightweight two twenty three bullet designed for very rapid expansion.

(43:38):
Of course, I don't have access to any autopsy reports
like you might, but if they found small shards of
copper rather than one large copper coated lead slug, that's
the gun and bullet I would expect was used.

Speaker 3 (43:53):
So I think that opens up or perhaps could answer
some of the questions that we had as to what
was actually utilized. What is the murder weapon? Because I
think a lot of people are struggling as Rogan and
I open up this episode with Rogan mystified as to
the story that we're being told that he dismantles the
gun on the rooftop and then leaves and then puts

(44:15):
it back together just to ditch it. But also the
tool that he used to dismantle it was left on
the rooftop, and that's how they connected the dots between Tyler,
because they verify the DNA on the towel that was
wrapped around the rifle, but also the screwdriver that was
left on the rooftop. But how do you put the
rifle back together if you don't have the screwdriver, which
is left on the rooftop. But you didn't put the
rifle back together on the rooftop because you left in

(44:38):
mere seconds after the shot rings out. So, as you
can tell, they're inconsistencies here. Some of it's going to
be explicable, obviously, especially if we were to get the
full length footage of that rooftop. That would answer so much,
and yet we don't have it now. As I said,
this is one guy's opinion. We have absolutely no idea
if he's right. But I just wanted to explain what
he's describing. Hornity Vmax is a var express Remington M

(45:01):
fifty five grain vmax Palmer tips. So his assumption, or
what he's guessing at, is that this is the type
of ammunition that would have been utilized in the attack.
So take it for what it's worth. It's one person's opinion,
and we certainly can't use that as firm evidence. But
these are the questions that have to be answered. These
are the questions that the FBI tends to ignore, which

(45:24):
is exactly the reason that I say that it's very
important that we continue to push because if we don't,
they're going to close this case and they're just going
to pack it up. They're going to say we got
our guy, and that's all that there is to it.
But that's not all there is to it. The holes
in this story are extraordinary, And just to give you
more evidence as to why my concern or what some
people would describe as paranoia, I don't think it is.

(45:46):
I think it's totally well justified. We had redacted who
reported today that in fact, they intend to close this
case within days.

Speaker 4 (45:54):
This is confirmed by the way at the highest levels
that this is about to happen. The FBI, according to
my source, is about to wrap up their investigation into
the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 3 (46:08):
They're done, and.

Speaker 4 (46:09):
They are set to announce that Tyler Robinson is the
lone gunman.

Speaker 3 (46:14):
End of story.

Speaker 1 (46:15):
Move along.

Speaker 4 (46:16):
Nothing to see here.

Speaker 3 (46:18):
Now, Again, this is one person's opinion and they're doing
it off of an anonymous source, and it's high level source,
so I can't verify it. But would you be surprised?
Would you be surprised if they just say case closed?
Especially after just yesterday You've got cash Mitel coming out saying, oh,
you know, we're basically exhausting all resources, We're going after
all possible additional suspects and co conspirators and blah blah blah,

(46:42):
and then you know, a week later they closed the case.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. So that's the whole
reason that I'm going to keep pushing is because we
can't have that that cannot be how this plays out,
that we just go there's all these massive holes in
the story, and we have an eyewitness that's saying that
the assailant was in fact wearing different attire. And by
the way, if there's anybody on that rooftop that is

(47:04):
wearing all black, that's almost certainly your guy, right. You're
not gonna be on a rooftop laying prone in all black,
and it sounded like he had a face mask on.
That would be your guy. Almost certainly that's your dude, right,
So show us the fucking rooftop footage until you if
you want me to stop here, you have to show

(47:25):
me that footage. You have to until I see that.
Until I actually see the guy who is allegedly Tyler like,
it still wouldn't be fully convincing that it is in
fact Tyler. But at least show me the guy that
you say is the shooter who's shown in that video
running across the rooftop and descending. Show me him getting

(47:47):
in a prone position and firing. Is that too much
to ask? Just show it. And if you can't show
me that, well, then this eyewitnesses testimony is super important.
And if he's not being talked to by cap or
whoever the lead investigator is on the scene, that is
malpractice of the highest order, and malpractice to the point
that you're gonna have to start to ask real questions

(48:09):
about whether or not there's a coverup going on, and
I don't want to ask that. I don't want to
think that, especially given that Cash Betell and Dan Bongino
knew Charlie Kirk. That's really hard for me to imagine
that they would just let this young man have his
life taken and then not genuinely tug at every thread
in this story to make sure that they have it right.
But I don't have any faith in them. They have

(48:30):
looked as if they're deer in headlight, scared for their lives,
and I don't have any trust. I don't see any
reason why I should. So we need answers. We need
answers big time. Got another update that's important. This is
Andrew Claven, who's the guy who gives us this unbelievable
story about his Man of Steel Neck and all that.

(48:52):
He did a podcast today where he discusses some of
the questions as to Charlie's conversion or difference of opinion
when it comes to Israel, things of that nature. So
let's hear what he has to say.

Speaker 7 (49:04):
Was Charlie offered one hundred and fifty million dollars from Israel.

Speaker 3 (49:07):
As far as I know, no, I had never heard
anything like that. Everyone I've asked has said the same.

Speaker 10 (49:11):
And by the way, just for what it's worth, it
doesn't matter the amount that would have been coming down,
we would have said no because there's evidence that churning
point does Charlie would not accept foreign money exactly.

Speaker 3 (49:23):
We only took American money. Need to make a clarifying
point on that, because I think that there's a misunderstanding
as to how these funding sources work and how the
leverage might be applied. Notably, Christian Zionism has kind of
the same mission statement, right, they have it for different reasons,
but regardless, there's still a demand for unyielding loyalty to

(49:47):
the nation state of Israel. So just because they weren't
Jewish doesn't mean that they weren't Christian Zionists. I think
that the most notable aspect of what he's saying is
not anything of the specifics, other than the fact that
essentially what he's confirming is that Tucker, Candice these other
people have been right. They've been telling the truth that, yes,
he was losing donors as a consequence of his willingness

(50:08):
to continue to platform Tucker Carlson. As if you can
platform a guy who's much more famous and successful than you.

Speaker 10 (50:14):
A couple of things that it's worth clarifying, you know,
And you asked me earlier, so let me make sure
I'd said. Charlie's position on Israel was very clear. I
like them more than I like Kamas. I just wish
I was free to criticize Israel and not be labeled

(50:34):
an anti semi because I can criticize my own government
and not be called anti American. He basically said, I
don't appreciate being morally blackmailed, you know, And every time
people would say that to him, he would dig his heels.
And it's like, well, maybe Tucker's going to give two
speeches now to m fest or maybe I'll invite so
and so.

Speaker 3 (50:52):
I think that this is confirmation it's true. And also
his frustrations with the fact that he couldn't tell the
truth about how he felt about what was going on
without war, and he was frustrated. So there you go.
That's all confirmation. Now, that doesn't confirm to the highest
levels of Candas's allegations that he was converting to Catholicism,
and you know, the kind of hints that he was

(51:12):
about to flip totally on Israel and start to really
get honest about it and just blast him. But I
never really thought that was the case anyways. I think
he was just trying to walk the tightrope. The base
is like, they're younger, and they're they're looking at what's
happening over there, and they don't like it, and they
have really awoken to what's going on with that, and

(51:33):
he's trying to balance that with kind of the older,
which is the donor class is almost certainly older, and
their inclination is to be much more deeply aligned with
Israel and to basically bite their tongue when it comes
to anything that they're doing that they might think is wrong.
And he's trying to find that middle ground where he
satisfies as donors but simultaneously keeps his base listening to him,

(51:56):
because his influence will diminish rapidly if he loses the
young people. That's the whole value of his operation. So
they're at an impasse, and it's a paradox. How do
I keep my funding and my base. I can keep
one or the other, but I can't keep both. And
if I lose the funding, I lose the operation. To
keep the base so he's stuck. And I think that
is the real story at the end of the day,

(52:18):
is that he recognized that conundrum and he was challenged
by it. He was struggling with it. So I don't
think you have to go to like deep dark conspiracies
on that one. The real variable that matters most in
all of this discussion and debate and discovery and investigation
is was he in fact offered one hundred and fifty
million dollars to essentially abandon his base and to just

(52:43):
stick with the donor side of these things TBD. The
one hundred and fifty million offer, it almost certainly wouldn't
come from the government of Israel. It would come from
an American Zionist donor. So that's normally how these things
are structured, so that you don't deal with either far
violations which are never actually prosecuted when it comes to Israel.

(53:06):
But it would be a conduit for that influence and
for that money to be legal and also be not
as directly connected so that it wouldn't draw the hackles
of the base. I don't think that that's answering the
question honestly. Now, he could be right, maybe that offer
didn't happen, but there's a lot of people saying that
it did, and I just don't think that that is

(53:26):
enough of a testimony to it, especially when he says
not to my knowledge, like that is he's leaving himself
plenty of wig overrom to get out of that one.
If it turns out that in fact, there was one
hundred and fifty million dollars offer being made and it
wasn't coming directly from Bibe Natya, who are directly from
the government of Israel, but it did come from someone
who's very much aligned with that cause. And it's like, oh, okay, yeah.

Speaker 4 (53:48):
With the whole Charlie Kirk thing and the reporting that
you've been doing on it, where are you right now, Like,
what do you think the story is here?

Speaker 3 (53:57):
What do you think is important for people to understand
about this?

Speaker 14 (54:01):
Well, I'm working on a news story and it's pretty
much along the same lines as all the other stories
I've been reporting, which is that you know, in the
days and weeks before his death, Charlie Kirk was facing
not just increasing Zionist pressure as the date approached him
his first appearance on his campus wide country across country tour,

(54:28):
but that actually he was bleeding Zionist donations, and I
got the name of a major donor who apparently pulled out.

Speaker 3 (54:37):
I watched the entirety of that interview of Max Bloomenthal
with Dave Smith. Highly recommended. As soon as you're done
watching this, please hop over to Part of the Problem
and check that out, because it's well worth your time
and it was very very well done. Congrats Dave, very
great job. But I just thought that that was it
seems quite obvious. Yes the pressure was real. Yes he
was hemorrhaging donors. Yes there was Zionist donors that were

(54:59):
the ones that were drawing funds. That's true. That doesn't
mean that they're Jewish. Okay, that's a very clear distinction,
and I think Max Blumenthal uses that word specifically because
he's not saying that they were Jewish owners. He's not
saying that they were from Israel or anything like that.
That's a nuance that it's very important that people recognize
when we're talking about this stuff. I did want to

(55:19):
cover briefly this Barry Weiss's interview with this former Masad or.
I don't even probably active Masad with this pr tour
that this Massad guy's on, which is not making them
look very good. Okay, we're going to do a quick
lightning round. Was Jeffrey Epstein mosat no, not an agent,
not an operative, nothing, nothing. Why do people believe that

(55:39):
he was?

Speaker 6 (55:40):
The people believe that Mosada has created the tsunami.

Speaker 5 (55:44):
People believe, I mean just right now, that we have
been behind Charlie Kirk's assassination.

Speaker 3 (55:50):
False.

Speaker 6 (55:51):
We don't do that, We never will, we never did.

Speaker 3 (55:54):
That's going to be your new editor in chief over
at CBS News, real hard hitting stuff there. You ask
a question of a literal paid propagandist, they give you
an answer that denies everything. You don't dig deeper, and
that's it, open and shutcase. Thank you Berry, tremendous work.
That's exactly why she's getting the big bucks and that's

(56:14):
why she's taken over CBS. Oh my goodness. And also
this whole assumption that, oh, we don't do that, we
would never do that. Look, I'm not saying that they're
responsible for Charlie Kirk. You have no idea but to
pretend is if MASOD is not world famous for their
capacity for assassinations, and if they're not the top nation

(56:35):
when it comes to doing things like that. They're top
three for sure. It's just insulting. It's unbelievably insult We
don't do that, We would never do that. It's like,
get the fuck out of here, dud. When you lie
that egregiously, it makes me think like, oh, well, then
maybe you did, dude, Maybe you did, cause I know
that you're capable of it. I'm not saying you did it,
but to pretend that you would never We don't do

(56:55):
those types of things. Bull shit, you fucking liar, unbelievable,
lying scumbag. And fuck Barry Wis for having that dude
on the show and just letting him lie straight to
her face. This is going to be the future of
mainstream media. We're going to replace the old liars with
younger liars. In Barry Wise, it's just disgusting. I can't
believe that anyone takes this stuff seriously. I'm going to

(57:17):
leave the Charlie Kirk investigation stuff there that, Like, I
think we've covered as much of the new information as
we have, still a tremendous amount of open questions that
need answers, and I will continue to dig on this
because I think it's vitally important I'm not going to
do the whole recap as to why. If you're still watching,
you already know my heart's in the right place. I'm
not doing this for the wrong reasons. I hope that's

(57:37):
clear at this point. But there is a big story
that just broke in the past couple hours that is
super important and very very dangerous, and I would be
remiss not to discuss it. So I'm going to do that.
I'm going to play a clip from Lindsey Grahmm in
just a second. But first, the major update is that
this was a Trump truth social post, and in which

(57:58):
now granted his his defenders. Trump's defenders are already coming
out saying, oh, that was written by Sebastian Gorka. This
isn't Trump blah blah blah blah blah. It came from
Trump's personal truth social So I'm going to attribute it
to the guy whose name is on the post. Is
that fair? I think it's fair. If he doesn't stand
by it, he should come out and correct the record
immediately because it's unbelievably reckless. But just to give you

(58:21):
a kind of an encapsulation of what he says in it,
because it's a very lengthy post. I'm not going to
read the whole thing. He just says, essentially, he believes
that after doing further research, he believes that Ukraine can
win the war against Russia, and that they intend to,
or at least he's encouraging them to not just take
back the eastern portion of Ukraine, to not just reclaim

(58:42):
the original borders prior to the invasion of Ukraine, but
also to take aggressive action and to take territory from Russia.
It's hard for me to put into words how bizarre
and just unbelievably reckless that is. I don't have words
for it. This is the largest nuclear power on Earth

(59:02):
in terms of nuclear arsenal. They actually have more nuclear
weapons than the United States. Not like that matters, because
once you get north of a thousand nuclear weapons, that's
the end of humanity. Anyways, For the life of me,
I can't understand why an American president would be talking
about this so flippantly that you would encourage them not
just to continue to fight and to take back their
own territory, which, if you want to say that, that's

(59:24):
no different from Biden. I didn't agree with it. I
think that you should be working towards peace and accepting
the reality of this fight, because the Ukrainians are hemorrhaging
soldiers and they're barely able to find replacements, and they've
basically absorbed all of the twenty five to forty five
year olds off the streets and put them on the
front lines to their destruction. So I would like to

(59:46):
see it end for that reason. But just moreover, I
don't think it's winnable. I cannot envision any world in
which Ukraine takes back the East, much less takes portions
of Russia as well without nukes being fired or two
without NATO troops and American troops specifically assisting in that

(01:00:07):
fight and actually fighting and dying on behalf of Ukraine. Moreover,
I cannot recognize any value to me, to America in
that process. None. So just a very important clarification. Trump
does not say that he's sending American troops or anything
like that. He just says that we're going to continue

(01:00:29):
to sell whatever munitions NATO wants for the purposes of
NATO then delivering those munitions to Ukraine. So this is
the workaround that we're not in direct conflict with Russia allegedly,
but we are a co belligerent. By any reasonable analysis,

(01:00:51):
we are absolutely a co belligerent in this war. And
it's just so dangerous. It's so unbelievably dangerous, and we've
been on this path for years now and there is
no adult in the room. And I think my biggest
frustration with it, obviously is that, well one, I voted
for Trump, and I even said, I told you guys
in the episode where I made that decision that it

(01:01:13):
was primarily because Joe Biden and his entire you know,
antony blink in the entire State Department under Joe Biden
had not picked up the fucking phone and tried to
work out a peace deal, and they had no interest
in peace, and they wanted this war to last as
long as possible, and they wanted to escalate it. And
I just thought it was so dangerous that I had
no choice. They had to be taken out of power.

(01:01:35):
And simultaneously, inversely, Trump was saying the right things, you know,
he was talking about how yeah, peace on day one,
I can absolutely end this war. I can negotiate peace.
And then a month ago he has the meeting with
Putin and allegedly it went well. And now I guess
he's decided, no, there is no path for peace when

(01:01:57):
it comes to Russia and Ukraine. And it's just it's
just so dangerous. Let's hear what fucking Lindsey Graham, scumbag, lunatic,
has to.

Speaker 15 (01:02:04):
Say Trump twenty twenty eight. I hope this never ends.
When he asks what should you do if a Russian
jet flies into your country?

Speaker 4 (01:02:13):
Shoot it down?

Speaker 15 (01:02:14):
He's tried to go out of his way to get
Pete Putin to the table. We don't want to humiliate Russia.
We just want to end the war. And to our
friends in Russia, here's what Trump did today. He told NATO,
I'll show you all the weapons you want. You can
provide them to Ukraine, and as to Ukraine, you can
use them any way you want. So to the Russian military,

(01:02:37):
you're going to be up against the high end American
weapons that will be sold to NATO for the benefit
of Ukraine. And this war is coming to your backyard
here with no limitations like Biden.

Speaker 3 (01:02:49):
And with that I will rest my case. When Lindsey
Graham is that ecstatic, nearly orgasmic, you know that we're
way off the path of any level of sanity. If
Lindsey Graham is happy, something has gone terribly wrong in
the Trump administration. So that's where I'm at with it.
And you know, I'm perilously close to regretting voting for

(01:03:12):
Trumpet and supporting them at all. I just think that
this is so, so fucking dangerous. I will say I
was thrilled that there was real discussions as to the
causes behind autism, and they are actually leaving the door
open for genuine inquiry into arenas that I'm not even
allowed to talk about that I think are worth studying further,

(01:03:34):
to put it mildly, and you know, given how many
people are suffering from that, and how the parents who
over half of which think that there's a certain commonly
prescribed substance that is the cause for that, over half
of them believe that that's what caused their child's autism.
Over half. I had never seen that before. And the

(01:03:58):
fact that there's that many parents dealing with that and
over fifty percent of them believe that it came from that,
and the fact that the government just told them we
don't care what you think, as if they wouldn't be
the most reputable people to have an opinion on this
seeing as they saw their kid be normal and then
have that shift, and to just have their opinion scoffed

(01:04:21):
at and be humiliated on top of having your child,
you know, damaged in such a fashion. I can't imagine
what that feels like. So my heart goes out to
you guys, and I hope that they gave you some
hope that there might be some genuine inquiry and some
truth in this arena, because God knows we've needed it.
So anyways, I just wanted to say that is the
one silver lining that I'm still seeing from the Trump administration.

(01:04:44):
Aside from that, it's few and far between. I mean,
we don't get truth on Epstein. There's no peace in Gaza.
There's no pulling back on funding when it comes to
the war in Gaza or support for Israel. There's no
pulling back on funding when it comes to the support
for you Ukraine. Apparently they're going to continue to sell.
I guess it's selling versus givings, so there's a minor improvement.

(01:05:06):
But he's now telling them to take territory from Russia.
He bombed I Ran. I mean, the laundry list of
obvious not just failures, but also obvious lies from who
he is now versus what his campaign promises were. And
yet I still would argue, you know, the majority of
his base is fully on board and they love everything

(01:05:29):
he's doing, and I'm just not one of them. I
would be lying if I pretended as if everything's going great.
It's not to say that there's room for improvement. Really
doesn't do it justice. It has been very irritating Verry,
and I think most honest observers would have to agree.
Even if you don't agree to the full extent that

(01:05:49):
I'm criticizing them, I think that we can all be
honest that this is not what we were hoping for.
And with that, I will leave you, but I do
appreciate you, guys. I did want to give it a
quick update on another reason that I've been delaying over
the past couple weeks with some of these episodes. This
is a personal matter, but I wanted to give my

(01:06:11):
dad my best wishes, and I wanted to tell a
quick story to him because he loves the show and
he watches it all the time and listens to it.
He just recently was diagnosed with terminal cancer and I
love him very much. I'm going to do this without crying.
I'm gonna find a way. He is so much the

(01:06:31):
reason I am who I am, and not obviously just
because he's my dad and created me, but rather because
of his ideology, his philosophy. You know, I've told for
those that are longtime fans, he was actually a guest
on my show, and I think the first ten episodes
before I even had video, it was just audio. And
you know, so some of you already aware this, most
of you aren't, because it was there was no one

(01:06:53):
listening back then, and there's a lot of people listening now.
He was a libertarian. He discovered the philosop feet in
the seventies before I was born, and as a child
he lived in Ridgecrest, California. He had actually foreclosed on
a gym in Ridgecrest and converted it into a nightclub,

(01:07:14):
a fine dining restaurant and nightclub in Ridgecrest, California. This
bumfuck desert town. I mean, talk about swinging out of
your boots. I don't know what he was thinking with that,
but he did it. And because of that, I was
obviously living with my mom and my stepdad in San Diego,
so it was like a five or six hour drive.
I can't remember exactly. I was, you know, five years old,

(01:07:35):
so I don't remember, but we would take these extraordinarily
long car trips a round trip. I would only see him,
I think it was one week in a month, and
we would take these five hour car trips in his
Nissan three hundred ZX, which ended up being my first
car with two hundred thousand miles on it, which immediately
the engine blew up and cost me a fortune and

(01:07:56):
it was a catastrophe. But I loved that car, and
I think in hard I loved it other than the
fact that it was a really cool car because it
was my dad's and it meant a lot to me.
And we would do these five hour road trips. And
during those road trips in that z he would tell
me about the founding fathers and why freedom and liberty
are so rare and so special, and I would just

(01:08:19):
pepper him with questions the whole time, you know, And
he was telling me about basically libertarianism as a five
year old, and we would talk about, you know, the Constitution,
and why free speech matters, and why gun rights matter,
and just very advanced discussions for a five year old
it definitely explains why I am who I am and

(01:08:41):
how I am. I have a very unique worldview, and
I think it's because I began so early in that process.
But I think, you know, despite the fact I didn't
get to spend a tremendous amount of time with my
dad growing up, I did get quality time. Those ten
hours per month of just driving just he and I
alone and having conversations were very formative. They've really established

(01:09:05):
my worldview, my mind, my outlook, my logic, my rationale.
They inspired me in many ways, and I'm so appreciative
that I had that time, and I'm so appreciative of him.
Then when I got out of college, I went and
I worked for him for a couple of years, and
obviously that helped, you know, even more deeply ingrain kind

(01:09:25):
of his business acumen, his economic outlook, his worldview certainly
helped expedite my learning scale, given that he had decades
of experience and I was relatively new to that world.
And as a result of that, I had a very
successful career as an entrepreneur doing a similar thing. And
I just think that, you know, obviously, without him, I'm

(01:09:46):
not me on many levels. And I don't know how
much time we have left together, and it hurts to
even say those words, but I just wanted to put
it on wax. I wanted there to be a record
of how much you mad. And I'm very fortunate that
I live so close to you, and I spend all
day to day going around to hospitals with you. And

(01:10:08):
if there's anything that we can do to extend your life,
we will do it, obviously. And I don't know how
much time we have, but I will spend as much
of it with you as I can. And regardless of
how much time we spend in your remaining days, I
just want to express how deeply I love you. There's
going to be some editing on this one, I can tell,

(01:10:29):
but for my audience's sake, you know, I'm sorry to
bombard you with personal stories. But I hope you know
I've told my brother this. I have, you know, to hug,
to hug our step dad extra tight. Shout out to Charlie.
He's amazing too, And I hope that you guys can.
This definitely puts into perspective how important your parents are

(01:10:50):
and how fleeting life is and how much of a
struggle it is. It's a real paradox in that you
never want your parent to die, and you obviously want
it to be painless when they do. But there is
also just this weird paradox where if you get a
diagnosis that means that you know you're dying and that
it's coming somewhat soon, it does enable all of your

(01:11:15):
loved ones to express to you how much you matter
to them. And if you just dropped head and it's painless,
you don't get that, and there's pain as a result
of not being able to express those things that you
wish you had. So I guess what I'm saying is
that there's a silver lining on both sides. There's a
silver lining either way. It's painless, but you don't get
to express the things that you wish you had, or

(01:11:35):
it's painful but you do. Life is pain, man, it's pain.
But the reason it's so painful is because life is
so beautiful, that it's so filled with love, and that's
why it hurts. And for that reason, I'm incredibly appreciative
to be alive and to have experienced all of these
years with him. And obviously I don't know how much
time we have left, and maybe there will be years,

(01:11:55):
and God willing that. I also wanted to say I
have been praying a lot, and I've been ex experiencing
something with prayer that I never had before, which I
get chills when I do it. And I don't know
if that's a common phenomenon for people, but for me,
it's very novel and very new. So I guess in
that regard, you know, I'm appreciative for this process. I'm

(01:12:16):
appreciative that I get to spend so much time with
Him and to strengthen my relationship with God too. I
wanted to express these things, obviously because they're important to me,
but also I wanted him to hear it. I think
this will be meaningful to him. But I also wanted you, guys,
to make whatever emotions it imbuse in you and use
that to improve your relationships in your life. And I

(01:12:37):
hope it helps love you guys

Speaker 1 (01:12:39):
By subscribe to Liberty Lockdown Great podcast Clint is Tight