The full transcript

Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast Inside Rail. It's gonna be a special one. I have with me Viva Frye and Jimmy Dore, and we are going to be talking about the Charlie Kirk assassination. I think in the interest of full disclosure, we have 3 of us, me included, who have landed in different positions with respect to what we believe may have happened. And the reason that I have gathered Viva and Jimmy Is that I take them to be honest brokers who are reasoning from the evidence they see, and I presume would change their estimation if they saw new evidence that changed the probabilities significantly in their minds. So figuring out how we've landed in 3 different positions is the objective here. I will say at the front, it's probably the wrong thing to say, but this is not a debate.

No.

This is a friendly conversation to the death, and I hope to be the last person standing.

You're on fire today.

Well, you know, some days are like that. I hope you don't mean literally. But in any case, let's get to it.

Our first sponsor today is SaunaSpace, which makes amazing saunas and therapeutic lights. SaunaSpace combines red light therapy, near-infrared, and deep radiant heat for whole-body results at home. They don't make harsh LED panels or giant wood boxes. After over 10 years of R&D, SaunaSpace has developed a proprietary sun-like product called Firelight Spectrum. It's flicker-free, glare-free, and comfortable to use with long-life incandescent bulbs that stay consistent for more than 5 years. If you've looked into saunas and red light therapy, you know the market is a mess. full of claims that seem designed to obscure rather than heal. It's hard to know if any given product is effective or what frequencies it produces or whether it emits harmful electromagnetic radiation. The only product that we've found that clearly lives up to its scientific and health claims is SaunaSpace. SaunaSpace has 2 flagship products, the Glo and the Firelight Sauna. The Glo is a single large light that can be used by a desk or bedside. It can alleviate screen fatigue and the ill effects of blue light and helps with skin, mood, and energy concerns. It's great to use at night as your only light source, and it also works as spot relief for sore backs, tight shoulders, or cramps. SaunaSpace's Firelight Sauna is a full-body sauna that promotes sweat and also provides red light and near-infrared therapy. It's beautiful and powerful and contributes to deep detox, pain relief, and better sleep. From stress relief to healing and recovery, the sauna is amazing. The Firelight Sauna offers short, fast sessions with no preheat necessary. You flip the switch and start sweating in minutes. It's a beautiful canvas sauna that is lightweight and fits into a spare room or corner. You can start small with the Glow, their single full-spectrum red and infrared light, or you can go all in with the Firelight Sauna. All SaunaSpace products are built with integrity and handmade in Missouri with organic cotton, bamboo, sustainable unfinished basswood, and medical-grade stainless steel. No toxic glues or plastics and no off-gassing. The grounding mat and optional Silver Lining upgrade blocks environmental EMFs like Wi-Fi to enhance healing. You get a 100-day home trial and outstanding customer care. Take your wellness to the next level with SaunaSpace. Dark Horse listeners get an exclusive 10% off sitewide when you shop at sauna.space/darkhorse. That's sauna.space/darkhorse. Discount will be automatically applied at checkout. Our second sponsor this week is MudWTR. If you like the routine of making and drinking Something warm in the morning, but don't drink coffee, or you're trying to cut down on your coffee intake. Maybe Mudwater is for you. If you're looking for a different way to kick off your day with a delicious warming enhancing drink, try Mudwater. Mudwater makes fantastic products. Their original super functional coffee alternative has a beautiful list of ingredients that includes cacao and chai for just a hint of caffeine, lion's mane mushrooms to support focus, cordyceps to help support physical performance. Chaga and reishi to support your immune system, and cinnamon, which is a potent antioxidant. That's what's in their original coffee alternative, but MudWTR makes a whole suite of other drinks too. They've got a matcha coffee alternative and a mushroom coffee. They've got a turmeric-forward drink that is caffeine-free and has the same mushrooms plus ginger, cinnamon, and baobab. And MudWTR has a drink they call Rest, which has rooibos tea and valerian root. Turkey tail and ashwagandha, chamomile and passionflower. There are more products than that too, so you should go to MudWTR and find exactly what you're looking for. Every single ingredient in their products is 100% USDA organic, non-GMO, gluten-free, and vegan. MudWTR's original flavor is warm and spicy with a hint of chocolate, plus masala chai, which includes ginger and cardamom, nutmeg, and cloves. It's also delicious blended into a smoothie. Ready to make the switch to cleaner energy? Head to mudwater.com and grab your starter kit today. Right now, our listeners get an exclusive deal up to 43% off starter kits plus free shipping and a free rechargeable frother when you use the code Dark Horse. That's right, up to 43% off with the code Dark Horse at mudwtr.com. After your purchase, they'll ask how you found them. Please show your support and let them know we sent you.

Do you guys want to just state your beliefs at the current moment, not wedding yourself to them, uh, in the future. But how do you, as of today, August 18th, how do you see the assassination of Charlie Kirk and its likely explanation? Uh, Viva, you want to start?

Yeah, I'll start. I mean, I think what's funny is I don't actually think substantively Jimmy and I are going to disagree on even where we would be inclined to go by way of hypothesizing, uh, you know, and It's not a question of buying a Fed slop narrative or buying the official narrative.

I—

at some point you have to just rely on the evidence that exists at the time to the best of your ability and question that which you think is implausible or unrealistic. And also understand if you believe things that you don't yet have any evidence to substantiate. And I do. And I admit that I do. You know, my, my belief is that it was a shot that killed— it was a bullet that killed Charlie Kirk. It came from the, the, the, the Losi building roof. where people immediately turned after hearing the shot. I was watching it, you know, the second after it happened and talking with people on the ground, you know, immediately after it happened. And, you know, it's only after the fact that the idea of it not being a bullet even came up. Whether or not it's Tyler Robinson that took the shot on the roof, I would have zero problem entertaining the possibility that it was even Lance Twigs or somebody else who took the shot. But I have great difficulty in the absence of any other indicator other than the absence of evidence believing that it was anything other than a bullet. The argument that a .30-06 doesn't do that, I've never been convinced by anybody definitively saying how every round of any bullet will always behave, you know, without exception. And so I'm operating on the basis right now Charlie Kirk was shot. Lance Tyler Robinson, if he wasn't the one who took the shot, was involved. You know, he was seen on surveillance. His family identified him. His boyfriend identified him. I don't trust the boyfriend. As far as I can throw him in terms of his statement that seems to limit his own potential involvement. I believe other people were involved because other people had advanced knowledge clearly that something was going to happen. I wouldn't be shocked. And I believe, though I can't prove, that George Zinn, the crazy old man who was found with CSAM on his phone afterwards, who immediately said, I did it in order to give the true gunman time to flee, is somehow involved in ways that we don't yet know. And until evidence to the contrary comes up to implicate foreign nations, foreign leaders, foreign actors, or even domestic actors, which I believe are, you know, very possibly at play here, you can't create evidence that doesn't exist. And you can only so plausibly deny the evidence that has been presented as of the present date in order to come to other theories. But that's the broad brushstrokes. Charlie was shot. If Tyler Robinson wasn't the one who pulled the trigger, I believe there was an orchestrated event that had more than one person involved, and I also do believe that there might be good reasons why investigators would want to limit that investigation and/or not possibly explore other alternatives that might implicate foreign or domestic elements of intelligence or government.

+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty · Viva Frei

Fascinating. All right, Jimmy, you want to lay out your position?

Well, sure. My position is I don't know. who exactly killed Charlie Kirk. But I do know that there's a cover-up happening, and then people are lying all over the place, and that the official narrative doesn't make any sense. That a guy who, by Lance Twigg's own testimony, they never talked about politics, and he never even mentioned Charlie Kirk to him, would one day wake up at 4 o'clock in the morning, drive to a campus he had never been to before, and magically find the one staircase that is not secured. or being monitored by the police or his security team, and then get up on— and then somehow have a 3.5-foot rifle jammed down his pants, and somehow make it— and walk up all those steps, and then get onto the roof, change his clothes. He's up on the roof for 8 to 10 minutes, and nobody sees him, except people did see him. Again, just like Butler, people from the crowd saw the guy on the roof. You know who didn't see him? The state police, the local police, the campus police, and Charlie's million-dollar security team. But people in the crowd saw him. In fact, there's video of it. And by the way, the FBI never contacted the guy who had video of it and saw him. So that's all part of the cover-up. And then he somehow— he spidered after he takes the shot. Which they don't have any video of. He then Spider-Mans his way off the building, leaving a palm print, except the palm print doesn't match Tyler. And of course, he then traverses on his way to hide the gun. He traverses a construction site, and the construction guy says his description of the guy doesn't match Tyler Robinson. It actually matches Lance Twigs. The video, they don't have any video. There's video cameras everywhere. They don't have video that looks like him. They have video that looks like a taller person than Tyler Robinson. They have video that looks like a much thicker person than Tyler Robinson, and they doctored the photos and the video to make it look more like Tyler Robinson. He So, uh, the— I, I don't buy the .30-06 because the people that I've seen who know a lot about it, including the guy who— from the SEAL Team 6 who shot Osama bin Laden, said there's no way. Uh, and then he also was with a— I think an admiral from the, uh, said that— who said there's no way that it was a .30. Uh, so— and nobody can recreate that, right? So they've tried to recreate it, nobody can. But anyway, um, So there's that. There's the cover-up for sure. Not only did they pave over a crime scene, they didn't secure it immediately. They let people go in and pick up stuff and move stuff. They let Farnsworth pick up the chair he was sitting on, which would have blood spatter evidence on it, and then go take the SD cards out. And then he lied about why. They lied about the— Then they take him, there's no ambulance. This is a million-dollar security team. There's 6,000 people there. There's no ambulance. They jam him in the back, and they're not doing first aid to him behind the table. They jam him in an SUV, and then they take him to the hospital where the FBI took all the videotape away. They moved all the people from that emergency room 2 hours earlier out of that place. So there was no witnesses, there's no video. And then they—

+7.5 R-2.3 · Appeal to authority on the .30-06 · Jimmy Dore

+7.5 R-3.2 · Asymmetric rigor: airtight bar for the official account, maybes for the alternatives · Jimmy Dore

They—

They clean the SUV and they immediately sell it. And so to me, there's overwhelming evidence of a coverup. And there's lots more. There's lots more. The confession, there's problems with the timeline confession because he was already in custody when they said he He went online and confessed. The confession's on the text. He says, I wanted to take this to my grave, but apparently screw it. I'm going to give you every detail possible of how I did this. I'll not leave out anything on how I did this. We'll get into more of it. I don't want to just keep talking. To me, there's overwhelming evidence of a cover-up happening. I liked what you said online, Brett, was that if Tyler Robinson did it, why is there a coverup? And that's exactly what I immediately— the stuff they were saying didn't make sense. In fact, most recently when Andrew Wilson said he had unforeseen text messages from Charlie Kirk saying he was afraid of a leftist killing him, he wouldn't show that. And he said he got it from TPUSA. He wouldn't show it. And then it's directly contradicted by Erica Kirk saying that she had his phone. By the way, why does she have his phone? Why does she have his necklace? Why was— why were they allowed to get rid of his t-shirt? Uh, why were there all those, uh, shards of plastic that looks like a Rode microphone pack exploded inside the car that Candace Owens got pictures of? So there's just— I mean, I can go on and on and on. I won't. So I'll stop there and just say, it's— to me, it's overwhelming evidence that he— that there is a cover-up happening. And if— is Tyler Robinson involved somehow? I think that's a— I'll go— there's probably a 50/50. Yeah, I think he might be involved somehow, but I'll go with what Marc Garagos, the famous lawyer, said that he— I don't understand why Lance Twigs isn't a suspect and why he's not under investigation. Instead, he's being given a certain kind of immunity to testify. So that's, I guess that's my kind of position that I, uh, to me, that's an obvious cover-up. And, and, and it smacks to me very much, and we kind of talked about this online, about, uh, it being like COVID. And because anybody who doubts the official narrative is called evil, demonic. I had that guy Barnes the other day on Twitter saying that I'm, I'm just like QAnon. And, you know, so anybody who— So when When you're not allowed to question— if one thing I've learned in this game that I've been— I've been in this game since 2008, and if it's one thing I've learned is when you're not allowed to question, that means there you're over the target and somebody's trying to shut you up and there's some fuckery, uh, about. And so you're— anybody who questions is considered evil, demonic, QAnon, ruining their reputation. You have to accept the The official establishment narrative. I'm not saying that Viva is saying that, but almost everyone else who's on the other side is saying that. And then they're all lying. They lied about Charlie's text messages saying he was going against the Israeli cause. All the influencers lied about seeing 4K video of him taking the shot. It's just There's an obvious cover-up happening. People I, I, uh, my spidey senses tell me are being paid, uh, to lie about this. And of course there was, uh, the guy who dropped his pants. I'm blanking on his name.

↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-012

+3 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty · Jimmy Dore

George Zinn.

George Zinn. He said he was paid to be a distraction. Uh, so there's obviously— and then not, not even— I'm not an expert on any of this. I'm just saying the things that I have seen Uh, everything smacks of the COVID cover-up and smacks of a cover-up.

↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-012

Just one thing, Brett. I mean, the— what people say, this is a— it's a false dichotomy mischaracterization of the people who are using the term evil and the context in which they're using it. Now, nobody— and, and it's like, it's become the, the, the trope of those just asking questions to say, I'm just questioning the narrative and people are calling me evil, etc. Nobody is ever calling anybody who doesn't believe the official narrative evil. Where the people start getting called evil is when they suggest Erica Kirk is in on it, that Charlie's own team was in on it.

When—

where people start getting called evil is when they start mocking Erica Kirk for wearing leather pants to the, uh, to the, um, the event, the commemoration event after he died. Where people start getting— calling people evil is when they start throwing around accusations impugning the people who are victims in all of this in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. That's when people call people evil. You know, when they put out a 12-part miniseries entitled The Bride of Chuck— The Bride of Charlie, at some point the behavior goes well beyond questioning the official narrative and does start to flirt with the realm of evil, which is making the most insidious, heinous accusations against people who are the victims in this until proof to the contrary, simply because you don't like them. Accusing Erica Kirk of human trafficking from a Romanian what are those things called, orphanage. I mean, at some point, Jimmy, it's not— you're not just asking— not you. They are not just asking questions. They are making evil accusations, victimizing the people who are victims of this until any evidence to the contrary. So, yeah, at some point it does become evil.

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-017

Okay. So I want to say a couple of things and then I want to lay out my position and how I get there. There is I think I agree with you technically, Viva, on the fact that the term evil is reserved for a certain discussion. But I have certainly experienced myself that the act of questioning the official narrative of Charlie Kirk's murder results in moral accusations against me. And I find that conspicuous, and I'm now recognizing it as a pattern from many of the battlegrounds that we have faced over the last 10 years or so, where there is a desire when you are in a logically weak position to shift the question to a moral one in order to avoid dealing with the contradictions that you're forced to defend. And so, I agree with you that the term evil is being applied typically for a certain quadrant of speculation, but the idea that if I make a logical point, that what comes back at me is a moral critique is troubling to say the least. We ought to all be interested in figuring out what happened to Charlie Kirk. It's profoundly important at a historical level, and that means that anybody who comes into that discussion as an honest broker and is sorting through evidence in a good faith fashion is part of the solution. We are sorting out the question, and there is no justification for leveling a moral accusation against us for doing that.

So, but, but, Brett, and I'm not going to say this is a both sides issue, but at some point we're going to have to agree that there— if to the extent it exists, it definitely exists on both sides. I get out there and rightly question what is now basically seems like another debunked tangent of that Cowboy Steakhouse receipt, and people accuse me of being an Israeli shill, where on the one hand I get accused of being a Jew-hating anti-Semite because of my questions about October 7th and Israel's response. And the reflex is to now say I'm getting the Bibi bucks, shekels, or that I work for TPUSA, you know, or that I'm a Jew and a Zionist. So they do this. It's happening on both sides. I think it's inorganic and also people are doing it willingly. But to suggest that it's only or even primarily done to those questioning the narrative. Dude, I don't even support the official narrative. And the trope is gobble the fed-slop narrative Zionist Jew, Bibi Bucks, TPUSA employee, none of which are true. So that's happening on both sides.

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-020

I agree. And that's why I invited you here, is that I don't think that that accusation could possibly land with you in light of the way I see you navigating this. So I agree. That there are moral accusations leveled by both sides when the question is analytical. And that to me, you know, that's a yellow card every time it happens.

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-020

↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-020

Our final sponsor this week is Helix, which makes truly fantastic mattresses. Our Helix mattress has served us well for over 4 years, and we look forward to many more years with it. If you've had trouble sleeping, and who hasn't, the problem might be your mattress. A better mattress can help address issues like sleep apnea, back pain, and temperature problems. Helix makes outstanding mattresses, every one of which combines individually wrapped steel coils in the base with premium foam layers on top, providing excellent support for your spine. Take the Helix Sleep quiz online, and in less than 2 minutes you'll be directed to which of their many mattresses is best for you. Once you've found your perfect mattress, you have 120 nights to try it out without any penalty. All of Helix's award-winning mattresses are made in America, fiberglass-free, and built to last. Everyone we know who has slept on a Helix mattress raves about it. Family members slept on our Helix mattress for a few nights and ordered one for themselves. Our son Zach has one in his college apartment and he loves it too. Helix just makes fantastic mattresses. Go to helixsleep.com/darkhorse for 27% off sitewide, exclusive for listeners of Dark Horse. That's helixsleep.com/darkhorse for 27% off sitewide, exclusive For listeners to the Dark Horse Podcast. Once more, helixsleep.com/darkhorse.

All right, so let me say where I find myself here. And as is often the case, I come at this from a slightly different perspective based on what I spent my adult life doing and training for. I'm a biologist who is fascinated by Complexity. I like to go into a tropical forest and try to figure out as much as I can about what's going on, and the more paradoxical the thing I'm trying to explain, the more fun it is for me. Tropical forests do not cough up their secrets easily. They do not label things so you know what you're looking at. And so the toolkit involved in sorting out something in biology space That is unknown involves playing with all of the available evidence, which is always a small fraction of what you would like, and juggling potential explanations to see what fits best. It works when you have a well-trained intuition for what sort of thread that seems unimportant to begin with, if followed, will reveal something Important, and those tools are not so different from a contested crime like the killing of Charlie Kirk. Now, I think we are haunted a bit in this discussion by the fact that there is a giant gap. You have the official explanation, you have Tyler Robinson, a— Lone gunman shoots Charlie Kirk based on a plan that he formulated entirely himself. His motivation was internal, right? That's a very neat explanation of the crime and superficially plausible. And then you have a conspiracy of some kind. in which Tyler is potentially involved, but there are others involved. And the problem is that as soon as you step across that threshold, things get very dark very fast. Who is it that would have the capacity to create a— to pull off a killing like this and to cover their tracks? such that an official narrative in which Tyler Robinson acted alone would stand up in court. That tends to be an entity with a lot of capacity. And so now things get ugly. Now, I was interested to hear in your description, Viva, that you believe George Zinn was likely involved, that he didn't just spontaneously stand up and claim credit for the crime, um, in the aftermath. Now, I agree with you.

I wouldn't— I just wouldn't qualify it as likely. But if you want to talk about anomalies, because everyone's like, you know, paving over a crime scene in 4 days is not so wildly out of protocol that it's an anomaly. A man who happens to be there, who, whose whatever initial reflex is to immediately take credit for it, And then admit that he took credit for the being paid part of it, Jimmy, I've heard people say that. Apparently he said that to a nurse in the hospital. We all heard him say it was to let— give the gunman a chance to get away. Even if you just chalk him up to being a crazy old man who always goes to these events, that that's his first reaction is implausible to me. Whether or not it's more likely, I would say I would not be shocked if I found out that he was involved in Discord chats with a bunch of— LGBT furries, uh, getting his rocks off, and he happens to be a degenerate, uh, you know, sex offender, if not a CSAM offender. And then lo and behold, they also find that on his phone. But yeah, so not necessarily likely, but just that's an anomaly that requires an explanation.

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-010

+2 C-4.1 · Tempered own claim · Viva Frei

I agree. And I will say that my key, um, my key mechanism for pattern recognition is to look for anomalies with the understanding that it is impossible that you would have a crime scene as complex as this without there being anomalies. In other words, if there were no anomalies, that would be weird. There will always be anomalies because weird coincidences happen. So the question is, when is an anomaly sufficiently conspicuous to count it as probably indicating something, and how do you hold that piece of evidence such that at the point that it peters out, you're ready to abandon it. I have thought often about George Zinn since this killing happened, and I've wondered, because it does strike me as a very strange fact of history, as I've dug into the story of George Zinn, It gets less interesting. So the event happens in Utah. He is apparently an addict where he goes to all major events in Utah, frequently makes trouble. The reports— and you guys maybe know differently than I do, but when I looked into the claim that he had been at the Boston Marathon bombing, what I find is that that's not—

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-010

Oh, really?

True, or certainly not clear. And so I have the sense that there was a flurry of activity around this guy, and at some level what turns out to be true about him, I would say, is consistent with 2 possibilities. One is that he was part of a larger organized something, or that he really is a sufficiently obsessed and troubled person who lies reflexively that— Maybe he was there because he would have been at an event this size in Utah, and he spotted the opportunity he's been waiting his whole life for, an event that was going to capture the attention of the world. He's obviously attention-seeking. So, in other words, I'm not telling you that I have a conclusion one way or the other, but I am telling you that the more I've looked at George Zinn, the less I'm—

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-010

↳ evidence for the P9 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-026

+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty · Bret Weinstein

Interested.

going to put my weight on that ice. I don't know what he indicates, but it might well be nothing. And I would also say that one of the patterns that is true and could indicate one of two things is something actually, Viva, you've been involved in battling over, which is that many of the things that superficially seem incredibly damning, the paving over of the site of the assassination, which I do find conspicuous, is less compelling than it might be in light— I think you tweeted yesterday something to the effect of, actually, no matter what they had chosen to do with it, the claim would be that it was anomalous and conspicuous. So, I think the paving was conspicuous. The communications around it seem strange. I don't know that my understanding of those communications is accurate, but if it is, it seemed alarming me when I first heard it. But again, it's one of these pieces of evidence that I wonder if it has been overemphasized. I could say the same thing about the SUV, right? The SUV was scrubbed and auctioned.

↳ evidence for the P9 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-026

+4.5 C-2.1 · Common ground on the paving question · Bret Weinstein

But before that, Jimmy, I mean, I want to see what Jimmy's understanding is. Let's deal with the paving of the crime scene, because that's the one That I'm not even calling them the conspiracy theorists in a derogatory way. That is the one who— people who deny the official narrative say not only is it anomalous, but again, this is the absence of evidence. It's the evidence of the exploding mic, because the only reason they needed to dig up the soil, not because of the blood and the biohazard, was to get the remnants of explosives off the ground. Jimmy, your understanding of, of the time frame within which they dug up and repaved is what?

So, um, they, they got an emergency, uh, the guy whose testimony, who was there, who did the paving, said he was asked to get a crew that could keep their mouth shut and that they could do it. They had an emergency paving thing, which is the first one I've ever heard of in history. And, um, and then when he got there, it was already dug up. And so they had dug it up 10 inches down, and then he came in with his crew and paved it over on a Sunday in Utah, which is kind of crazy. So that's— and not only did they pave over it, but people leave out that they scrubbed everything, the walls behind him, the overpass. They had people scrubbing it. I don't know if they painted it also, but they completely scrubbed the whole crime scene. And it's unbelievably conspicuous that they did that, especially with the testimony of the guy who was one of the guys who was called. And he said he was— that this order, he said, came from the FBI and the governor, even though there's other evidence that said it was the university who requested it be done. But that doesn't really mean anything because of course they would tell the, you know, they would do it that way so they wouldn't be— there wouldn't be a direct line. But anyway, it's, it's none of it that doesn't, you know— I think the one thing that would make it, you know, you said no matter what they did it would be, uh, suspect, or how, whatever you said. I, I would say if they taped it off and kept it and preserved the crime scene for a while, at least till he got his defense team in place so they could go examine it themselves, uh, that would mean that, that wouldn't be suspicious. But Everything they did was unbelievably suspicious to me.

Well, I, I mean, this is where there's 2 things. People— it's a tendency where people just— the more detail people describe something in, it's an attempt to like make it look much more abnormal or much more complex. And like you could say, like, what did I do today? Well, I, you know, I woke up, I made some coffee, I put some honey in it, then I stirred it with the cream. And you can make very simple things much more complex and suspicious by adding details which on the one end might not be accurate, And also might be just totally irrelevant except to complicate things. First thing is it wasn't a crime scene. And this is where I heard this and I was like, okay, it, it seems anomalous. Like, okay, 4 days to pave over a crime scene. And then you have to appreciate it's no longer a crime scene once it had been released to the university. And then you go back and you look and you say, okay, well, typically how long do they cordon off a crime scene when it's in a public location? And 4 days is not anomalously short. And the example I gave was the In-N-Out Burger in Idaho. They were back open for business in 6 days. I mean, I say I'm rounding it up to 6 just to not be accused of missing a day. They were shut down for 5 days. And so it turns out 4 days is not anomalous that much. It turns out it wasn't a crime scene. And so people use that term and falsify— not just falsify the debate. I'm not saying they're doing it maliciously. They falsify impressions. It was no longer a crime scene. And then the question is going to be, well, why did they dig it up? Someone said to me, well, did they dig up the floor at the In-N-Out Burger in Idaho? I was like, well, no, because there wasn't biohazard that had been soaked up into the soil. And so they dug it up, they paved it over. Why'd they do it on a Sunday? They want to get back to university, public stuff on a Monday. And there's no need to turn this into a mausoleum. When you— this is one of the most public areas in the university. So, I mean, I was at first very suspicious as well. And then the explanation, not that it makes sense, it's that maybe there was an attempt to cover something up. And then the question is going to be, well, who would cover it up and why? And the only reason people want to harp on this is because they want to run with the exploding microphone theory that they had to dig up the soil so that, you know, people couldn't do lab tests on the soil to determine explosives. And then you understand why the university might have wanted to do it. To avoid every internet sleuth showing up on the scene during public hours, taking soil samples to do their own independent research.

↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-032

All right, I want to, I want to jump in here and apply my toolkit, because I hear what both of you are saying, and I see, uh, truth in both of these things. You have a troubling situation. UVU is going to be known for the assassination of Charlie Kirk. It's going to be the first thing that comes to mind for UVU for the rest of time, in all probability. They are an institution that has to figure out how to deal with that. And so I can imagine that there is a desire to scrub absolutely everything on the university's part that has nothing to do with the coverup. So, when I look at questions like the paving, I have to hold it as one of two things. It could indeed be a cover-up. In fact, I think if this was a conspiracy that was— if it was a conspiracy, if this was larger than Tyler Robinson acting alone, then it did not go perfectly as planned. And so, the desire to make sure that evidence that reveals something inconsistent with the crime we're told happened, that desire would cause a kind of scrub the scene reaction. On the other hand, the university has a reason to do that that has nothing to do with covering up the crime. And so, I have to hold this as unclear. On the other hand, I do think what I can see, what I can ascertain myself looking at the evidence that emerged after the crime, the treatment of the crime scene was conspicuous, atrocious, and raises all kinds of questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. So that one is a blinking red light to me.

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-030

Right.

The idea that the SD cards were removed, it's never been satisfactorily explained, that that obviously has relevance to the question of, well, what exactly did kill Charlie Kirk? That is important. The fact that you have a camera angle from directly in front of Charlie, from which we apparently have not seen the footage that would likely falsify many hypotheses of the crime. That's conspicuous. The moving of objects, the— I mean, basically, it was just a compromised crime scene from the get-go, and there was no attempt to recover it and limit the damage, or at least not an effort that was consistent with the magnitude of the crime. Now, I will say, as for the Road mic. And actually, let me back up. Before I get to the road mic, let me say, I also think that in having this discussion, we are hamstrung by the fact that it has become— the alternative hypotheses of the crime have become synonymous with one person. And I don't— this is not about Candace to me. In fact, I think the point is the whole crime— It's fine for Candace to do what she does, but we now have the sense in public that the alternative theory is synonymous with what Candace is saying. And I would say, actually, I don't even follow Candace. I'm a guy with a scientific toolkit who is trying to wield the proper tools, that is to say, competing hypotheses for a pattern that we all observed for which we don't have complete evidence. And I don't like that every time I raise this question, the first thing that comes back at me is, Candace said this, Candace said that. That is not healthy. We have to have as many perspectives as there are, and the one test of those perspectives is how well they predict evidence that we don't yet have. Um, so that brings me to the RØDE microphone hypothesis of the crime.

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-030

Hold on, actually, Brett, if I can— if you can stop there just for one second, uh, just to go back where you say scrubbing the scene also carries with it a connotation of improperness.

No, I, I specifically don't mean that. I'm a— look, first of all, I've, I've spent a good fraction of my adult life in a university. I can imagine at one of the places that I was either a student or teaching, that a notorious crime has taken place. There's an immediate meeting of the administration, maybe the faculty, and the question is, how exactly do we go back to being a university? What if there's a blood splatter somewhere?

Right.

And so the idea will be, okay, well, what we need to do is as quickly as possible make the space where this took place be an area that there's nothing to find. It is inherently going to be a place that people go, but the point is it has to take on its new form quickly. I can imagine that discussion, and I can imagine it at an effectively maintenance and janitorial level, that there's a whole lot that you would just decide to do. You would effectively want to freshen, revise, not— you know, you don't want people digging up soil. And I think, you know, you keep mentioning— I've seen you mention it once here— the biohazard of the soil. I don't believe there was a biohazard at all, right? To the extent that blood may have landed on the ground, there's no biohazard issue after a very short period of time. But I can also imagine people Digging, as long as it's not paved, you can imagine people digging for something, the way people will have a moon rock from the moon landing. People would want some memento of this crime, and you want to just prevent that from happening. So I can imagine that occurring, but I can't imagine not protecting this crime scene, and given that the crime scene was compromised, I cannot imagine— Anything other than an obsessive effort to try to reconstruct exactly what was there, including the SD cards, all camera angles, to figure out why it is that there was an inability to broadcast during the immediate instance of the event. There's lots of stuff that I didn't see. And I would say, I have a kind of an informal list of dogs that didn't bark. Right? There's the evidence we have, and then there's the evidence that we don't have. And let me give you an example. Or maybe I should let you respond to that, Viva, since I cut you off.

Well, I'll say one thing. To the extent you're using scrub as in to purify and not to alter, then fine. Or to tamper. When Jimmy says, you know, what they could have done is taped off the crime scene and then cordoned it off until the defendant gets a defense, That would be, from what I understand, and maybe I'm wrong, that would be an anomalous treatment of a crime scene to the point where everyone would say, this isn't how you do it. And the only reason they've done that is so they can go and purely, totally scrub the crime scene, modify it, falsify it, whatever. I don't think— I don't think there's— I don't know how many cases there have been where you indefinitely close off a crime scene until the defense gets— the defendant gets his defense team. And that's at the time you don't even have a defendant at that point, and you might never get one. So I think that would have been even more anomalous. And like I posited in my post, if they had done that, then the other people of the world would say that's evidence of conspiracy. They've now had 2 months to scrub it and to falsify it and to plant the evidence that they wanted. So that wouldn't resolve anything.

Well, look, can I just respond and say that, um, they did have a defendant because Prakash Patel had a— that Friday, at 33 hours after that, he said, we got him, we got him. That's what he said. So they did have a defendant, A. And to Brett's point, from the moment the assassinate— the— it happened, uh, the, the, the crime scene was contaminated immediately and, and per— and continuously, right? And to the point where they're not even securing evidence. Like, why was his phone given back to Erica Kirk? Why was his necklace, which would be, you think, 100%, uh, evidence that should be, uh, uh, controlled, is given back to her? Um, uh, the, the— why was the, the bloody mic was given back to her so they could auction it off to make money? There's just so many. And, and people were allowed to take the SD cards. People were allowed to move the microphone. People were allowed to move the, the, the chair. Nobody was securing that thing whatsoever. And then the, the cop who goes up on the roof and finds the, the, the screwdriver, just mysteriously his, uh, His body camera turns off, which is ridiculous. And then he doesn't even know who the other cop was on the roof with him, except we were able to find that out in half a day. But he didn't. He hadn't been able to find it out for 11 months or whatever. So that crime scene, they allowed it to be completely contaminated, and also the evidence. So these are all big to me. These are big, uh, red flags that show me that there's a cover-up. And the biggest thing that shows me there's a cover-up— I forgot to mention this— was that I just interviewed Joe Kent on my show on Friday, and he said he was the head of counterterrorism, and he was looking in to see if there was some, uh, foreign involvement in this. The biggest assassination in my lifetime, uh, right? So the biggest assassination in my lifetime, you'd think they would try to treat that place a little bit special. But no, okay, I'll go. But, um, Joe Kent said that he was stopped from investigating it. So it's obvious that the FBI and the, and the cops are not actually investigating it, and that the guy, the one guy who's at the tippy top of government of investigating stuff, wanted to and he was stopped. Not only did he tell me he was stopped, he told me who stopped him. Kash Patel. Kash Patel stopped him. So to me, that's again right there. This is just crazy, obvious cover-up. All right, I'll throw it back to you, Brett.

Yeah, well, I agree with much of what you just said, and this is, this is what I'm responding to, is that what I see is we do not have an FBI. And in the absence of an FBI, what you have is this Keystone Cop stuff, which, were there a conspiracy, would be a feature, not a bug, right?

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-034

+4.5 C-2.1 · Common ground on scene handling · Bret Weinstein

Yeah.

The contamination of the crime scene is useful if what you're trying to do is confuse the question, leaving only the lone gunman hypothesis standing. So I see many of those precise anomalies, and I want to point to one. You guys can tell me, maybe you're tracking some thread that I'm not. But one of the dogs that didn't bark in this case for me is the RØDE microphone. Now, I heard the hypothesis that it had been used to kill Charlie, that it had exploded. I, of course, made the connection to the pager attack on Hezbollah, but in thinking about That hypothesis of the crime, I realized, I think, someone else could point out that I've done the logic incorrectly, but that that hypothesis of the crime does not add up given the technology that we are told to imagine might have been used. In other words, a shaped charge would have— behaved very differently than what we saw. We would have had smoke, the equal and opposite reaction of the exploding mic would have been visible in some way other than a disturbance of the shirt. So I convinced myself that can't be the explanation given the technology that we imagine might have been used there. It doesn't mean somebody doesn't have another technology that cancels those forces the way a compensator cancels the muzzle rise on a rifle, but I don't know what the technology would be, and so I have to demote that hypothesis because it does not comport with the evidence we did see. On the other hand, here's the part, here's the dog that didn't bark. Where's the damn mic?

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-057

Where is it?

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-034

Where's the damn mic? And here's why that matters. So, that mic does 2 things. That mic broadcasts a Wi-Fi signal that goes presumably to one of the cameras that's running. It sends that feed right into the camera so that they stitch up the video and the audio stitch up together. But it also records a 32-bit float file On the device itself in case the Wi-Fi fails. That piece of evidence, that file, would be absolutely vital in either proving that the shot came from where they said it came from or disproving it. That file is an incredibly powerful piece of evidence, not only because it records the sound from the precise location of Charlie's body— But because 32-bit float contains a tremendous amount of resolution, in other words, the amount that could be recovered from that file that would allow you to do a detailed sonic analysis is tremendous. So the question is, maybe they have it, maybe they've analyzed that file, but we've heard nothing about it. And I don't know what to make of glass shards, I don't know what to make of the disturbance of the shirt, but I do find the absence of that that device utterly conspicuous, and it hasn't gotten enough attention in my opinion, maybe because people assume it exploded.

Well, it's interesting, you know, in every, in every cover-up, you're going to want to have the useful noise which is going to distract people from the actual cover-up with nonsense. And, you know, inasmuch as people misunderstood my drawing a comparison to Sandy Hook, there are still people who out there seriously you know, put forward that Charlie Kirk didn't die, that it was CGI, that, you know, they hauled him off and he's in witness protection. And there are people who seriously entertain that idea. The question is, at what point do you just write off the patently insane ideas? And at what point does— do the people who might want to muddy the waters to actually cover up the cover-up promote, entertain, or legitimize those ideas?

↳ P27 raised again here · first raised at U-233

Yeah.

So that's— no, because every, every operation has this.

Yeah.

And it's true that there has been no confirmation as to where the microphone is. I, I— it's not immediately write-off the exploding mic. The exploding microphone theory is based on negative evidence. It can never be disproven because all that it's predicated on is a .30-06 didn't do it because it never does it, and therefore that must be it because shirts don't move this way. And, and I saw some broken glass in a car, as if after the thing goes off you're gonna have broken glass that's gonna be in the car. Um, but it— well, it's, it's true that you don't have the microphone. Where do you go from there to entertain the idea that it was a shaped charge microphone exploding device because Israel did it with terrorist leaders in Hamas and the West Bank or Gaza and the West Bank? The only reason they did it in that circumstance was because of a total inaccessibility of getting in there to do it with a sniper or with, you know, a more immediate manner. Why anyone thinks, all right, the Losi building roof was, was not covered, it was not protected. Why was it? It was the easiest access point. That's part of the conspiracy. And so they went with the most insanely elaborate risky, not achieving the objective, easily traceable exploding microphone as opposed to just getting a gunman on the roof. I mean, that's where I think you have conspiracy theories that are deliberately entertained, put forward, or promoted in order to distract from what the very cover-up might be, which is why that roof was left totally unsecured and, and everything that flows from that. But Jimmy, yeah, sorry.

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-200

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-057

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Jimmy Dore · ruling prints at U-012

Yeah, that's a— that's a great point. So they will often the people who are doing a cover-up will promote crazy theories to discredit that there's a cover-up, right?

Or even better, half-truths.

Right.

Take out some important piece of information by fusing it to something insane.

Right. So I'll just very quickly say why some people made that connection, right? Because of the way his t-shirt moved, right? That nobody— again, I'll go back to the SEAL Team 6 guy. He said, I've killed people, I've shot people for this country, and I've never seen a t-shirt move like that. And I— there's no— There's very no one has actually explained how that happened, but the the the the the the suspicious things that lead up to that theory is that there was a month before there was that guy Harrison who tweeted out that I've been told by people close to Charlie Kirk he's afraid that Israel's going to kill him if he turns on them. And then the the the the meeting at the Hamptons they denied that Bibi called in and offered him $150 million. That's been proven. They also denied that Charlie had the night before texted that, I, uh, I have no choice but to leave the Israel cause. I can no longer support the— so they lied about all that stuff. Benjamin Netanyahu comes out 39 minutes on the other side of the world in the middle of fighting a couple of wars, uh, 39 minutes comes out and tweets about Charlie Kirk's, uh, assassination and the fact that they have a history of using this kind of device. So it's not like crazy that came out of nowhere. There's a lot of that point that that could be possible. And the fact what Brent just said, that they— what, where is it and where is that recording, right? So that would be very helpful. The recording would still be on that mic, uh, and so, and where is that, where is that recording mic thing? So, and of course the shards of glass then also, uh, in the, in the, in that car lead to— they said, oh, that the first explanation was it was sunglasses got broken. Well, it was proven it wasn't sunglasses, right? Well, I'm not going to say proven. It's been lots of people who are experts in that say, no, that wouldn't be the sunglasses. They don't break like that. People who know about that. So it didn't come out of nowhere. But I think what Viva's saying, that, yeah, that's certainly the case. People who are doing a cover-up will often try to amplify a half-truth so they could be easily knocked down. And then anybody who questions it looks like a mental case.

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Jimmy Dore · ruling prints at U-012

Well, in that particular one is— given the nature of the RØDE Wireless Pro, it has an onboard local recording, which should definitely be there and is tremendously high resolution, and it should have put out a signal, presumably to either the board or to a camera, that would have been recorded also. Those 2 pieces of evidence together would be tremendously useful, either in establishing Tyler Robinson's guilt or—

↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-047

His innocence.

establishing that something beyond the official theory of the crime took place. By the way, I'm using theory there because theory of the crime is the way it's described. I will— when I put forward something, I'll say hypothesis because it tells you exactly what the toolkit is. But one utility of the exploding mic hypothesis being so widely circulated is it does cause people to stop asking the question about where's the damn mic. And if that mic was active, it produced evidence. That evidence is of very high quality, and we've heard not word one about it as far as I know.

↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-047

Well, also, just one more thing if I may. And the reason why it's not crazy for people to entertain that hypothesis of an exploding mic was because they can't match that gun to the, to the bullet fragments that they claimed they found. And, and they— and also, that gun was not— they— the cops who were looking for that gun, uh, could not find it. The dog-sniffing guns, who can find a gun that was shot a week later in the rain, couldn't find it. But the moment the FBI shows up, there's the gun. So that's why it— it— so you can see why people would think it— it— it's, it's, uh, plausible, very plausible, that it wasn't that gun, it wasn't that shooter. and it was something else. Maybe it was that shape charge, maybe it was a direct energy weapon, maybe it was— so all these things I think need to be 100% explored. And like Brett said earlier, if you do, you're called a mental case, you're called, uh, your, your morality's challenged, stuff like that.

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Jimmy Dore · ruling prints at U-012

↳ evidence for the P5 verdict on Jimmy Dore · ruling prints at U-057

No, I want to—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption to take the floor · Bret Weinstein

sorry, uh, Vivo, I'll come right back to you, but I just want to lodge this point. If we had a functional FBI, that was actually interested in investigating what happened during this crime, then the question about how long the crime scene remained cordoned off would be as you describe it. But the problem is, you don't have an FBI. You have an FBI that after Butler was washing the roof.

↳ P26 raised again here · first raised at U-043

Washing the roof?

Washing the frickin' roof. So the point is, we don't have an FBI. I don't know why that is or how it happened, but the fact is—

Worse than with Butler, by the way. This is a point that I put out: is I don't blame people for going. I call it the conspiratorial psychosis because I think at some point it stops being productive and it starts being harmful for the individual and for the truth. You know when I can't blame people for going down this conspiracy psychosis because you had this FBI—it's not Biden's FBI—telling you that Thomas Crooks had no social media footprint, and then when Tucker Carlson and Brianna Morello report that he did. Instead of addressing it, they create an FBI response thing on X to go out and try to discredit Tucker Carlson, Brianna Morello, and Miranda Devine. And so they don't like hearing it. But a lot of the propensity to believe whatever the hell people want is facilitated by what this administration and the DOJ has done to eviscerate any trust that anyone thought they were going to have in this iteration of the institution, and it allows people to believe whatever the hell they want because it's a post-truth world right now. They don't even have to have evidence to substantiate it.

↳ P27 raised again here · first raised at U-233

That's why I'm pleading with people to use a scientific toolkit, because the point is, okay, absent an FBI, you need to exert logical discipline over how you process the evidence. And what I see amongst those who are focused on conspiracy Is anything that would contribute to your view of the crime is promoted as true, rather than some sort of an evaluation about which of these things actually are evidence, which of these anomalies are of a standard magnitude. And if I can connect back to the anomalies with the butler. shooting. Okay, in Butler, they told us the reason that that roof wasn't covered was that it was too steep. One of the craziest things that's ever been said. You remember that? Yes.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-024

Oh yeah.

A sloped roof.

Here again, though, again, we don't have a sloped roof. We have a perfectly flat roof. Has the person who decided not to cover the roofs been fired? Who is that person? Why is there not a discussion about—

It was— my understanding is it was campus security, and it wasn't— now I understand the people blaming—

Wait, wait, wait. Charlie Kirk and TPUSA were paying for a top-notch security team that somehow allowed campus security to decide whether the roofs were covered?

Campus— one step above mall police. Campus security, one step above mall police.

I'm just double-checking if it was campus or city police. But that's where I say, like, yeah, that's where, again, if there's a cover-up or a failure to pursue, if it seems to me clear that if, if you accept the premise that it was a shot fired from the Losey roof, that that roof was deliberately left unsupervised, like they learned the wrong lesson from Butler, then I—

Yeah.

And then, you know, go right back to the beginning, Jimmy, when you say, how did Tyler Robinson, who's never been to the campus, know exactly where to go? And he went to that roof that he knew was unsecured. All of that is answered by the fact that there were people organizing this, facilitating this, and said, that roof will be unsecured and here's how you get on it. And whether it's Tyler or Lance or somebody else, that explains it away. That's not anomalous.

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-012

That's coherent at that point.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

I don't get this. The way this should have gone down, if Tyler Robinson was a crazed, trans-defending lone gunman, was he should have gone to campus with his weapon, he should have attempted to find a location from which to shoot Charlie, and he should have been apprehended in the process, right? And the story would have been, a gunman has been apprehended at a TPUSA event in Utah. 2 days later, nobody hears about it again. If this had been normal, that's what would have happened. So, the anomaly here is that a guy who hasn't been to this campus reasons his way onto a roof that happens not to be covered, from which the shot he intended to take is possible. He had— if he was the lone gunman, he had a stupid idea for how to commit this crime that happened to work because the people in charge of security were even stupider.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-070

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-012

↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-076

And by the way, I'm just double-checking in real time, so it seems that it was Kirk's team who was concerned about the roof, And it was local police that said the university's got it covered. And this is where, again, where people might— they might go from calling someone a conspiracy theorist to evil is when you say, well, that proves that Charlie's team was in on it in that, you know, they let it happen.

Nothing. As opposed to anything in my world, nothing proves anything here. Okay. Right. What it does is gives you a signal. Something odd happened with roofs. If Charlie's crack security team did not check up on the, hey, what do you mean the roofs are covered? In what way are they covered? Are all of them covered?

But I appreciate, at the end of the day, like, when you talk about the crime scene, you know, being chaotic, it is. At the end of the day, these are humans who are more or less competent. I often— I mean, I operate on the premise that Security is, is the illusion of safety. But you're dealing with people, and you're dealing with people who, you know, some— they're, they're— they make stupid decisions, and they're like, oh, okay, you got it covered, no problem. Oh, what's that? That roof is covered?

I, I don't, I don't think so. If somebody in the crowd had shot him, then we would be saying, well, okay, you can imagine that you either have to do one of two things. You either have to cordon off the area and only allow people in With a metal detector, and here's why they decided not to do that, because it's too cumbersome to do that at every event, and so the decision was made to take that risk and to keep your eye out for somebody with a weapon. Not covering roofs, A, it's not that hard to cover them, right? It takes a few people. B, it's an obvious vulnerability. C, if it wasn't obvious how obvious a vulnerability it is, then it sure was after Butler. 100%.

Yeah, but we all appreciate it.

Look, somebody should have been fired because it was their job, whether it was their job to make sure that the campus police or the city police had the roofs covered. If you're on security, you're not looking for, well, that's somebody else's problem if Charlie Kirk gets shot because they told me they have the roofs covered. The point is, it's my job to figure out whether the people who are in charge of that thing are doing it correctly.

You know, there's the old— I don't like the expression, but it's one that people say. Some women would rather be raped than rude. And so they don't want to say no to somebody. And then they put themselves in a vulnerable position and they end up getting assaulted. And had they just had the initial reflex to say, I'm going to trust my gut and be rude to this person and not roll down the window, not open the door, not let them get in the elevator, why didn't I listen to that? You know, this is where I'd say I have zero doubt that Charlie Kirk's security team are, you know, they feel responsible in that they say, okay, well, the police told me that they got the roof covered. And, you know, they say we can't fly our drones because of whatever. And I don't want to be rude and call them stupid and make them look like I don't trust them. And so we've done it 100 times and we've done it 100 times without it, without an incident. We'll just go with it. And then it happens. And now they're going to live with this for the rest of their lives. Same. And by the way, allowing that roof to be accessible, A, undermines the exploding microphone theory, and B, does emphasize a potential collusion. Like maybe there were activists at the university who didn't like Charlie and what he stood for and say, well, we'll leave that roof open and, you know, 1 in 100 times something will happen.

Right. But that, that, that is where the lack of an FBI comes into play.

1,000%. But, but that's where I just also just want to highlight, That's where saying that it's negligence on the security team, which I think most people will agree with, versus saying they were in on it from the beginning, it goes from conspiracy to evil accusations. Like whether or not you think it's negligence. And I'm sure they in retrospect think it's negligent, whether or not they should have gotten fired instead of promoted, whatever. To say that it's negligence versus they let it happen on purpose because they wanted to kill Charlie is where you go from imputing negligence to imputing ill intent. And that's where people can say that's no longer just asking questions, that's making the most insidious accusations and entering into the realm of evil.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-070

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-017

↳ evidence for the P10 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-086

Well, can I just say that their behavior is unbelievably suspicious? In fact, if you listen to the Charlie Harpo— I mean, Brian Harpo on Sean Ryan's, he said that they weren't allowed to have drone coverage. But if you listen to Frank Turek, he said, I'm watching the drone coverage on my phone.

But there was a conventional explanation to that. Well, again, whether or not you believe it, that they were told— my understanding, it was during the event you couldn't have drones, but you can get promotional material beforehand. That's my understanding, and I might be wrong. And again, I'm sure— yeah.

No, and then why wouldn't his security team allow an actual EMT person, which was standing right outside the SUV, to get in the SUV? They didn't allow them. They had Brian Harpo doing medical. And, uh, and Brian— and, and I don't know about you, but Brian Harpo comes off to me like a, uh, complete bullshitting used car salesman making stuff up as he goes. And, and the fact that he— and the fact He didn't have an— he's the head of security. He didn't have an ambulance there. They didn't allow the EMTs inside. And then he lied about it. He lied that they were too scared to come help. They're standing right there if you look at the video. And then he cuts the t-shirt off. He goes in and starts talking to the doctors about what kind of drugs do you— that guy is completely unreliable and completely suspect. So I have no problem with that. I'm saying Brian Harpole is completely suspect and should be a target of this investigation, and he's not.

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-089

Well, I mean, I don't know if we know that he wasn't a target initially, but suspect of egregious incompetence is one thing. Suspect of active involvement in the planning or allowing to happen is something entirely different. I have zero doubt after, after, after he gets murdered under their security watch, he'll be in full cover-up mode to make it look like it wasn't their responsibility, that it wasn't their negligence. And, you know, the thing about not having an ambulance— not having an ambulance at an event, forget Charlie Kirk, at an event with 3,000 people in the middle of summer itself is negligence. But negligence because of human incompetence, which if you scrutinized any crime scene ever in the history of whatever, you would find these types of elements, evidence of human incompetence, is far different than that which is required to substantiate some of these conspiracy theories that have been floated around. Zero problem saying it's wildly not just suspicious, inconceivable that they would not cover that roof after what happened at Butler.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-070

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-089

↳ evidence for the P10 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-086

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-033

↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-090

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession on the unsecured roof · Viva Frei

And so the reason why they could have— so you say that the fact that they didn't cover the roof negates the exploding microphone. I would say that that would be them, that this is what we're going to use, that someone did it here. So let's not cover it because that's going to be our story. And even though we're actually going to do it in a different way. So that would make sense because they would need a story, and the story was, oh, the roof wasn't covered and that's where the shot was taken. And if— and, and again, you go back to Joe Kent, the fact that he was stopped by the head of the FBI, who does— has no interest in investigating this— he'd stop someone who wanted to, who was at the top, tippy top of government investigating stuff like this, proves that there is, to me, proves that there is a cover-up happening.

Well, hold on. The thing you said right before that, before—

Oh, they would leave the roof open. Well, no, but just as you said before, they would want to have a story.

No, but the reality is the day of, we were all watching virtually live. People turned their heads to the roof. There was a noise that came from the roof. And now if the argument is going to be it was a noise as the decoy to distract from the fact that there was an exploding microphone, You're getting into levels of not just complexity but implausibility that defy any reason if all they ever had to do was have someone on a roof to take the shot. When it comes to Joe Kent— and this is— oh, sorry, go for it, Jimmy.

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-057

No, but there was another, uh, there's been reports that there was another shooter, that people had seen another person on another building, and they also found a bullet on another building. And then they also—

so There's that. Yeah. Well, and to just— first of all, there's always— and I'm not trying to be glib or facetious— there's always another— those things of another shooter. There was another one at Butler where they said there was another guy on the tower, the water tower further down. There's always people saying there were more than one shooters because people are hearing bullets echo. Sometimes there is more than one shooter.

There was a bullet found. Yeah.

And it was a different type of bullet. And this is where people say they don't believe the conventional explanation that it's It, you know, it came up, it somehow fell off or out of a cop's gun. I forget who it was. Yeah. And I appreciate people like, that's ridiculous. That never happens. Like, oh, the cop who shot Ashli Byrd forgot his gun in the bathroom at the Capitol building when he went to the bathroom. So cops do— again, they do stupid things. But then even if you say like, okay, that is weird, where do you go from there? So it was then a different round of a bullet from a different roof, even though you don't have that angle.

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-097

↳ evidence for the P21 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-098

Different round.

I think it was a .223, if I'm not— if my memory is correct, that it was a .223 round, which is what police typically use, found on the roof of another building, not the Lozi building.

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-097

Unfired.

Unfired. It was just— it was an entire whole bullet. And a guy named Kyle Serafin, who's an ex-FBI, you know, he explained, like, people do— cops do a lot of stupid things sometimes. You know, it, it literally fall— it falls out if you drop here, whatever. There's a thousand reasons or possibilities. But then you just say, even if it is weird, how does it fit into the whole thing?

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-097

↳ evidence for the P21 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-098

So let's, let's put that aside for a moment. I want to talk a little bit about the, um, .30-06 hypothesis of the crime here. I think we fall into— there's a thing, I'll try to recreate it, called the I think it's the prosecutor's fallacy. And basically, it looks like this. A person, their DNA matches the DNA on a weapon that has been used in a murder. And the prosecutor says the chances of this DNA matching are a million to one. And the person is convicted. The problem is, if there's no other evidence that the person committed the crime, then the fact that you found a person whose DNA matches the weapon means nothing, because there are people in the population for whom it will match. On the other hand, if the person is seen running from the crime, and then you take their DNA, and it matches, then the chances are 1 in a million that the chances of the person seen running from the crime would happen to match the DNA found on the weapon. Etc. So, I want to point to an analogous problem. We have a shot that many people have tried to recreate and failed. The .30-06 that leaves an entrance wound and no exit wound, shot at that angle into Charlie, has been very difficult for anybody to recreate.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-024

Right.

Which raises a question. Now, the answer to that question is typically given, hey, bullets do odd things. I agree, they do. But they don't usually do odd things. And I think the way to look at this is, oh no, we've had a tremendously impactful political assassination from a single shot. I wonder if the ballistics on this one are going to end up inconclusive and/or magic bullet-like, right? That the bullet is going to have done things that, yeah, maybe occasionally a bullet does, but what are the chances in this case that you would have—

50/50.

A bullet behaving in an extremely unusual way, breaking up in an unusual way, not leaving an exit wound, et cetera. So I must tell you, of the pieces of evidence that I think Yeah. Our strongest is that the shot in question is exceedingly unlikely to have created the pattern of evidence that has been recovered from the body. So what does that mean? That's the question as far as I'm concerned. The .30-06, maybe there's some 1 in 10,000 chance of the bullet having behaved in a almost unprecedented way that nobody can manage to recreate, no matter how many times they try. But if you were gonna ask me at the moment of the crime, right, okay, Charlie Kirk has just been shot, there was a single shot fired, I should have said at that point, I predict the ballistics will be anomalous, right? That is an interesting pattern to me. So, Then there's the question, okay, so people go from .30-06 didn't do this to exploding mic. I think that's an error on their part. I think the— actually, I'm fond of Chris Martenson's analysis that says that the trajectory of the shot is wrong.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-012

Yes.

I think that's highly likely.

Yes.

And maybe it wasn't a .30-06, that it was fired at a much steeper angle.

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-109

Yes, like from a drone.

Well, and this is the thing, we are not talking—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Jimmy Dore

John Colton has evidence of drones flying over that.

Right. And so here's— I don't understand why we're not having a broader conversation about this. Not only do you have drones that do not appear to be like consumer drones flying over the event, these appear to be very expensive, sophisticated drones, but you also have a known weapons system that involves armable drones and the ability to deploy them from an aerial platform, where you have an aerial platform, for whatever reason, behaving anomalously over the lake adjacent to UVU. I'm not saying— I'm no expert in this, but it does strike me that the right thing to be doing, like, were we to have an FBI, and were they to be actually interested in solving this crime, that they would be interested in the question of, okay, here's one for you. We all agree that there were drones. In fact, I think in the preliminary hearing, the drones were even acknowledged. There were drones. What did they see? Maybe they have better images of people on the roofs. We could tell whether it was Tyler Robinson on the roof or not, right? But instead, It's like drones are barely mentioned, if at all. The specialness of these drones is not discussed.

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-109

↳ evidence for the P28 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-189

I'm not sure the drone stuff is— I don't want to make— I'm not sure that the drones, non-media or non-involved drones, were flying in the air. So I'm not sure that that's—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Bret Weinstein

Wait, wait, wait, wait. What aren't you sure of?

That there were other drones in the sky. I'm just checking as we're going.

Other than—

no, no, like, that's just the, the answer is, I mean, just, I'm just— summary Google search, uh, no reports of drones, of any non-media drones, security, police, private flying over Utah Valley, uh, the day Charlie Kirk was killed. Okay, so I'm not sure about that.

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-118

But so, so, David, what would it do to your perspective if you saw compelling evidence that there were drones in the air at the moment of Charlie's—

What, what type? I mean, again, it'll be what type of drones? The DJI Phantoms?

How about drones that exceed the capacity of consumer drones?

Well, they're— it would be relevant if it was anything other than— if it was anything that could reasonably fire a weapon. I mean, you have drones that can hold DSLR cameras and they're there for production purposes.

Drones exist and are for sale today, if my understanding is correct, that can fire Oh yeah, no, I see.

There was the video. The guy got in trouble because he posted a video of him, how he tied it. He managed to hook up a gun to it. This isn't to manage.

This is military weaponry that will hold, I think it's a 7.62 firing weapon, a rifle, which, you know, I'm not saying that's what happened, but I am saying what What is conspicuous to me is that I believe I have seen compelling evidence that there were drones in the air. I believe I have seen compelling evidence that those drones moved in a way that is inconsistent with consumer drones.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-117

Yes.

And I know that there are drones available that can wield a rifle that could plausibly have committed this crime, and that were they to have been used, you would get a much steeper angle Yes. That you wouldn't have the anomaly of this incredibly powerful round entering Charlie's neck and not coming out the other side.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-117

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-109

And there was a military plane that we now know indisputably flew, the kind of plane that would have those kind of drones on them, dipped down to 200 feet above Provo, Utah. And so people are making—

Twice.

Twice.

Twice. And the explanation for it Not impossible, but the explanation for it, if I understand John Cullen's work correctly, is 2 missed landings. So you understand, Vivo, what the hypothesis is here.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-117

If— look, because I'm just— I'm trying to double-check, just as a matter of fact, if there was confirmation of military drones in the in the sky. If it, if it were, I would— it would certainly be something that you'd think about. It wouldn't necessarily even— on the one hand, it would confirm a shot and not an exploding mic. And then, you know, who else it would implicate, there would be no problem denying as a matter of fact that that would be, uh, that would be peculiar if it were proven to be true. So I, I just want to— I, I'd love to get clear. I mean, I, that—

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-118

I'm not telling you, uh, when you say conclusive, I'm imagining that conclusive is a bar that is, by design, going to be almost impossible to meet. No, I'm saying— I'll go with credible. Persuasive evidence. I believe that there is persuasive evidence of drones in the air, that they do not appear to be consumer drones, and that, you know, what do I know about how often Planes descend to 200 feet over Lake Utah twice.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-117

Twice.

I don't know. Maybe that's a common behavior. Maybe I don't understand. Somebody's being trained. I don't know what it is, but it does at least create a hypothesis of the crime that you would imagine a functional FBI would rule out.

+3 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty on the plane passes · Bret Weinstein

I, I, it would be better— these claims, these 2 particular claims seem to be more unverified than verified or even credible at this point. But I think everyone would agree, yes, if there were military drones in the sky at the time, at or about the time of the shooting, uh, people would have legitimate questions to ask. I mean, that's— then it's just a question of establishing whether or not the fact is true or the allegation is credible.

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-200

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-118

+4.5 C-2.1 · Common ground on investigating confirmed drones · Viva Frei

Okay, I'm satisfied with that.

There was one other thing which I was going to suggest.

Well, the one guy who could have probably figured that out was Joe Kent, and he was stopped from investigating that by—

Well, that's That's exactly what— sorry, Jimmy, that's what I was going to come back to. This is where I believe Joe Kent. The internet is so wild where I say I just want to know if Joe Kent actually told Candace Owens that there were 12 Israeli cell phones or cell phones from Israel detected on the ground. I just want to know if it's true because I've never heard Joe Kent say it. I've never heard anybody say it other than Candace. And I don't think there's any confirmation that there were 12 cell phones on the ground, even if that would be anomalous to the extent there's probably 20 Chinese students with cell phones on the ground. But when it comes to the shutting down of, you know, Joe Kent allegedly requesting Kash Patel to investigate a foreign nexus and Kash Patel saying no, and then everyone's like, there, that's your evidence of foreign nexus. And I go one step further. If there's no foreign nexus, but potentially the same type of domestic nexus that we've seen with Gretchen Whitmer, January 6th, possibly with, with Thomas Crooks, you don't want to be investigating for a foreign nexus if it's going to reveal a domestic nexus. Or even the mere fact possibility that there were agents, CHS's, you know, assets involved in any of these Discord chats that failed to intervene, just like they failed to intervene in, uh, that Drom Muhammad context in— what was it? It was in Texas. I'd say Garland, but wherever you were, you knew that you had FBI agents tracking the terrorists before they, you know, while they were en route to do their terrorism. People jump on the foreign nexus and don't necessarily appreciate If hypothetically you discovered— and this is where I say, this is where I think there could legitimately be a very real cover-up— that there were online Discord groups, chats, whatever, and that there were elements within their domestic radicalizing people, and then one of them happens to go and kill Charlie Kirk, that's where I can understand that it would be very suspicious if what Joe Kent is saying— and I do believe Joe Kent, I, I, I've met him, I know him, I've had him on the channel a couple times— I think he's entirely credible. Whether or not he's too conspiratorial, I'd have zero trouble believing that. And that's where some transparency from the FBI in terms of what they did and did not do would be more than welcome. Above and beyond washing their hands and saying, well, we've given it to our state partners and we'll offer them whatever assistance. I want to know, did they investigate, identify, and clear each and every person who was involved in any online Discord group chat, whatever the hell, either with Tyler Robinson or Lance Twitch? And we haven't had a confirmation on that. So again, yeah, it's just that people jump to the Israel nexus based on that when it could just as easily point to something much less exotic and much more plausible.

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-042

What would be a legitimate reason for Kash Patel stopping Jill Kent from investigating a foreign involvement? Because if he did, he would have investigated those drones and he could have said, oh, these are domestic or these are foreign or these came from there or from whatever. And but he stopped that.

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-042

So, well, we said—

There's no legitimate reason for him to do that. Can you think of a legitimate reason?

+6 C-3.1 · Direct answer on Kash Patel · Viva Frei

No, I can't think of a legitimate reason. I can only think of an alternative explanation, which is they're telling Joe Kent, bug out, we're doing our investigation and we'll cover what needs to be done here. And we don't need you. You know, we don't want you around here. I don't know if he was on the outs at that time with the administration, but I can imagine them saying, bugger off, Joe, and we're doing our own investigation, which I suspect is going to be their explanation.

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-042

↳ evidence for the P13 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-146

Yeah, it's a weak explanation.

Oh, it's entirely weak.

Yeah. Why wouldn't you want all the help you could get?

Well, not just that. And to provide clarity after the fact. Like, again, there's— forget foreign involvement, because until you have the slightest shred of evidence that there was, the basic confirmation— have they verified, investigated, and cleared everybody involved in those Discord chats other than the sweeping, like, oh, yeah, it's all fine? Or I don't even think they've said that. But again, legit. I mean, I'm not saying— I don't believe that if Tyler Robinson did this, that he acted alone, because I think there's, there's solid evidence of anomalies in terms of unsecured roof assurances that it was secured, that, that parallel the what I believe was a Lee hop or a me hop of Butler, and that they didn't learn those lessons. What was it, barely not even a year later, a little over a year later? That's where you think like maybe they learned the wrong lessons from it. So that easy.

↳ evidence for the P23 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-165

↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-076

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession that Robinson did not act alone · Viva Frei

Yeah, I don't think these are lessons not learned. I think these are intentional acts. It was intentional that they didn't monitor that Butler roof. In fact, people again in the crowd saw the guy up there. Who didn't see him up there was the Secret Service, was the state police, was the local police, was the security. Nobody saw him except people did see him. And then the cops said they saw him 3 times in Butler. This is going back to Butler. They saw him 3 times inside a secured area with a backpack and a scope. And they asked, well, what did you do when you saw him? The cops said, oh, he just disappeared each time. He disappeared. Like, you mean, you mean like—

And they let— and, and they let Trump take the stage. No, that is where, you know, these anomalies are just—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Jimmy Dore

it's impossible that you could have this many anomalies without a cover-up and a conspiracy.

↳ evidence for the P22 verdict on Jimmy Dore · ruling prints at U-164

No, it's— it's— again, like, I—

And they shut down that investigation, too, under the idea. And the reason is like, oh, they think it was Iran. He was told that they thought it was Iran. They wanted to put Iran was behind that assassination. And I'm like, well, if you thought it was Iran and not, say, let's say Israel, why would you want to shut down the investment? Wouldn't you want to prove conclusively that it was Iran who was trying to do that? So that also doesn't— so these things, none of these things make sense even in a little bit.

No, I can't disagree with that because I do think that the roof was yet again unsecured, that there were people posting that something big is going to happen beforehand, none of which points to Israel. And I— and it's not for any preference. I mean, I'm, I'm more critical of Israel than most people. Just like you, you might want to believe something and then you have to ask yourself even more questions to substantiate what you want to believe if it fits what you do want to believe. But the advanced indications of foreknowledge were among these LGBT or whatever communities, uh, chat groups. And so then the question then becomes How did people have advance notice? Or are these just the standard signals that you get before any big event? And people always joke about, you know, being Clintoned or whatever. But that's why I sincerely think a lot of these, these more outlandish conspiracy theories give the administration all the justification they want to not address any of the totally legitimate questions that have yet been answered. How the hell did people have advance knowledge?

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession on foreknowledge and roof · Viva Frei

Let me say, I've been watching this conspiracy space for decades. There obviously have been quite a number of conspiratorial events where conspiracy hypotheses were initially dismissed, and then over time it becomes clear that the anomalies are actually telling you something. I've come to believe that, A, I believe that the deep state exists, that it functions with impunity inside of our borders, that there are crimes that it can commit and be certain that it will not be held responsible for in any official way, and that that requires certain things like the hobbling of the FBI, or I don't know if hobbling is even the right way to describe it, but the idea that a crime will never be properly—

↳ P26 raised again here · first raised at U-043

↳ evidence for the P13 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-209

Investigated.

investigated, that certain crimes are effectively untouchable. And that I believe that the folks who engage in this behavior have come to understand that they were too focused on committing perfect crimes that couldn't be detected, which never works out, and that what we are effectively now seeing is Crimes are committed, and then the battle takes place in the investigation space, in the online discussion space, that basically we can see that something has happened here. All 3 of us see too many anomalies in this case to think that the simple explanation is a lone gunman angry at Charlie Kirk over LGBTQ stuff.

Yeah.

So the point is, I don't know if retcon is the right descriptor, retroactive continuity, but the idea that the crime is committed, certain things don't add up, but that can all be cleaned up in the discussion space. We can demonize people who are too focused on important elements, we can promote elements that aren't real, and fall apart on scrutiny, and my sense is that Tyler Robinson's going to be convicted, right?

He's going to be convicted, even though the basis for reasonable doubt could be easily found if his defense was dedicated, well-resourced, and So can I just also make a quick point that it's like if we were just arguing over the roof, or we were just arguing over the 30-06, or we were just arguing over no ambulance and what happened in that SUV and the fact that it was scrubbed and sold, or if we were just arguing over the paving over the crime scene, or if we were just arguing over the contradictory drone thing or the new drone, if we were just arguing But it's no matter where you point your eyes in this case, there's a million anomalies, no matter what part of it, right? So if it was just one part and you got, we can't explain this thing, or we can't explain that one thing, or we can't, or there's no thing that— no matter where you point your eyes, there's, uh, I have evidence of a cover-up and, uh, and the opposite, uh, evidence of the way the narrative is, is put forth by the establishment. So no matter where you point your eyes, there's a million anomalies and things that don't make sense. actually point towards a conspiracy and that it was not Tyler Robinson?

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-155

↳ evidence for the P24 verdict on Jimmy Dore · ruling prints at U-155

Well, that's where you're making one, one big, big-ass leap. I mean, first of all, there, there will always be anomalies when you scrutinize any crime scene, period. So like, you'll always find anomalies, especially if you operate from the basis that I don't trust anything they say, and so I'm going to go and scrutinize O.J. Simpson's prosecution even though I think he's guilty. And you'll still find anomalies, and they might have actually Or at least there is hard evidence they framed what might have been a guilty man and allowed him to get off. But, you know, to both of these points, the theory of the case is that Tyler took the shot. I guess the official narrative is he took it alone. And I think that's where most people will say, you know, I don't— if he took the shot, I don't believe he took it alone. I could be open to the idea that it was Lance Twigs on the roof or somebody else. But You know, the theory is to get past the he was shot from the roof, people hang their hats on a .30-06 doesn't behave that way. And I want to come back to this, Brett, because you mentioned it earlier, that the bullet broke up in an anomalous way. The argument is that it didn't. The argument now that we know that it was a core-locked Remington, which are known for fragmenting badly, which is why people don't use them to hunt, because you don't want to be picking out, you know, fragments of metal.

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-092

↳ evidence for the P22 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-025

Yeah.

So the argument is that it didn't actually fragment in a totally anomalous way. And I appreciate Rob O'Neill, the guy who killed bin Laden. It's like he thinks now he might be the authority as to how bullets behave because he's killed, you know, however many people. It's sort of like Jeffrey Dahmer becoming an authority on chefs because he's eaten, you know, several humans. It's— first of all, even when he said that, he was still parroting Candace Owens' talking points and literally referencing her. So— and he's, you know, refused to elaborate or go anywhere to have a fleshed-out meaningful discussion and has actually walked it back and said, look, it's just— I'm just saying based on the video, it didn't look like, you know, bullets operate that way. When there are people who hunt for years and you can go back, Brett, this way, you know, when you said it's anomalous that a .30-06 does this, it's not. You have Martin Luther King who got shot in the face and it hit his chinbone. And then people say, okay, well, it hit his chinbone, so that's a stronger bone. Then you've got another guy, forget who it was, gets shot. There's a documented case Then Cernovich goes and looks back in history at Reddit boards where they talk about hunting and how the bullet didn't exit the animal. And then people have to pivot, okay, well, now it's a deer, they have thicker skin and yada, yada, yada. My argument is I don't know how bullets typically behave and I know that all bullets don't behave the same way. I know that there are a lot of people with tremendous hunting experience who say, This happens— whether or not it's more often than not, it's not anomalous for it to happen in the first place.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-012

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-165

It's not impossible is what it is.

No, but it's not even unlikely.

No, no, I think it's unlikely. And I think the point is, the bullets typically behave typically. This one behaved atypically. And the question is, putting bounds on how unusual this was, is important in determining whether or not the official theory of the crime is likely to be accurate.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-012

A, typically, and again, we're within realms, 15% of the time, whatever. When people said a bullet never does this, and then you bring up the Martin Luther King, and then they say, oh, well, they say one of two things, by the way, and this is how you know you're trying to pin an egg to a wall. They say, oh, well, that hit him in the jawbone, so that's a different type of bone. Or they literally say to me, You believe the official narrative with Martin Luther King as well. He wasn't shot with a .30-06 either. And so my bottom line is I'm not a ballistics expert at all. I've listened to experts on both sides. I've listened to Chris Martinson. I had him on the channel and he made what I think was the biggest concession ever, which is, I said, he says hypothetically, you know, it could have been a fouled round if the rifle hadn't been properly maintained, had a fouled bore, as they said, and the bullet was tumbling. As you know, I was like, we're talking about a 100-year-old rifle. Now we know it's with pretty crappy Remington Core-Lokt.

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-165

+3 C-4.1 · Acknowledged he lacks ballistics expertise · Viva Frei

But they can't connect that rifle to the bullet.

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-061

Well, but they— but no, nor can they. It was— first of all, it's already been fired. Well, that, that's a big leap.

And they very rarely— just— okay, I'm sorry, I don't want to interrupt.

No, no, just say like, they did not match— they, they could not match the bullet to the rifle. That's the case in, in the majority of gun crimes, from what I understand. So that's not anomalous So long as they didn't definitively not identify it. And again, I appreciate the balance of, you know, the beyond a reasonable doubt. More often than not, they can't trace the bullet because it doesn't have the fingerprint of the barrel, you know, marks and whatever. So more often than not, they can't. That doesn't mean that it didn't come from a rifle. It didn't mean it didn't come from that one. And in as much as I say, like, you know, you have experts, people who have done this their entire lives saying it's not possible and others saying it's entirely reasonable. And I say, like, you know, I've been a lawyer. I was a lawyer for 13 years. When you have 2 experts and one saying it's impossible, the other one saying it's entirely possible, albeit less likely than than than than not, or less likely than the alternative. I mean, a judge is going to come and say, "Well, I don't know which expert to believe anymore," but I'm I'm satisfied in thinking it's not impossible if a number of experts say it's possible, and you have a history of people on Reddit subreddits saying, "I shot a deer and the bullet didn't come out." A .30-06.

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-061

↳ evidence for the P29 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-173

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-165

I don't think possible is the correct metric.

Right.

Okay? Possible, yes. Bullets do very anomalous things, but they don't usually. The effort that has been put into recreating this shot is substantial. They don't typically do this. Is that decisive in and of itself? Of course not. But it's not the only anomaly. As Jimmy points This feels like a Potemkin explanation.

↳ evidence for the P24 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-170

Yes.

Where if you look where they tell you to look, they've got an explanation for each thing. Here's where he was at this moment. Here's how he got there. Here's where he assembled the rifle. If you look only where they ask you to look, it makes sense. If you look anywhere else, it looks like a set, right? You're backstage, you're looking at scaffolding, the building isn't building— isn't a building, It's, you know, only a front wall. And at the same moment, we lack the investigatory apparatus that you would expect to be looking at all of those anomalies. And if all of those anomalies are just the normal anomalies that would accompany any complicated environment, then they can all be ruled out. But we have too many anomalies here for that to make sense, right?

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-155

↳ evidence for the P24 verdict on Bret Weinstein · ruling prints at U-170

Well, but hold on. But you're confounding Anomalies overall versus anomalies for the cause of death. I mean, we're talking about one thing right now. The other anomalies would explain the cause of death. But when we're talking about whether or not it was a bullet to the neck, I'm not convinced that there are that many anomalies other than people saying a .30-06 doesn't behave that way.

Hold on. Bullet to the neck is consistent with the drone-based explanation. Right. And what it changes is the angle.

That's right.

No, but I agree. So then we're— then the— what I'm saying is the anomalous thing is not the bullet to the neck. Now you're saying, well, it wasn't a .30-06, it was a .223 from a drone. Just entertaining your theory.

Not a .223.

Or another bullet. But then what? Then in all of this masterclass of a conspiracy, they used the wrong bullet in the rifle to match what would happen to the neck?

Well, I have to tell you, this is one of the things that troubles me is is to the extent that you have a conspiratorial explanation, it's weird that certain things that should be easy to have conspired to make sure they agreed don't seem to.

+3 C-1.2 · Owned a weakness in his own preferred hypothesis · Bret Weinstein

Correct.

That's one of the things that bugs me about the whole space, is that the official narrative doesn't add up to me in light of the anomalies, and the anomalies don't paint a clear picture of— if he was going to be a patsy, you should at least have the correct weapon involved in the crime, and you suspiciously don't. So I have the sense that something always fails to go right and then gets taken care of in the retroactive continuity phase where to the extent that you can dissuade people to look at things that aren't real, you dissuade them. And to the extent that people insist on looking at things that are real, you demonize them, something like that.

So just getting back to what you said earlier, the angle doesn't match up from the Losi Building. And so there's that. That lends to being from a drone if it was a bullet. Also, I saw testimony— I could be interpreting it incorrectly— but I saw the testimony of the bullet. She said that there were 8 fragments, one got lost, they could only really use 4. And she talked about how the fragments didn't match up to a .30-06 bullet, that the size of it— I saw Baron Coleman break this down. And so So there's that. That's against it being a .30-06. But also, correct me if I'm wrong, they were trying to push the narrative that it was a frangible bullet. Now we know it wasn't. And now they're saying it was a soft tip, which to an amateur, that sounds like, oh, it's soft, so it probably would break up. It's the exact opposite. A soft tip bullet is actually there to make a bigger explosion inside the neck, which would lend it to— it would actually blown a drive-through window in the back of his neck, and it didn't. So the, the fact that— so correct me if— go ahead, take it wherever you want.

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-109

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-061

Well, I, I, look, my understanding— I had on Phoenix Ammunition, and then people are going to say, well, he's a biased source and what does he know, he just repurposes ammunition. The Core-Lokt is supposed to mushroom on impact, and it's supposed to slow down, slow down quickly. But mushroom is, is the expansion. And so, and the one thing from what I've been told about these bullets is that they're they're not good. And so instead of mushrooming, they do oftentimes break up. But I don't think there's any— I mean, again, if you— the idea that the angle is off is the conspiracy theory to get away from the fact that the bullet came from the Lozi roof. And the sequence of thought that you have to go through to do that is to say, yeah, people heard the shot come from the Lozi roof. I was watching people livestreaming. They immediately panned right over to the roof. roof. Uh, other people misidentified because there's echo. So you say the people who misheard that, the shot had to— that had to have been the decoy so that it came from another spot at a different angle, uh, in which case he was still shot. Um, and then, you know, it couldn't have come from the .30-06 rifle because those bullets never behave that way. Like, again, if there were— the, the bullet breaking up and not being able to be traced to the rifle is different than saying it was not a .30-06. And I think it's the former, not the latter.

↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-010

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-109

Jimmy.

And if it were the latter, you know, people would be singing, screaming at the top of their lungs in defense because it would be kind of a big deal. What it said— the Daily Mail mischaracterized it. It said they cannot trace it to the bullet, but that's the case in the majority of these types of incidents.

↳ evidence for the P29 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-173

Yeah, I take that as not a significant anomaly. The fact that you can't positively match it to the gun doesn't necessarily mean anything to And I think that was overly focused on because, as I pointed out earlier, those who are exploring conspiracies tend to take anything that leans in their direction and credit it as true and important where some of it just isn't.

+3 C-1.2 · Conceded a conspiracy-favorable anomaly is not significant · Bret Weinstein

I would like to talk a little bit about how the people at TPUSA have completely flipped on Charlie Kirk's narrative about everything and have pretended that that he would support the Iran War to that extent. And so, and they have, as he was moving away from supporting Israel and Zionism and he was gladly, or not gladly, but he was willing and actively doing it, letting his Zionist donors go away, they just flipped and they became 100% Zionist organization and are lying about his record. And they're caught lying about so many things to the point where Blake Neftak can't even tell you where he was that day when they got off the plane and where he was for hours and hours when Charlie was doing his interview in Salt Lake City. And then he lied about where he was that night. And now we have the, the lady who gave the camera the, the video of what was supposed to be Tyler Robinson's Dodge Challenger. She said the person inside it was a bald-headed guy with 3 other people. So they're just, they're just lying constantly. And again, that goes to that they're complicit in the cover-up.

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-012

Well, I will say I've been surprised to see what looks like a 175-degree change of course from where I think Charlie was. And I know because I interacted with Charlie over the question of the Iran War, which he was, of course, dead set against, and he was in the president's ear. He told me he spent 2 full days at the White House trying to persuade the president not to attack Iran. And what I— I don't know what to make of what TPUSA is doing, nor do I follow them particularly, but it does look to me like Charlie was headed one way and TPUSA is now headed almost the inverse direction. And that could mean anything, but it does go— it speaks to the fact that Charlie's death was an important historical event, because Charlie had the ear of young conservatives. He was obviously a powerhouse with respect to his ability to persuade. He was He was very decent to people. His campus events, he was very pointed in his critiques of other people, but he was very decent to them personally. And to see his absence, and we just don't have a replacement for Charlie.

↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-198

There won't be a replacement. And I mean, I said it back in the day, But this was a preemptive presidential assassination. And I appreciate what Jimmy's saying in that people, first of all, people lie. Like, just, okay, people lie sometimes for no better reason, sometimes to protect themselves, sometimes to protect others. They lie after the fact. They lie when they don't have to. The fact that people lied about the text messages where Charlie was expressing frustration with donors and expressing the need to turn his back or, you know, to change his views on Israel. I— to come to the conclusion that that's evidence that Israel killed him, as opposed to that's evidence that TPUSA doesn't want to tarnish his reputation after he's dead and can no longer defend himself. I mean, that's where you get your motivated reasoning to come to the— what I would call the wildly more outlandish and as of yet unsubstantiated theory, as opposed to the more likely one, which is Yeah, they knew that this would be embarrassing to that Charlie was talking like this in text messages, and they and they didn't want it to come to light. And you know that that people say well he was against the the war in Iran, and now that the war in Iran took off after he was killed, that's evidence that he was killed so that the war could occur. I mean again, it's arguing from the conclusion and not towards it, while also ignoring the exact same analogous argument, which is he was very critical of the trans two s lgbtqia plus community. He had had threats of violence repeatedly in the past. We've lived in the last few years of acts of shootings from, you know, trans shooters. And so it's because we ended up going to war with Iran. That's the evidence that he was killed because of his opposition to the war in Iran versus that exact rationale applies with the evidence that we have, or at least prima facie of those who look like they were involved. So it's, again, it's when you want to come to the conclusion, you'll come there if it means treating certain set of facts differently than others and preferring those that you do. do. But yeah, they— once he's— once he's dead and once that element of opposition to the war in Iran is out, don't exploit— don't expect them not to exploit that tragedy. And I say them being an administration, not TPUSA. TPUSA, I think, now is just going to go with the political flow.

↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-198

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-195

Well, okay, look, obviously the war in Iran isn't evidence in Classic sense. But if you play through, just never mind the particulars of the crime. Charlie Kirk is dead set against a war in Iran. I believe that was a very wise position of his. And in fact, that was the substance of our exchange, is we were in agreement that this must be avoided at all costs because it's a disastrous mistake. After he's killed, the very war that he wished to prevent happens. And what we don't have is how would Charlie have reacted to the war as it was occurring, and what would have happened to the vast number of young conservatives who were paying attention to Charlie? in light of what he would likely have said about this disastrous mistake? Obviously, we don't know, but I think the point is that is not insubstantial. At the level of means, motive, and opportunity, there's a motive. Now, the fact is lots of people have motives to commit lots of crimes and don't commit them, so the fact that somebody has a motive is not evidence that a crime was committed, But that's where it sits for me is I know that the war with Iran has long been desired by neocons at the very least. They got their war in spite of the fact that the American public did not want it, and Charlie Kirk had a disproportionate influence over a large, important constituency that constituency is now in the hands of folks who are much more supportive of this policy.

+3 C-1.2 · Conceded motive is not evidence · Bret Weinstein

There is a recording of Charlie Kirk from May, I think it's May of 2025, where he was asked about who he feared killing him. And he said, I don't fear the leftists. I don't fear some purple-haired person on campus. We always get these threats. He said, who I fear is the people who I have a relationship with. So he's basically saying he's people that are inside his sphere, insiders. That's who he really feared. He also had, uh, wanted an accounting because there's all kinds of financial chicanery. If you watch Wolves of Wall Street, who has delineated this down to the button, uh, that there was all kinds of financial chicanery happening inside TPUSA that Charlie, it's like he was just waking up that he was living in a Truman Show. And so he had ordered a DOJ-style accounting, which hasn't happened after, since his death, and no one cares. And so those people have a lot, the people who who are implicated in that have a lot of reason to go along with this cover-up and had a lot of— so there's— and people are just ignoring all that. So, and it, it, it follows. I mean, Israel has— and, uh, it's not a crazy conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy theory. It's not crazy because they have a history of assassinations. They brag about it. And he was the one guy that was standing in the way. Tucker Carlson also said that he was the first casualty of the Iran War. He was standing in the way and they had to get rid of him. In fact, they tried to bribe him. They tried to give him $150 million to change course. He wouldn't change course. He was— they— a lot of people said he was more important than the RNC, the TPUSA under Charlie Kirk. So they knew he was a huge problem. And what do they do with huge problems? They assassinate them. And so that, that makes sense, that it's not— again, it's a conspiracy theory. It's not a crazy conspiracy theory. In fact, it makes sense.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-057

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-195

Well, it makes sense except for that lack of thing called any evidence whatsoever to substantiate it other than your underlying, they had, this could have been their rationale if they wanted to. You just don't have, there is not any evidence to substantiate that they did, period.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-057

↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-197

Well, there's evidence that they stopped the investigation into it. There's evidence that Biden-controlled White House and FBI stopped the investigation into it. So there's evidence of that.

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-042

↳ evidence for the P25 verdict on Jimmy Dore · ruling prints at U-199

Well, the evidence is that Joe Kent says Patel did. The evidence is not, I mean, I don't think they've carried out. I don't know what the extent of the investigation they've carried out is. The evidence is not that they didn't. The evidence is that Joe Kent said that they were not going to.

No, that they stopped him.

No, they stopped him.

He's the head of counterterrorism.

No, no, I appreciate that. But the evidence is not that they didn't look into it. The evidence is that Joe Kent was told— had his investigation shut down. And then the only question is whether or not the FBI did any investigation and whether or not anyone's going to rely on whatever findings that they produced from their investigation. But again, nobody's, nobody's denying the fact that we have not had sufficient answers in terms of the scope of the investigation into the other people who may or may not have been involved. But everything you said, okay, so it's that he said he was not nervous about the trans community killing. That's factually, I think it's a factually incorrect and also just contradicted by the security at all of these events. He wasn't having the security to protect from Israelis. He was having security to prevent from trans activists who resort to violence, as in the question that he was answering when he was actually killed, Jimmy. So I agree, like, you can build the theory. Well, you just, you just don't have any evidence. There is no evidence yet to substantiate it other than the absence of evidence.

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-200

↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-197

Well, there is the— that guy Harrison who tweeted. He said that Charlie said that Israel will kill him if he turns against them. He did turn against them. He did turn down. And then also that he said, I'm afraid they're going to kill Didn't he also text that? I'm afraid I didn't say who they were, but he would— there is video and audio of him saying he didn't think it was going to be leftists.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-057

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-199

↳ evidence for the P25 verdict on Jimmy Dore · ruling prints at U-199

Well, I mean, first of all, he obviously thought leftists would have been the problem because, A, he got the security at all of these events, which were leftist events, and B, he was answering a question on trans gun violence when he was killed. Now, they're going to kill me is also like, you know, how many times have people said, I'm going to kill— I won't feel like killing my kids or whatever. clear. I appreciate he said it. And then, so he said it. Then it's a question of who's the they? Was it a metaphorical or a physical kill? Like, they're going to kill me if I abandon this cause?

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-199

↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-197

↳ evidence for the P19 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-206

No, I think the clip is pretty clear that he's talking about what he fears, not in terms of blowback, but in terms of for his life. I think I would have to look at the clip again, but I'm pretty sure it's clear. Obviously, it's not evidence, But I will tell you, if somebody says, I fear for my life, and then they're murdered, I'm very interested in who it was they were afraid of. It's not evidence, but it is a pattern worth paying attention to. I do think it is important because this is— because the question of Israeli involvement has been raised. If you say the Americans attacked Iran, I have the sense of, well, wait a minute. Not only did I not support this, but I don't think a majority of my countrymen supported this. I think a power structure that acts in spite of the will of the American people did this. And I think the same thing. is true of Israel, and I think that we have to think of it in those terms. In other words, I see my country as controlled by a de facto mafia, basically an organized crime syndicate. I think the same thing is true of Israel. I think Charlie was concerned about it. If you go back and you look at What he said on the Patrick Bet-David podcast about October 7th, his concerns that that story was not an accurate rendering of how the attack came to be. So let's just say, I don't want— this is obviously very dangerous territory. I don't want to accuse a nation full of people that clearly had nothing to do with the murder of Charlie Kirk of even being on the list of potential suspects. But I do have concerns that something controls Israel, something controls the US. There's a relationship between those 2 things. I don't think the thing that controls Israel could have done this in the US without the thing that controls the US signing off on it. I don't know how that works. works. I do take very seriously what Joe Kent said. And what you're calling the absence of evidence, Viva, there's an absence of evidence partly because there is a clear attempt not to find evidence. The absence of an FBI that properly investigates crimes is something that we in the American That's right. And that's something the public have to get used to. It's a fact of the landscape. There will be an absence of evidence if the body that is charged with finding evidence looks everywhere but where the evidence would be. So I'm not telling you I know what happened here, but I am telling you we need to be open to many different possibilities because the thing that should close off a wide range of possibilities just simply doesn't function. too steep or whatever. And we find ourselves there once again.

↳ P26 raised again here · first raised at U-043

+3 C-4.1 · Acknowledged his Israel pattern is not evidence · Bret Weinstein

Can I also just say that Joe Kent also said on my show, I played him the clip that I've been playing since 2016 when Donald Trump was actually critical of the intelligence community. And Chuck Schumer, who was then the head of the Democratic Party, was on Rachel Maddow's show. And he said, for a guy who thinks he's really smart, he's being really dumb to criticize the intelligence community because they've got 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you. And so now if Rachel Maddow wasn't a military-industrial complex plant, she would've then followed up, well, then who do they work for? If they— 'cause that implies that they don't work for the president and the president has to look over his shoulder because they control— the tail wags the dog. And so I asked Joe Kent, I played that clip for him and I said, so if they don't work for the president, which obviously they don't, Chuck Schumer, head of the Democratic Party in 2016, knew they didn't work for the president and he should be fearful of them. I asked him who do they work for, and Joe Kent said that it's some kind of a deep state corporate kind of oligarchy thing. I can't quote him exactly, but he also concurred that the intelligence community—the FBI, the CIA, the NSA—doesn't work for the president. They don't work for the American people. And we all know the CIA was started by a handful of you know Wall Street lawyers. It was concocted by them. So they're probably working for the same moneyed oligarch international. criminal interests as they always have been. So we're never— so that's why this is a big problem. But one more thing before I let it slip, and I mentioned it before, but the evidence, like the necklace, they cleaned the necklace, gave it back to Erika. His bloody microphone, it went on tour. So instead of it being logged into evidence until the trial, it went on tour and it was completely bastardized or adulterated, however you want to put it. it, these things are not normal in a criminal investigation. And they gave his phone back to his wife immediately. None of it makes sense. It all points towards a cover-up. And then you have the crown jewel, Joe Kent, saying he was stopped from investigating it.

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-199

↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-042

Some of the things people frame as anomalous, giving personal belongings back after they've done whatever they need to do to them is not abnormal. And so the only question is whether or not it was abnormal in this particular case. And I think people are operating on the basis that it was because it happened and not it was because it happened in a way that was anomalous. I won't speak to it, but they give the personal belongings back to someone after a crime when they deem that they've done what they need to do to those items. Same thing with the car. Same thing with the crime scene. They release it to the university. 4 days is not anomalous. So—

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-092

↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-042

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-033

↳ evidence for the P22 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-025

Do we know that that's standard practice with a phone?

My understanding— I mean, I understood it as the answer being yes, but contested. And so people are going to say, well, more or less depending on the circumstances. So, again, but again, this also will presumably come out at trial. And so some of the stuff might be premature in terms of deriving too many conclusions, let alone conclusions that are supported by the absence of evidence. But, Brent, going back to what you said, like, okay, Okay, the evidence is the absence of evidence because they're not letting us look in the right places. Even when it came to the cover-up at what I believe is definitively a cover-up of a let it happen on purpose at Butler, people ask questions in terms of who was training Thomas Crooks, not in a total absence of evidence, but rather after they found a commencement of evidence that he was at a firing range or a shooting range that routinely had law enforcement and other I won't say intelligence, but other members of government training there. I appreciate the argument. We don't have the evidence because they won't let us get the evidence, and that's the best evidence to date. There still has to be the slightest substantiation of some of these accusations if they're to be taken seriously and not to be used as the pretext to say, well, now we don't have to answer any questions because you're asking really, really outlandish ones for which you don't have the slightest shred of evidence.

Well, I agree, but I would just point out, this is why— I think I'm the lonely voice on this. This is why a scientific toolkit is the right one. We are not in a milieu where we can adjudicate this, but we are in a milieu where we can reason about it. And so considering means, motive, opportunity, that's standard practice. Advancing multiple hypotheses and falsifying them when the evidence is inconsistent, which leaves a smaller number of hypotheses to be tested, and noting that we are on the back foot because the investigatory apparatus that should have been surfacing evidence and pursuing leads and would be able to answer these questions is manifestly uninterested in doing so. So the public is, in effect, doing heroic work trying to do the forensics on an event where they're hobbled by the fact that they can't subpoena witnesses, they can't look at evidence, have it independently evaluated. We have to work from what we can cobble together, and that is a disadvantaged position that we shouldn't be in, but we don't have a choice.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-024

Can I just go back to the paving over and how it's normal? Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton did a FOIA, and the documents proved that an emergency cleanup order was placed on September 11th, just one day after the shooting. The crime scene was released back to the university on September 12th, and by September 16th, the exact courtyard and tent area where Charlie Kirk was shot had been cleaned and completely paved over with concrete pavers. Internal texts even referenced the FBI still being present during the early stages of the cleanup. And then the contractor on the video, Dan Merrill, said that onsite coordinators told him, this is above our pay grade. The governor and the FBI said they want this done by Monday. So when he arrived at the site, it had already been excavated 10 inches deep. And Joe, so it was ordered by the governor and the FBI, not by the university. And so again, I just can't dismiss that, and I just can't take any other alternate explanation that this is obvious coverup.

↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-032

Well, I can't blame people for thinking that, but the key words are they made an emergency request and then did it when the crime scene was And by the way, just double-checking, the conventional explanation is not that the FBI wasn't doing an investigation, and I'm not defending it because I think they should have been more than transparent with this, but that it was an encroachment, viewed as an encroachment on the investigation they were conducting. So it's not that they weren't— their explanation, which you have to at least understand, even if we disagree with it, is that they were doing an investigation and Joe Kent was butting his nose in.

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-033

Right.

And, uh, and so they didn't need him and they didn't need that, but they were doing an investigation. Still haven't— we haven't had the most basic answers to the most basic questions, uh, in terms of the Discord chats and whether or not other people were involved and how people had advanced knowledge. But that's, that's the conventional explanation.

Okay.

I— it— No, that's it. So they, they did it 4 days later.

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-033

Why would the FBI and the governor order digging up the crime scene in Paving over it.

↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-032

Again, I'm not sure that they ordered—

that's not routine university maintenance.

Again, I'm not sure that that's, that's exactly how it happened, even by what you're describing. But the bottom line is they dug, they cleaned it up and paved it over after it was released to them, which is after they've done their investigation. And then the argument's gonna be, well, they didn't do a thorough enough investigation. But this is the point that we're at. We don't trust— we people don't even believe the, the DNA reports, the, the, the autopsies. See, nobody's going to believe anything, even if the FBI says, we've done 2 weeks with it, here's everything meticulously catalogued. No one's going to believe that either. So we're at, we're at a point where, because of the lack of faith in the institutions, no matter what they do, it will be part and parcel of the conspiracy, no matter what they do.

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-092

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-033

↳ evidence for the P23 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-165

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Viva Frei · ruling prints at U-033

Yeah, I think that's a strong point. I will tell you, I'm still rattled by the discovery that you put honey in your coffee, so I I'm gonna take your point with a grain of salt.

I'm told it's healthier than putting sugar in. At least it makes me feel better.

I'm gonna try it and see whether or not it's evidence of your having lost your mind. But anyway, I will report back on that. Maybe it's gonna be great, and I will join you in putting honey in my coffee. All right, anything else that you wish to say before we wrap this up?

No, I'm going to have fun reading the comments, but—

I wouldn't read them if I were you. They're liable to be brutal.

I've been through 9/11, Building 7. I've been through Seth Rich. I've been through the Syrian gas attacks. I've been through the Ukraine war. I've been through COVID. I've been through Joe Biden's not demented. I was called crazy and a crazy conspiracy buff for all of that. Immediately attacked. You are immediately attacked, uh, and the same thing is happening here. And, uh, people calling me QAnon and calling me crazy and worse than that, uh, not just randos, by the way, right? Like prominent people, uh, and it's an obvious coordinated attack, uh, or coordinated defense of TPUSA and the FBI narrative with the certain influencers happening, going out and lying, blatantly lying. And why were they even invited into the courtroom and the whole deal? So, Yeah, it's just— there's just no way to spin this that this isn't a cover-up and that we're not ever— we may never find out who did it because the people who have the ability to look into it are not looking into it.

↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on Jimmy Dore · ruling prints at U-014

And I'll just add— I'll only add one thing, Jimmy. I lived through a lot of those, but not all of them, just because you're older than me. And this is like what I call the litigation trauma. When you get involved in litigation for too long, eventually everybody's in on it. Everybody's against you, even your own lawyer, your wife, the judge.

+4 R-2.2 · Psychologizing the opponent in place of the point · Viva Frei

That's not what this is. This is a pattern break. It's called pattern recognition.

↳ evidence for the P27 verdict on Jimmy Dore · ruling prints at U-230

Well, but I'm recognizing another pattern here. Even during COVID when people were coming out saying the virus doesn't exist, that was the type of conspiracy that actually undermined the legit conspiracy, which is that it originated from gain-of-function in a lab in Wuhan, China. People saying it's, you know, the snake venom. There were people even during COVID who were getting conspiracy psychosis and manufacturing destructive and distracting conspiracies that ultimately just discredited those who were actually trying to get at the actual truth and who had legitimacy to their theory. So I say all of this, you learn from your— you learn from history. But when you become hypo— what's the word I'm looking for? You know, you can become hypersensitive to certain allergens and not tolerant to them or not able to deal with them properly. And I think some people have gotten a little bit too far down that side of the conspiracy psychosis this time around.

All right. That's an excellent place to leave it. I appreciate the The care with which you both did this and your good faith, I think, is evident. And I think the lesson here is that we need to apply a very careful, rigorous toolkit to consideration of conspiracies. That's the only way to do so in a contested environment like this. So, Viva Frye, Jimmy Dore, thank you so much for joining me.

Okay, my pleasure. I appreciate it. Good to see you all and great work. Brett.

All right.

That's great. Thank you.

Be well, everyone.