Transcription
Guys, I think Charlie Kirk might have been pressured to give up control of Turning Point USA. Maybe take more of a background role or even step down. I think he refused to do it and maybe this was a reason he's not with us today. Let's look at the evidence of this theory together.
And I thought of it thanks to Nissi and her latest video. She started connecting those dots for us. So, please go watch her video, like and share it, subscribe to her channel if you haven't yet. You won't regret it. And I am linking it in the description, too.
I also want to talk about that viral moment of Erica's speech at Women's Leadership Summit when a heckler interrupted her by screaming, "Erica Kirk protects PDF files." Yeah, lots to go over, so let's get started.
As you know from my latest video and from the buzz on the internet, Turning Point USA released an alleged footage of Charlie appointing Erica as his successor. Let's remember what it looked like.
"The most important relationship in your life is the one that you have with your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. His passion was my passion and now his mission is my mission. I appoint my wife to run Turning Point USA if something happens to me. Erica would do a great job."
While the whole internet was analyzing this video, coming to a mass conclusion of it being fake, Nissi looked the other direction and focused on a question. Did Charlie really think his company was vision-led and didn't want a founder, meaning himself, associated with it?
See, this is the full audio of Charlie speaking. Take a listen. Like the alleged audio, okay? We don't know if it's real. Still, "a lot of organizations and groups, as soon as a founder leaves, it just kind of collapses. A lot of my job is not always in the day-to-day details. It's very much vision casting, very much driving success. But we have a great board and god forbid if something happens, they'll figure it out. I appoint my wife to run Turning Point USA. If something happens to me, Erica would do a great job."
Okay. "A lot of my job is not always in the day-to-day details. It's very much vision casting, very much driving success. Lords of organizations collapse when the founder leaves, but we have a great board and god forbid if something happens to me, they'll figure it out. I appoint my wife, blah, blah, blah. She'll do a good job."
So, now we go back to that Megan Kelly interview with Erica. How did Charlie's wife describe what Charlie said? Let's remember again.
"In August before all this happened, he had a event where he had some donors at and one of the first questions they asked was god forbid if something happens to you like what what what would happen next to turning point and Charlie made a really interesting point. He said companies you know example Apple Macintosh he said they're founder-led. He said but what I have built is will one day if I'm not around be vision-led and he had made mention at the end like you know Erica will do a great job running it."
And when I watched that video this week, it really put into perspective my youth. And "companies are founder-led, but what I've built is" and then she adjusts because this is supposed to be the answer to that horrific question. So she goes, "What I've built is or will one day if I'm not around be vision-led?" Erica will do a great job running it.
Here is Erica again stating that Charlie was building something that went from founder to vision-led, removing the face of the brand.
"I have them with me constantly. We have a phenomenal team. It doesn't just fall on my shoulders. Charlie was very good about creating and and intentionally building a machine where it turns from founder to vision-led. And he shared everything with me. I I knew his goals. I knew what his vision was for for things. So this is not out of my orbit. This is not uncomfortable for me."
Very interesting to keep saying that Charlie didn't want a brand face. But every PR tactic since 10th of September, every mailer, every speech, every donation request, it's all about Charlie, the face of the brand. And then this weird line from the memorial speech.
"Turning Point USA built through Charlie's vision and hard work. We will make 10 times greater through the power of his memory. Chapters will grow. Thousands of new ones will be created. TPUSA faith will add thousands of new pastors and congregations. And yes, campus events will continue. and we will continue to hold debates and dialogue. Now that Charlie is gone, we will scale. We will make everything bigger. Turning Point 2.0. Nothing can stop us now."
Okay. But what did Charlie tell us himself in his very last interview that was conducted on 10th of September, right before Charlie headed to UVU? Well, here it is.
"And so when you're trying to build a brand, it one of the hardest things for an entrepreneur, and we have not done this successfully yet, is separating the brand from the founder. It's very very hard. I'm not convinced you have to do that though."
"No, I don't think that."
"Right. I mean I I I maybe again like you get to a Chipotle to your point or you get to an In-N-Out Burger like okay eventually but honestly I would argue it kind of happens naturally at that point. Right."
"Yeah, it does."
"But I wouldn't I don't think like the kind of doctrinary corporate approach is well you know I'm a private equity investor and we're investing in this restaurant and we need to make sure it's not too reliant on the founder. I get that. But honestly I don't think that's necessary. In fact, I think it actually might be unhealthy if that entrepreneur is the is the face on social media is the one that could best describe it that can best sell it to investors and to bankers and to future customers, right? Um, and so I I come to I I think that there is an inescapable bond between the entrepreneur and the brand that I think that far too often the experts in the corporate world want to try to separate and I actually don't think that should happen as much."
"I agree. So in building a brand,"
Okay, so Charlie actually didn't want to separate the face of his brand, him from the brand. He didn't really believe in the vision without him thing. He believed he was the one that can sell the vision best, that can explain it best. People trust the brand when they know the face behind the logo. That kind of contradicts everything Erica was saying and everything that is in this very authentic, not modified at all audio that now has 10 seconds video that's obviously also not modified or fake at all.
Here is another connection. This is not new information, but I just want to remind you guys of a coincidence that we were all told to accept. The night before Charlie was killed, we know that in his WhatsApp group chat, there was a Zoom meeting that was set up. Rabbi Wiki was in the group chat and on the Zoom call. And according to Wikipedia, Wiki was born in the US, spent his childhood in Canada and as an adult, he moved to is where he currently lives with his family. Rabbi Wiki is a Z and he is the executive director of IS 365, an organization that core mission is to advocate for. They also arrange educational trips for people to go to Israel. He says he was a friend of Charlie, but he gives the impression of being more of a handler.
"But we talked through how to talk about why is why is actually an American interest? Why is it in America's interest to support Israel? And I don't think he was convinced by some of the arguments that that I was making. You know, I was just sort of sharing different approaches to it. But also, but not just approaches that I think or that Israel think or that the government thinks, but more like working with Charlie to formulate a position that he'd be comfortable with. He believed in the open marketplace of ideas, which is why he annoyed people like you and me by platforming Tucker Carlson and whoever else. Because for Charlie, the idea that you're supposed to silence any opinion was an a place of of truth seeking. Did do I think he went too far with it? Well, yes. We often for all of us our best traits we often have to a fault. His struggles politically meaning if that wasn't there anchoring him with a positive orientation towards Israel. He probably would have been I shouldn't say probably he undoubtedly would have been much further along into the anti-amp with whom he shared a lot of a lot of opinions and that's where he he annoyed people in the community over the last few months with some of the with some of the criticisms he had for."
Josh Hammer was also in the group chat and on the Zoom call. He's a political commentator. He's edges and he kind of looks like the fat version of Ben Shapiro if Ben Shapiro's eyebrows would cooperate with his face. Kevin Freeman was also supposed to be on the Zoom call, but for some reason he didn't attend.
"You and I were supposed to be talking on a Zoom call actually the day the day that he was shot and I was supposed to have been on a Zoom call with Charlie the the night before."
Andrew Kovvette was also said to be in the Zoom meeting and the group chat as well as some other people. But we were told that the Zoom meeting happened because they were just coaching Charlie on how to address criticisms of it. Charlie simply needed help with his talking points and so they were giving him guidance.
According to Candace, that day Charlie had been texting people saying they are going to A few hours after that a Zoom call was arranged with a bunch of real figures and they want us to believe that the Zoom call was a love fest where they were just helping Charlie prepare for his event the next day, his event at UVU. Although Rabbi Wiki contradicted this when he said that the meeting was combative.
"What I was quoted as saying in that New York Post article, which is totally accurate, when when you know that reporter asked me what the mood of the meeting was, and I said it was combative. Um, meaning I I was I wasn't saying that as a kind of like, you know, again, like a eulogy or praise. I was basically saying that was, you know, he was he was really grappling with these issues."
And immediately after the Zoom call, Josh Hammer managed to find a tweet from Trump that was over 12 years old about public executions, and he then retweeted it calling it based. And the day Charlie was killed once again, he tweeted public execution. And in the group chat from the day before the UVU event, Josh Hammer says, "Say hi to your Antifa friends." And we know that in the days after Charlie Kirk was killed, they were trying to link his death to Antifa. And they want us to believe that all of that is a coincidence.
So Charlie has this intense call with his little hat friends who then admit that the mood of the call was combative. Charlie then the same day sends out a text. They are going to analy me. Not to even mention that he we had donors like this mental case sending threats to Charlie. You remember the stuff that Candace discovered here?
"I can confirm to you today that on September 9th, amongst a smaller pool of TPUSA employees, Charlie sent a text saying day before he died that he wanted to invite me to Amfest. I'm going to now read you an unhinged text message that Charlie received this time from a female Christian donor. Of course, Erica Kirk can confirm it's real that Charlie Kirk received this. Let's read this. Okay. All of the people that trusted you and Christians, including me. Why would you platform anti like Candace and Tucker? There are many evangelical Christians who would never give these people the opportunity to spew their hatred. I'm one of them. You say people are accusing you of being because you disagree with the government. Well, what is it exactly that you disagree with? You threatened and Christians with your 30 million followers. Are you kidding? Be very careful, Charlie. You are in violation of the 9th commandment by bearing false witness against your brother Judah. When was the last time you read your Bible, Charlie? I'm coming to you as a believer. Genesis 12:3, Obadiah and many more prophets warned that those who curse it will be cursed. Your TPSA Tampa event was a disaster. Michelle Bachmann was booed and about 10% walked out on her when she talked about standing with Isra. You brag about how you convinced all these young voters to vote for Trump. But you can't convince them to stand with our brethren. This is not a joke, Charlie. I'm coming to you as a sister in faith. You have accomplished so much by the hand of the Almighty. But he is going to lift his hand from you. Don't fall for Tucker, Candace, and the rest are under attack. God warns us in the last days that he will wipe out the descendants of Edom because they stood by while their brothers Jacob was held in captivity and did nothing. Don't be counted among the It will be to your peril as well as the unfinished work God was going to do through you."
Oh. Oh, but it's it's um it's in a Bible verse, so he should be like chill with that. No, he wasn't chill with that. He did feel threatened by that. Uh, that feels like you're pretending to be a Christian. But you have specific marching orders and you don't think there's a single reason why Charlie could reasonably critique what is doing after what's been done in Gaza. They've effectively have turned Gaza into a parking lot and this is how you come at him over Tucker's speech.
I'm starting to see a pattern here. It looks like Charlie was being forced to either step down or become less visible at Turning Point. People were uncomfortable with how unspoken he was. They loved it when he was speaking for the donor's case, but maybe not so much when he started to complain about it. When he started to be called an anti-semantic person, when he got pissed off and said he's bringing Candace back. All of it, guys. Allegedly. Yeah, it's my opinion. It's how I'm reading it. Not stating it as a fact.
But it's a very poetic idea to have Charlie dream about a company that will not need his face to function, that will be vision-led, not founder. I went through many of his interviews and speeches and I didn't find one that would confirm what Erica is saying about him today. In desperation, I turned to Grock and asked if Charlie ever spoke or ever posted about it. This is the answer I got.
"No. There is no publicly available on camera video where Charlie Kirk explicitly says the full phrase vision led not founder or directly states that he wanted the TPUSA brand to stand entirely on its own without his face as the central figure. Erica Kirk has repeatedly said Charlie intentionally built TPUSA to transition from founder to vision-led so it would endure beyond him. This is her paraphrase summary of his approach, not a direct on camera quote from Charlie. In his final public interview with Andrew K. Smith hours before his death, he talked about entrepreneurship, building movements, legacy, and creating something bigger than himself, but not in those exact vision versus founder terms."
We just watched it and you saw that he didn't believe in removing the face, right? TPUSA and Erica have framed his leadership philosophy this way posthumously and it aligns with how he operated heavy on vision delegation and scaling. However, no verified public clip shows him using that specific framing on camera.
Controversies around the Aspen footage, authenticity, debates, refusal to re-release full video have kept this topic alive. We keep seeing it happening on all levels. Erica and TP USA members keep saying Charlie would say this, Charlie would want it this way. Trust me, right before Charlie passed, he told me that. And we are here meant to believe it all. We are supposed to trust Erica when she says, "He told me exactly what to do. He trained me for this." This is what he wanted.
I'm having more and more trouble believing all this, especially after the release of the video that was heavily community noted and even removed from Tik Tok for being AI. Take a look.
"Okay, so they put that Charlie Kirk video out, right? And I posted the video I posted on Twitter about how it's AI and I pointed out the inconsistencies with the eyes, the ears, the teeth missing, the fingers missing in that like 2C clip. I exposed it. Like clearly it's AI. And you want to know how else you know it's AI? because I got that video taken down off of Tik Tok for being AI of a public figure. So, the Tik Tok algorithm picked up that the video they posted as Charlie Kirk saying he appointed his wife as CEO, they said that video is AI. Their algorithm that they have on Tik Tok that will not allow you to post AI versions of a public figure speaking community flagged my video exposing that it's AI. So they picked up the video TPUSA and Erica posted and said, 'Yeah, that's AI.'"
Of course, this is not hard evidence of the video actually being AI, but it definitely doesn't add to TPUSA or Erica's credibility. It makes us even more suspicious. Here are some comments.
"That's hilarious. They just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper."
After some people said this video was from an event in July 2023 and not Aspen, people are coming out of the woodworks to defend this AI slope, saying that Charlie could have said this more than once, not just at the Aspen event. I saw those comments, too. But we've been told that there specifically is an Aspen event video and that's the one Daily Mail watched and validated. So this one is the one that we want to see.
Okay, another comment. "I think they were expecting this kind of reaction from the public. It's a psychological warfare they're waging. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. The only thing the people want is for them to come clean. Honesty, that's all."
Yes, that's actually the simple bottom line. Why hide something if there is nothing to hide, right? People don't trust Erica and the things she says. Big reason being is that she allegedly continued working with people that were pressuring her husband working with people that are shady and have connections to the business of non-adult misplacement. I'm using code words, guys, cuz America loves freedom of speech, you know.
Here is what happened during her speech at the summit.
"And it's important to remember that happiness comes and goes. It is so fleeting, but the joy of the Lord withstands all. It's important to remember that happiness comes and goes and I pray that you find it."
That's an important moment. Love you guys. That's an important moment because that just showed duty to faithfulness gives life meaning. And we must pray for our enemies and those that do not feel like their life has meaning. And that's a perfect example of that. A perfect example. You pray for your enemies. You pray for those that persecute you. That's not the enemy. We know who the real enemy is. God bless you. Thank you.
Oh, the compassion pouring out of Erica. "The happiness comes and goes. And I hope that you find it." Didn't sound like a threat at all. This is what it looked like in the audience.
"And I pray that you find it." But why would someone feel so strongly about Erica protecting the bad guys to the point of having a need to crash her event and scream it out loud? Here are a few reasons. And by the way, these accusations are not backed by any criminal charges obviously or convictions or verified evidence. These are based on research conducted by people online who started digging into Erica's past and current affairs.
So number one, the two 2013 2014 text messages with Jillian Falcon. This is the most common direct claim. In 2013, Erica, then Erica Fransfair, around 25 years old, and her then boyfriend Joshua Harlson met a 15-year-old girl named Julian Falcon in Michigan. Critics point to screenshots of later text messages and interactions where Erica allegedly used affectionate terms such as sweethearts, sent compliments, gifts like chocolates, strawberry. Strawberries covered in chocolate, okay? Not just chocolates. Kept frequent contact. That's misleading. That's like very downplaying of the whole thing. Okay. Some people view the tone and amount of contact as crossing normal boundaries for an adult teen friendship or mentorship. I'm I'm one of those. Okay, that crossed it crossed the boundaries, right? That's my opinion. Supporters describe it as harmless encouragement or big sister style support. The messages resurfaced and spread widely in early 2026. No legal findings resulted from them. Funny enough, this whole scandal was also discovered by Nissi. She was the first one. It was a big one and made a lot of people believe that there was something inappropriate going on there.
All right. Number two, organizational tie. Shan Bergstrand. In 2023, before Erica led TPUSA, the organization's pastor summit had an exhibitor or sponsor connection to Shan Bergstrand. He is a registered SCEX offender. Conviction from 2014 related to a minor case, minor female case who run a Christian apparel comside oper. Critics highlighted this partnership as inconsistent with TPSA's public positions. The organization and the time described him as a small exhibitor and emphasized themes of redemption. This incident is often brought up when criticizing the broader organization that Erica now leads. There are so many examples of ERA or TPUSA associated members being in contact working with or or advocating for those with this certain type of past. Those that were either suspected or convicted of a crime related to harming non-adults. It makes them look shady. The whole TB USA, not only Erica.
Here's another point. Number three, other speculative links like Einstein, Candace Owens, and some online voices have raised questions about Erica's past modeling work with agencies like Next Model Management and possible indirect social or professional overlaps with J Einstein wider circles. They have also mentioned charity or international work such as Romania related efforts. How nicely it's written, you know, that I can read it without worrying, without getting in trouble. Yeah. Again, downplaying it. And of course, we need to have a whole separate point for the creepy Victor Marks friendship, right? That alone is a reason to stop and wonder if Erica Kirk has any good judgment within her when it comes to the type of people she surrounds herself with.
Here are some comments of people online about the Heckler incident.
"Something's not right with Erica. Everyone can see it. Everyone can feel it. She's doing the exact opposite of what Charlie was doing when he was um unalived. And someone uh answered to that she broke out of her Christian character voice to the real Erica voice. Says a lot. Exactly. Look at the beginning when the screams start. Erica supports PDF files. She literally doesn't know which role to take. She's like, am I going to cry now or I'm going to laugh it off or I'm going to get angry about it? You know, it's all in one impression. It's crazy. Well, she chose to get angry about it and say, you know, you'll be happy. I hope you find it. I hope you find happiness. Very convincing. Another comment. OMG, what was that reaction? Erica's response just made no sense. It's important that happiness comes and goes. Like, what the heck? It was a perfect opportunity to say, 'No, honey. I despise PDF files and there's no way I would protect filth like that or something.' Someone answered to that. She was reading her pre-written speech. She can't converse off the cuff. Yes, that's what Charlie would do, but Erica is no Charlie and they know it. She can't handle it. All she can do is rely on people's sympathy as a widow and continue bringing up Charlie's quotes. How long can the organization sustain itself on that? Probably not long."
But as usual, I want to know what you guys think. Were they planning to remove Charlie as the face of the company? Were they trying to silence him? Do you feel Erica is now covering that fact by repeating the vision-led mission lines in all those interviews? Let me know in the comments.
If you enjoyed this video, make sure to like and share it. And if you haven't yet, please subscribe to my channel, turn on the notifications to never miss another Daily Fredo episode. For even more content, follow me on Instagram and X at DailyFredo. That's all for today. Have a good one.