I Interviewed a Charlie Kirk TPUSA Auditor. It's WORSE Than We Thought!

So, what caught my attention? I thought it was only Turning Point USA because that's all we hear about. But as you start digging into the IRS files, you find out there's three more. That sums it up right there. That's why they do that. Not to help anyone, not to make the world a better place. It's it's that it's strange to me when the establishment says someone is a threat and yet they're being promoted. This is a wild story here. Super Feed Tyler uh lawyer was involved in this. Weirdly, I found the the developers were in the Ukraine. And and then it just gets even more strange because if we go down to the next page, who's the director? Erica Kirk's mother, who is also Turning Point gave almost 500,000 to them for what reason? They're a publisher, right? They publish books. Oddly enough, Charlie Kirk's book was published by them. So, this is the reverse of what happens, right? A publisher usually pays you in advance when you write a book. But instead, Charlie Kirk is paying them that that and then same with Tyler Boyer. he would get maybe 300 on all four. So that really caught my attention as like, wow, this seems like a real shady way to make their salaries appear less egregious. You can give a guy the benefit of the doubt, and I think we should, but I think when numbers get this alarming, it becomes harder to give the benefit of the doubt. You know, this seems like pure corruption to me, and I'm just speaking for myself. In an ideal world, do you believe that this sort of activity could in some scenarios land some people in prison? And uh the only thing I'll reiterate is I would just urge anyone that may think something's off with anything we're saying, go to IRS.gov and we can provide what are called the EIN numbers. Every nonprofit has a unique number. Look for yourself. You shouldn't trust me.

Oh yeah, Dei got a podcast. Welcome back to Dee Got a podcast and of course I'm your host Dee. Listen, uh many of us have heard about the audit that has suspiciously disappeared uh at Turning Point USA. Well, I have officially interviewed a guy who's done a forensic audit. And you'll learn in this interview the difference between audits and while a forensic audit is completely different and it looks for criminal activity. And I'm just going to tell you now, this interview is about to blow your mind. All I ask is that you hit the like button. That would really, really help uh to push this video into the algorithm. I would really appreciate it. Uh if you want access to uncensored and extended videos that you cannot find here on YouTube, a link to the Patreon can be found in the description. Uh without further ado, let's get into it.

All righty. Uh welcome back to Dee Got a Podcast and I'm your host Dee and I am sitting here uh with my guest. And before I have my guest to introduce himself, let me just say about I believe three or four days ago, uh I interviewed this guy by the name of Brian, same name, uh guy by the name of Brian Ference, who is actually an investigative reporter uh based out of Arizona. and uh he came on to the show after I saw that he was featured on the uh very popular YouTube channel called Redacted where he shared some things about uh Charlie Kirk's audit and a memo that was sent out by Charlie Kirk uh shortly before everything happened in Utah where where Charlie Kirk uh allegedly and I'm just going to say alleged to be responsible on my end uh was a bit suspicious about the funds where some of the money was coming from where some of the money was going and I had him on to to the show. He shared some things. I got some backlash for it, but a lot of people have been talking about this, but I don't think enough people have been talking about this, but Candace Owens was one of the people to bring this up uh as far as you know, anyone with her size of a platform. Um so with that, I'm going to just have my guest to introduce himself as he has conducted uh his own audit of Turning Point USA and then we're going to delve into the details.

Sure. So, thanks for having me, Dee. I have about 20 years experience in finance and that's on the corporate side. So financial planning, financial budgeting, forecasting uh and auditing which really led me to this point. You know, I've done these audits before and uh so I just started digging into this data. Additionally, I have about 15 years experience as a programmer and software developer. So I really understand how these algorithms work and I think that may come up a little later.

Okay. Now, before we get into anything because you Brian, you're gonna have people to say this. They're gonna say, "Is he a Democrat?" And I hope you're going to be honest with us.

I'll be honest. Are you a Democrat? Are you political in any sense? Do you have a bone to pick when it comes to the Charlie Kirks to the conservatives of the world? And to that you will say what?

So if we pull up my name, I've never registered to vote. I've never voted. I don't believe in voting. So I'm not political. I'm not on any party. I don't support a candidate. I've never gone after a candidate. Meaning I don't like say, "Hey, let me take down Biden or let me take down Trump." I I'm a researcher as well in my spare time, which is kind of what this was. I go after things that catch my interest. So, if something looks a little off, I start researching it. I start looking into it.

So, why did Charlie Kirk look off to you?

Uh, so Charlie Kirk fit a pattern that I've seen and I'm not sure if you or your audience have noticed this. It's strange to me when the establishment says someone is a threat and yet they're being promoted. Andrew Tate would fall in this category. I hear, "Hey, no one can listen to Andrew Tate and he's getting millions of views."

He's everywhere.

What's that?

And he's everywhere.

And he's everywhere. Right. So, and again, I said earlier, I'm a programmer. I understand how these algorithms work. So, if it were me and I was so scared of Charlie Kirk, that's one line of code. One line of code in the system, I can algorithmically suppress him or I can algorithmically boost him. So, I thought, well, that's weird. Why aren't they doing that? If no one's supposed to listen to him and he's so controversial, one line of code would take care of him. You don't even need to physically kill him. You can just we run on algorithms. So that struck me as odd, you know, and and during the the Trump campaign during COVID, I really noticed Turning Point getting a major boost. YouTube started rolling out those shorts, he would get millions of views. And I thought, that's weird. It's not like he's saying anything provocative. He's saying, you know, transgenders shouldn't be four years old. I feel like that's a standard comment. I don't think that would warrant a million views. So that's what led me into, let me just see what's going on here. And I don't know if you want to stop me there or keep going or

to the regular schmojo who would say uh such as myself despite the fact that I'm a content creator and I understand algorithms a little bit to those that will say to you Brian uh before we even get into the details of the audit. Well, what if they had huge donors, which they did, and they have a lot of budget, they have a lot of dollars behind them. So even if if if the the the quoteunquote establishment or the powers that be is attempting to suppress them, they have the money to push themselves to overcome that. To that you would say what?

You're right. But the last I checked, they don't run Google, right? Google controls the YouTube algorithm. Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey, those guys control the Twitter algorithm. You know, there's coders and developers in there. So I mean, you're right. Like the big lobbies and the big firms have financial power. I mean, I guess they could always send an email to Google and say, you know, something like, "Hey, make sure you keep our guy up." But then still, that shows he's artificial. That's not organic. You should, in my opinion, I'm not a content creator, but you should have the number of views that warrant your content.

If your content is, it should be, you know, what's interesting about Charlie Kirk, he's a capitalist. This isn't capitalism. Capitalism is a free market where consumers decide, I click your video, I don't click your video. And that's not what's happening. It's not possible to get these tens of millions of views. Same with the Charlie Kirk show I started looking into quickly after he would upload 500,000 views. Like even if you're well-liked, people work, people are busy during the day. It just struck me as something is going on here. Something's going on. It doesn't feel or that's, you know, it just didn't feel organic to me.

Okay. Now, with that, we're going to jump into the audit. But but Brian, you had no idea I was going to do this. There's something I want to read to you. So earlier I told you guys that I interviewed a guy by the name of Brian Ference a few days ago who's an investigator uh investigative reporter who has been apparently looking into Turnpoint USA for a number of years now based out of Arizona which is where Turneroint USA is headquartered. Well, let me read an email that I received immediately after my interview with him. It says, "Hey, Dee, if you really are interested in telling the truth, you should know it before you make accusations that can destroy people's jobs and dreams. Your recent guest, Brian, brought up rumors of potential wrongdoing at TPUSA in 2015. Did your guest verify any of the rumors were truthful? Was anyone connected to TPUSA fired or prosecuted for financial wrongdoing in 2015?" That's what should be asked and determined before smearing Charlie's charity. Charlie Kirk had an independent audit done on TPUSA every year from 2018 to 2024. An annual audit was standard practice put in place by Charlie. An annual audit is very different from a quote unquote Doge style audit, which is also known as a quote unquote streamlining audit. See table at the end of this email to learn the difference, please. Inflation inflation and rising costs in 2025 caused many services and materials to double in price, creating a need for Charlie to focus continually on finding more donors. Since Charlie didn't want to spend too much more time on fundraising, he looked for a way to cut operating costs. That's why he wanted a streamlining audit done to cut down on cost of ineffective or inefficient methods and services. A streamlining audit's purpose is not to find criminal activity. A forensic audit will be done if Charlie Kirk suspected criminal use of TPUSA funds. Please get familiar with these terms and practices if you're planning to report on businesses, charities, and politics. I wish the best of luck to you in your career, and you can reach out to me anytime if you need an extra set of eyes or hands to do research involving political topics. Thanks.

That sounds like someone very scared. A few things jump out to me. Number one, notice they harp on 2015. What about 2018? What I'm about to show you, 2019, right? 2020. Like, it's kind of like moving the goalpost because maybe there was nothing going on in 2015. So, they focus on, well, hey, in 2015, you know, everything's good here. Who's the auditors? So, we have to first understand how these nonprofits work. A lot of the auditors are on the payroll, you know, so are you going to bite the hand that feeds you? Are you really going to take down Turning Point when you're on the payroll? These are not independent audits. Now, now what's what's funny about that is that when I had Brian Ference on, he showed we we showed within that live uh

Ableton Group,

Tyler Boyer responded to some guys online and said that this is actually false because they've had independent auditors come in and that nothing suspicious was found.

Okay, so this video could be like 4 hours with what I've uncovered and they couldn't find one of these things. Again, none of this is speculative. D what we're about to go through. I just want to make clear everything is linked to government websites. This is not like the Alex Jones infowars blog. This is the IRS.gov where you can pull up their 990s which is the tax form and state and federal websites to see who the LLC is registered to. Right? Because that's important to know if TurningPoint is giving $10 million to an LLC who owns the LLC. And so these guys couldn't do that. How can I do that? I just go on Google and look it up. I mean, that's you see this all the time with these sort of responses. They're very they're very weak, you know, they leave out a lot of the details and they kind of puff up the chest, you know, a lot of gaslighting to make it like, hey, we're the victim. You're a $100 million annual company. You're not the victim here.

Those numbers.

Yeah. Also, if you're making a hundred million a year tax-free, remember they're they're tax exempt. We have every right to look into you. We donate to you. You're you're not an incorporation, right? You're not like a Google or some other company. you're a nonprofit. We should be like every line should be scrutinized because we need to know where our donations are going.

And I'll tell you this, uh, right before we jump into this, when I was looking this over, so you sent this to me yesterday and I was reading it over. I got up about maybe 5:00 this morning and started reading it over and my mouth dropped. I raised up in my bed and I was like, "No, this is there's no way that this is true." And there's a couple of reasons because if this is true, Brian, then one, either Candace Owens in particular hasn't really looked at any sort of honest independent audit because it would implicate in my opinion, I'm not a professional like you say you are. I'm just a small Joe looking and I have common sense and I'm saying first and foremost from what I've read through here, I printed out and I went through through all of this and what I'm telling you all watching this right now, it appears to me maybe there are legal loopholes that I'm not familiar with. I'm not privy of, but from what I'm seeing, this would 100% implicate Charlie Kirk as being complicit. There's no way because he's getting like, and we'll get into this, six figure salaries from multiple different avenues.

Correct.

And and I'm like, what? Organizations and subsidiaries with no employees, crappy websites. But anyways, Brian, what would you say is the most efficient of how we should jump into this? Uh before

feel free to speak without looking at the paperwork or looking at it with if you have it physically yourself and I can just do the editing after the fact and just show it on the screen for everybody to see.

Yeah.

Or we can go about it a different way.

That's probably the best, right? Because then there's the visual. I I don't want to sidetrack, but you made a very important uh question about Candace Owens here and and why this went the way she does. Let's not forget Candace Owens has a nonprofit.

Bless it,

right? So, does she want to start drawing attention to what we can uncover when we investigate nonprofits? There's a reason why this is bipartisan. Notice how Democrats never go after Republican nonprofits and vice versa. Because once you open that up, then the public goes, "Wow, I didn't know this." Most people have no idea about this. Most people have no idea. You can go to IRS.gov and download all the financials. That's all I did. No, probably nine out of 10 people don't know that. So, right there, they don't want that out there. And you said that uh two things I want to say. The first thing is from my understanding from my emails you were saying that you've been doing this for a number of years and you've just been updating it

meaning turning point this whole thing looking into nine. Yeah. Yes. Because I told somewhere around the co election is when Kirk caught my attention and that was when I started looking into it and then I have to wait a year or two to get the next year's IRS file. You know what I mean? So

you want to see if there's sort of a pattern that's taking place.

Right. Exactly. The the second thing I'll say is to be fair to Candace and I'm not here to defend nor attack her. Um if if she if she deserves whatever comes her way, it just comes with it. But let me ask you this. Why do you think she would bring it up? Because she she said herself and she's the one that brought it to our attention that he was suspicious about the funds. He had called for a dosed style audit. And and I also I want to say when I was reading this over, I didn't realize that uh Officer Tatum is one of the co-founders of Blexit with Candace Owens.

According to the IRS filing,

according to what

really go by that, right?

Right. I didn't know that.

That's right. On the IRS, it's Brandon Tatum, Candace Owens, and a woman named Rebecca Mercer, who's fascinating if you look into this Mercer family.

Okay.

She's a very uh her father was Robert Mercer. I believe they were behind like Breitbart and some of these other what people would call like Zionist Republican sort of groups. You can't find much else on them. They stay behind the scenes and they do a lot of like covert dark money sort of operations like this. And then Rebecca Mercer was involved in Parlor if you remember. And then like Kanye gets involved and then and Candace's husband George Farmer was the CEO and president of Parlor

and that was eventually bought. I read

was eventually bought right by a guy connected to George Bush.

Yes.

Named Ryan Coin who I look. So it's it gets a bit incestuous. It gets a bit like interconnected. And I just think and I'm only speculating that's why a Candace type would maybe like one hand into this. You know what I mean? Like she's not going to go all in on this because then what if people start going all in on her own her own stuff?

Okay. Again, Tim's totally speculating on that. I have no evidence. Just you know.

Fair enough. So, as for this, I mean, this is so massive. Do you have an idea maybe what you'd like to start on? And then I can

Yeah. I think I think what would be the most efficient, Brian, if you can do this cuz you guys uh this audit is I think it's like 20 it's like 25 pages.

Sorry for that, but that's the only way to do it, you know. Now, I think the most efficient way for us to go about this, Brian, is just start from the beginning and sort of the overarching. You can get as granular as you'd like on set topic, but just start with what catches your eye in chronological order. And let's maybe do uh for for sake of time, my audience is going to kill me because a lot of them prefer the longer videos. But so that this is digestible for people, let's do maybe 8 to 10 major takeaways from the audit and you can get as granular with each topic as you'd like.

Got it. And feel free to interrupt at any time if you know you need further clarification. So

feel free to ramble as much as you'd like. I'm going to mostly listen unless I need clarification.

So I like your idea. Let's just start high level. Let's start how this is set up because to me without understanding how it's set up, it doesn't make sense once you get into the detail. So, what caught my attention? I thought it was only Turning Point USA because that's all we hear about. Y >> but as you start digging into the IRS files, you find out there's three more nonprofits. There's Turning Point Action, there's America's Turning Point, and then there's Turning Point Endowment. So, whenever you hear endowment, that's like managing the investments. So, they'll take cash, they'll buy stocks, they'll buy securities, and it'll just sit in this endowment fund. So, I thought, okay, that's interesting. I'm not sure why Turning Point needs four of these. And then what caught my eye, I went, I hope when I go and look at this, I don't see Charlie Kirk giving himself a salary in all four because to me, he should be getting a salary in TPUSA and in the other three, it should be zero because he's not logging any work hours. Turning Point Endowment, like I said, literally by their own words, manage the endowment. Charlie Kirk's not a financial adviser. the last I checked. And what he ended up doing was it seems like he wanted 1.6 million a year. So he divided it by four and then each of the nonprofits he gets

like 400,000 or something,

right? That that and then same with Tyler Boyer. He would get maybe 300 on all four. So that really caught my attention as like wow this seems like a real shady way to make their salaries appear less egregious. Let me give you an example, Dee. If on TPUSA Charlie Kirk's salary was 1.6 million, that would catch attention. remember because they were quote audited, an auditor would catch that. But if it's 400,000, that's a little more reasonable.

But why would people care if you split that up into four but it still shows up? Even if it don't show up as one big lump sum, you're still paying the same amount of taxes. Correct?

No, they care. I'm saying optically because no one's going to look at these other three nonprofits.

Okay?

So, you get what I'm saying? If you're going to look at just Turning Point because no one even knows these other three nonprofits exist. So this hides, like I said, optically it makes it feel like, oh, Charlie's salary isn't that outrageous. It's 400,000. You know, that to me is the only reason why I could think of because why would he need four salaries from three companies that he doesn't do anything for?

Right. And is there is there any because I know some people may think about this and I thought about this, too. Is there is there not any legal loopholes that you're aware of where they're allowed to do this? Maybe it's suspicious, but it's not illegal.

Yeah, I would say it's probably not illegal because you have to remember who writes the laws. these guys, the whole nonprofit system was developed by rich people for this reason, to circumvent taxes, to be able to sell stock without paying capital gains through their nonprofit, you know, move dark money, money laundering. So, yeah, if we're basing this on legality in this example, I don't think Charlie Kirk broke any law, you know, but very dishonest because he's putting in 40 hours a week and he's working 120 hours a week. He has a radio show every day. Where are the hours in the day? He allegedly has two kids and a wife. Where, you know, you start to look at it and you go, where are the hours to do all of this

right now?

Fair question.

Yeah, it is a fair question. And uh I want to say, would you say that from from because this artist is from what years? As early as 2018,

a little bit of 2017, but yeah, I would say the real meat of it is like 2018 to 2023.

Okay, got it.

Yeah. So,

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. I I remember now for I know what it means, but for those that that may not understand what it means, explain to in layman terms, Brian, what is what is it that you mean when you say dark money?

So So dark money, the way I think of it, and the way I think most people is, it's a way to hide money. So for example, if I'm a donor, maybe I don't want people knowing I gave Turning Point $10 million. So through this nonprofit system, there's ways to circumvent these sort of laws that were put in place where you did need to be transparent about your donations. And one way that can be done, and we may get into that a little bit, is the fundraising. Charlie Kirk and Turning Point used their own insiders to create LLC's to manage these fundraiser payments. And now, if I'm some rich donor, I don't want anyone to know, I can give that LLC the 10 million and it's never going to come up. It's just going to show, you know, the gross total. It's not going to be a line item where we can see who gave that 10 million. So, that's dark money. Dark money is just a way to hide my donation.

Got it.

Yeah. I I think uh another really interesting thing that jumped out to me was the relationship between Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump Jr. and a guy named Sergio Gore who's high up in the Trump administration. So to me, again, technically maybe this is illegal, maybe it's not. This is pretty insane if you're someone who's donated to Turning Point and now you see where your money just went. Trump Jr. started a publishing arm called Winning Team Publishing. And just in 2022 alone, Turning Point gave almost 500,000 to them. For what reason? They're a publisher, right? They publish books. Oddly enough, Charlie Kirk's book was published by them. So, this is the reverse of what happens, right? A publisher usually pays you in advance when you write a book, but instead Charlie Kirk is paying them. And and it and it just keeps going. Then the next year, he gives another 164,000, 33,000. These are monster numbers of 640 thou like almost a million dollars goes to Sergio Gore and Donald Trump Jr. A and the reason why, and I'm only speculating, but I heard this from people at events. Trump Jr. couldn't sell his book. So, what I'm guessing happened is Turning Point with the donated bought the book and they were giving it away at events and then he gets to get on the Amazon, you know, top chart or whatever for book sales when they're really not real book sales. It's not like you and I went on Amazon and bought Trump Junior's book. Turning Point buys it. Turning Point gives it away. And it's also a quidd pro quo. How does Charlie Kirk get such access to the White House? Well, if I give Donald Trump's son 500,000 through my nonprofit and Sergio Gore, I have access. When I need Trump, I can get Trump. If you remember when they went to Greenland, who went to Greenland? Sergio Gore, Donald Trump Jr., and Charlie Kirk. That's kind of interesting, you know. So,

yeah. And and and because I did a little bit of research when everything first happened, I did a little bit research on Charlie Kirk and the whole Turner Point USA and how he met William Montgomery, who was 72 at the time. Charlie Kirk was 18. That was awkward to me. It's not like it's it's that's not illegal, but it's like a 72 year old saw an 18-year-old speaking at a community college, saw the potential, convince this person not to go to college and to start Turning Point USA in a garage, and I believe within four years he was on No, it within two years he was on a campaign run with with Donald Trump Jr. to help Donald Trump and his president. I'm like, how did how did that happen so fast?

Yeah. And another thing is everyone I I urge to go back and watch Charlie Kirk's original interview on Fox News. It's in 2012, I believe. So, right right before he starts Turning Point. He doesn't say anything provocative. He doesn't say anything interesting. And yet, they're just beating us over the head. This is the next genius. This is the future of the Republican party. You know, this is the next big thing. And that struck me as odd

in 2012,

whenever he's 18. So, I

2012 for sure.

So, yeah, he's on Fox News. It's like May I think and then Turning Point gets started. So I guess the idea would be like William Montgomery saw this interview but if you watch it objectively again he's not saying anything where you're so blown away by and another thing that's this leads to he never mentions Christ. He never mentions Jesus. He never mentions Christianity. He's an economic guy in the beginning. He he it's it's all about like fiscal independence, fiscal responsibility. And I don't know if they didn't want this to get out, but I found their business plan. It's a 100 pages. It's called a 1023. This is what you release to the IRS when you're going to become a nonprofit. In a 100 pages, he never mentions any of those things. Never mentions Republican, Christian, Jesus. None of that's mentioned.

No way.

I'll send it to you when we get off and you could definitely post it, you know, in the I don't know how it works in the details or however YouTube works.

The part of why that's so difficult to believe is the obvious because that's was a big part of his brand. Um, which is really what made him stand out or stood out over the past four years. But even more so, that's kind of hard for me to believe because Candace Owens just recently said in her episode yesterday, when did Turning Point become so faith-based? It's been faith-based over the past three or four years at a level that she had never seen before. And this is before Turning Point faith. So, that's that's really what it reminded me of. So, now to hear the the inception of of Turning Point USA had nothing to do with Jesus or Christ or Republican, it's like that's that's interesting. It's it's very heavy on economics. Very heavy like that. Like I mean again they just beat you over the head with economics where it's clear like uh for young people essentially fiscal responsibility. Don't take on too much debt. We need to educate people who are getting college loans. We need to help show people how to buy homes and invest. It's like it's all about that. There is no mention and and it's even apolitical. So they make it very clear in the 1023. We're not taking a side politically. No Republican, no Democrat. were literally just about helping educate people on how to manage their finances and how to become financially independent. And that's throughout the 100 pages.

Wow.

So, so we can post that here later. I'll email it to you. I'll get the document and that way everyone can just read this stuff for themselves. We should be as transparent as we can. And again, because all this is on the IRS, you know, this is their own words. This isn't ours. And they've signed these documents. So, because I I get this a lot, Dee. Well, Charlie's so busy. He didn't read all of this. That's not my problem. Once you sign something, that's not fair to come back to me and be like, "Come on, be realistic. He can't read all this stuff. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to run a hundred million dollar business, then you have to be, I'm sorry, you have to be accountable when this sort of stuff comes up. You don't get to play each side of, hey, I'm busy doing my radio show all day. I'm traveling. You know, I'm debating transgenders at college campus." Like, you you can't do So, I'm sure he didn't read this, but either way, his name's on it. So, you know, that's uh that's the deal there. You mentioned William Montgomery. That's the guy in his 70s that founded Turning Point with Charlie. What's fascinating about him, he's the original when it comes to insider laundering. And we know this because at the bottom of one of his IRS filings, he had to admit it. So he had his own company called, let me just get the name here, America Consulting and Graphics, and it received 432,000 from Turning Point. And this is exactly what Turning Point does now. And that was William Montgomery back in 2017. in 2018.

Wait, but are you saying that he admitted in a file that he had been found guilty?

No, not guilty. He's getting ahead of it because if you admit it, then you can't be guilty. You're saying I have I have this this LLC that receives money from Turning Point. And I guess when you do that, it's legal because it's on IRS filing. you you can start a company or you can co-found a company that would eventually become a hund00 million annual company, but you can also start a subsidiary or LLC. Maybe it's not even the subsidiary and you can donate to that even though you're over both illegal somewhere.

It would be except instead of donating it gets listed as a vendor. So services

even you're over both

because it's services if it's a donation that's different. Well, for example, maybe a easier way to think of it, let's say you and I start a start a nonprofit and on the side I have a company that makes hats. So, in theory, I could get that business to make hats that has our name of the nonprofit and I make hats that say DD has a podcast. They would say, "Well, he did do a service. He did make the hats." So, that's how you how they get around it. But what's funny is in the case of Charlie Kirk's insiders, they didn't even bother doing that. They didn't even bother faking making hats. They just created an LLC at their home address, has one employee, and then it gets it gets all the money for services.

And it's these absurd numbers,

absurd numbers, which we'll get into. But I just wanted to make note of the William Montgomery thing because I think it's reasonable to think maybe that's where all this started. Montgomery shows Charlie Kirk and whoever else there, you know, how this works. And that would be why ever since then his crew did that. So, because I read that in the audit, but if that's possible, then why would Charlie Kirk then order a Doge style audit if he already knows what's going on?

Okay, so now I'm going to have to speculate here, right? Because I'm not inside Turning Point. Number one, what I found most odd about that is is the name he named to run that, Justin Shrife. Justin Shrife himself is involved in this. So, was he going to remove his own company? He has a company that gets money from Turning Point. It was called America. Uh, let me get the exact name. American Philanthropic. 2.5 million they received from TurningPoint and it's even on his own LinkedIn. So,

doing what though? Or at least what do they have it listed as as the service that they provide?

Uh, I don't know if I have that right in front of me, but we could pull that up because I have all their financials saved. But uh, and a lot of their services are vague, you know, like I don't know. It's Oh, in the case of American Philanthropic, it might be managing the fundraisers could be that. So, why I found the Charlie Kirk email odd? It's just you're naming the guy who's involved in this. So again, back to biting the hand that feeds you. He's going to do a Doge style on himself. It's no different than Elon Musk. The biggest government contractor is Elon Musk. So when his own contracts

Yeah.

How is this any different? You know, it's a strange email to be sending that on September 2nd and then he allegedly dies on I forgot the date, September 10th.

Yeah.

It just seems very odd for that to have happened that quick. I also don't see how Charlie Kirk didn't know because he was benefit I mean how'd he get his four houses you never thought to himself this is weird

Charlie Kirk had four houses

I believe if I'm wrong maybe three but yeah he had a nice beachfront in Florida Arizona Erica's living good you know very good yeah and so does Tyler lives very good as well they all do Stacy Sheridan lives very good

yeah that that never stopped them from sending out emails and asking for donations and they've allegedly made almost hundred million since everything happened in Utah from I believe merchandise and donations alone.

You're right. Yeah. And that's my prediction. The next financial release, we'll see 100 million in revenue. Yeah. Look, Charlie Kirk's like Kirk Cobain, if you're old enough, right, the CD sales go up after he died, not down. And this is the new Kirk Oane. This is the new martyr. This is the new It's just Tupac, you know, another one. It's a very tried andrude formula they use. They know we're emotional. They know how to how to reel us in after an event like this. And then you donate. You know, it's like the skinny dog on TV. you. Oh man, I feel bad for that dog. Let me give money to the It's the same thing. They're going to break 100 million. No doubt. Plus, more donors are coming in, not less. I also don't believe that less big donors, it's going to be the opposite. It's going to be more.

I also saw and I learned from your audit, Benny Johnson. I didn't know that Benny Johnson Yeah.

uh co-founded a company called Arsenal Media Group and was paid $613,000. uh 66 613 $750,000 uh in 2020, but then he conveniently omitted this from his bio on TurningPoint USA, but then he would later just a year later begin working directly for TurnPoint USA, earning an annual salary of $164,000.

What are the odds? I will say in his defense, and I don't know if he saved the tweet or not, he denied owning Arsenal, but I mean there's old, if you go to the way back machine, there's old tweets from his Twitter, you know, talking about work he's done with them. Uh there's there's like websites that have covered this. So, I mean, best case for him, maybe he didn't own it and he was a partner, but no doubt he was deeply involved. So, he's unable to to get out of this,

right?

But that's that's the swamp. That's how all of this all these guys are connected. That's why they always show up the next year. Same with Charlie Kirk, security guy. Like all of that, they all happen to just get on the payroll with someone else, then show up the next year.

And I also see here in 2024, Turning Point Action quote unquote donated $2.04 million to the Turning Point pack. Now, Brian, I'm gonna need you to explain to me what what is Turning Point pack. What is

So, we talked earlier about dark money. This would be the best example to use for dark money. So Turning Point USA legally can't be like sponsoring and helping elections, but a super PAC can, right? So you take the money from Turning Point. Now legally you can say, "I didn't help Trump. I didn't help Carrie Lake. I didn't help, you know, fill in the blank politician." So they donate from Turning Point to the Pack. Then the pack pumps all these guys with money. And it's and I and I and I'm I'm almost willing to bet that it came from Turning Point Action in particular on purpose because it's a 501c4.

501c4. Exactly. Yep. You got it. Uh and another reason why they do this with the pack. Remember how I said earlier Charlie Kirk isn't going to pay himself 1.6 million a year because that draws too much attention. Same with donating. So this guy Jake Hoffman, they don't want to show they've given him 10 million. So you give two million through the pack, you give two million here, you know what I mean? You give two million there. and it makes it a lot harder to find. That's why this took me time because you got to go through all of these different organizations to figure out how much in total these guys have received. So that's why the pack is very beneficial to them. Just back to dark money, hiding money, also inbound dark money. If some big guys give money to the pack, sometimes we can see it, sometimes we don't. So it it just serves a lot of purposes. Wow. Let me see if anything else before we maybe if you want I can do like a minute just on the endowment because I I think that's interesting. So in 2018

there's like two different endowments or something or maybe two or three

or two. Yeah. So again it's really amazing what Turning Point does. So they have the endowment fund which is specifically for you could argue like protecting your assets, right? So you take a bunch of cash, put it in whatever a bond or a stock and it sits there and it grows interest except it grew up to 100 million between TPU investments and the endowment. So now I got to ask myself, why does a nonprofit need 100 million? And I don't know the answer, but I I think we should get an answer. If Charlie Kirk wanted this Doge thing so bad, can someone find out why they need a h 100red million in investments? That's, you know, and then on top of it, not to just to reiterate, why would he need a salary from the endowment company? is not man. Like there's a precedent for this. Other nonprofits do do this, but they'll pay the guy zero because they know how bad that looks, you know. So you'll see Charlie Kirk, CEO of endowment, and then it'll show zero work hours, zero pay. But in this case, you know, that's not what they did. So it's just a really fair question to ask. Why did they need so much? And how did they grow it so fast? I mean, I think three years prior to the current year, it's 1.7 million.

They jumped like 50, 60, something like that.

Yeah. How is this Nancy Pelosi with like the greatest investments ever? I mean, how how does that happen? You know, this feels more like a financial I hate to say Ponzi, but it really does than anything because some of these numbers, they just don't add up.

It went from it went from 20 million to 65 million,

right? On the endowment. Yep.

On the endowment.

Yeah.

And TurnPoint endowment nonprofit which holds 38 million in securities making their total 103 million. And that's again I'm combining the the endowment in TPUSA and and that. So I don't know that just feels very significant. 100 million to me is not a small number and I think it's worth asking questions.

Right. Do you mind if I if I pull up the uh the uh audit?

No, not at all.

Okay. Let's pull it up. Yeah. So let's uh All right.

Okay. Uh specific section you want me to jump through or just kind of keep going?

No. Yeah. Just just do your thing and I'll just go to that section.

Okay. I I feel like we really should hit the insiders because actually out of everything I think that's the most egregious, the most problematic and I think it's the hardest for Turning Point to honestly explain.

Okay. What's what what page is it on?

Uh I'm I'm looking now to just try and get you there quick. I think it's around page nine. So the title is Turning Point launderers millions to insiders.

Got it. Are you able to see that on the screen?

Yep.

Perfect. So, like I said, I I think this is probably the worst because there's just no reason to explain this. And I believe every case here, the LLC has no business. We can't find a website. Like, what did they do? How many employees do they have? Nothing. And then a lot of times the create date is right before the date that they got started here. So, it's not it's not like a wild speculation to go, "Oh, that's what happened." They create the LLC, Turning Point pumps the business to that LLC, and they cash in. And if we look at the first person here, Stacy Sheridan, she has three LLC's while also being a full-time Turning Point uh executive and they get massive business. You know, each uh sum get what was it? F 5 million her LLC's received. But for what? And it's for only three years. So between 2020 and 2023, she's getting $5 million. What did they do? Where are they now? Why don't they have business from other companies? Right? If she's some genius that created some brilliant, you know, business, you would think maybe other companies would jump in,

right? No, not that I can find. It's just turning point and it's for things that wouldn't require work like processing these fundraiser payments. That's probably just something in in a system. You know, she's not like

Sitting there manually doing anything. She's not there's nothing to that. That to me is just easy money, uh, for her. And I can tell you this, and, um, obviously I can't say who, people within Turning Point call her "grifter chief." This is known. Now, it's not known to the extent I uncovered, but this is known because you can't hide something like this. You know what I mean? Turning Point's not that big. Financially, it's big. But in terms of personnel, it's not that big. So, you know, I think they just don't, no one would ever like connect the dots like this because, you know, it takes time to hunt and peck through all these different filings. But if anything, she's like proud of this, you know, because just the way she flaunts it.

And then next, who is equally as bad is this guy, Jake Hoffman. I can't find anything of value Jake Hoffman has added. And yet, he's got two different LLCs. One is called 110, one is called Rally Forge, and they just get millions, literally millions a year in total, 9.8 million.

>> So in 2018, he was the communications director for Turning Point. So that's his official, or as of 2018, that was his official title?

>> Per their own.

>> Being he got over $700,000 went to his company?

>> Correct. Which is an ad agency. I don't know what they would do to earn $721,000.

>> That's a lot of money, man.

>> This is how this is how you pay guys off. I mean, Google wouldn't even charge you that, would they, for ads? Would they charge you $720,000 to advertise your YouTube channel?

>> No.

>> So, how do you justify that, right? How do you justify $700 a year?

>> Devil's advocate. What if someone said, "Well, you, you don't understand because you don't have a business of this scale. We have to pay major dollars in order to push our company out there to get us in those algorithms so that you can see Charlie Kirk everywhere debating."

>> Yeah, that's fair. So then I would expect to see Google, Twitter, Facebook, I don't know, like maybe Fox News, not one. Who's 110? Because I think that's very fair. Then I would expect a heavy hitter. If I started a company, that's the first place I would go. I wouldn't go to Jake Hoffman and hope my $720,000 gets me a return on my investment for ads. Can anyone say he brought back that value to Turning Point? I've heard interviews with him. He sounds low-intel, and this is not being mean, sounds low-intelligent. So I'm not...

>> No offense. There's and this is no shade. It's truly not because I don't think either of us will say the same about Charlie. Regardless of our differences that we may feel about him, Charlie was a bright person. I feel what you just said about Jake. I feel that way about a couple of people at TPUSA. A few people I've heard speak from there. I'm like, "Not the brightest," but their salaries don't reflect that.

>> It's actually the opposite. The higher the salary, the dumber they are. You know, like Tyler Boyer, or I always forget to say his name, but we'll just say he's the best example of that. He has these meltdown, childlike meltdowns on Twitter, but never provides any evidence. Just provides emotional meltdown. That's a sign to me, at least, of low intelligence because if you come at me, I'm going to provide the evidence and disprove everything that you're saying. The same thing with Mikey McCoy right now. Mikey McCoy, I'm sure you've seen the the the questions and people telling him to provide his call log. Mikey McCoy is constantly tweeting about Charlie Kirk, pictures and videos of him. It's completely getting destroyed in the comment section. People asking him, "Just provide your call log, man. We want to know who you called. Your behavior was weird that day." Nothing.

>> Yeah. Uh, also, I have a piece coming out on Mikey McCoy, similar to what you have here. Very, very interesting.

>> Okay.

>> His father.

>> He's 22, 23 years old. There's something on him, too.

>> Oh, yeah. Him, his father, his friend, and I won't say too much because it's coming out soon. I'll send it to you. We can redo this if you want. And a very shady private lender that alleged it's wild. I mean, we'll just, I'll send it to you. It's But so, yeah, hard to trust Mikey McCoy when you've uncovered some of the other stuff that I have as well. And I think he'll probably use a Tyler Boyer sort of an explanation, you know, just get very childlike and not provide any evidence. But yeah, this Jake Hoffman stuff, back to him, is really wild to get 9.8 million. We can be fair and play devil's advocate. Why not $100,000 for services, right? Why not $200? $9.8 million. And that's like acceptable when you don't have a website, you don't have a business plan. It should not be acceptable.

>> I was looking if I was trying to add these numbers up. No, you're right. It's right there. 9.8 total. Oh my gosh. And this is over what, a four, four-year period? Uh, six-year period?

>> Yeah. But the bulk of it is really like three to four years because, you know, some years it's a little lighter. You got to remember from COVID on, Turning Point was killing it in terms of revenue. So, of course, that's when they then helped out their guys, you know, even more because they had more money to give out. And even here, uh, between just January and August of 2025, he already got $496,000 for what?

>> That makes no sense.

>> Or he's running Turning Point. Tyler Boyer's running Turnboy. I, I got to get his name. I'm so sorry. Tyler Boyer. Maybe they're the ones running Turning Point because I don't know how you explain how much money those two, particularly, you know, Hoffman, are getting. It's really...

>> And these are coming in the forms of, because here's the thing. I'm also trying to play devil's advocate here. If people are looking at these numbers, is it possible that these numbers that we're seeing, Brian, are not take-home dollars? Maybe it's money that, sure, their their business may have, but maybe they're not allowed to actually spend that as they so please.

>> Okay, so is that possible?

>> You, it could be possible. But here's why it's hard in this case. If he had five employees, I could say, well, yeah, excuse me, his business got $490,000, but now he's got to pay, right, his employee $100K. If you have one employee and your business is registered to your home address, where, where could the money like, how are you divvying out that money? Do you know what I mean? So, you make a great point and again, it would be possible. That's why I use the hat example. If we're making hats, that's not as egregious.

>> At least, right? At least put the effort in to make it appear more believable.

>> Right? Because I'm spending the money on material for the hats. I'm spending money on, you know, machines to make hats. I have employees. I give them benefits. Then it's like, all right, that's But this just, maybe I'm missing something. It's hard to play devil's advocate when you have one employee, you know? It just, I'm sorry. It just is. Like,

>> And even if you had five employees, $9.8 million, man. Wow.

>> Also, there's only so many hours in the day. I thought he's busy working for Turning Point. See, when you have a day job, shouldn't your day job you work 40? But And yet, you're so amazing. You can generate $9.8 million in your spare time. I need to learn how what he's doing. And so then you and I can maybe start one of these great businesses. What secret sauce does he have? And again, the interviews tell me a different story. They come across, I don't know how else to say it, low-information, low-intelligent. They don't just don't seem like these sharp, efficient guys that are developing these systems, you know, that would warrant this. But, uh, you know, we can go a little more. This Joshua Typhalt, same thing, right? Starts an LLC called Blue Mountain Strategies. And then, of course, it gets $129,000 here, $400,000 there, and then in total $745,000. While on top of getting a massive annual salary, he's below Jake Hoffman. Yeah.

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> So, you know, it's not enough that he's getting $441,000 as his base pay. He then has to create an LLC and get, you know, a couple hundred thousand more. You would think the $441 pay would be enough.

>> And then then it says here, the website literally doesn't offer any information about the company.

>> Nope. Unless they changed it since I wrote this report. And outside of Turning Point, this is a very common thing you see with these money laundering things. They start websites just as a front. So, they're not gonna invest $10,000 in a nice website because the company's fake. You know what I mean? So, it's just a front website just to on the surface appear like, okay, we have a website.

>> Right?

>> Um, and then with Justin Shrife, we talked about earlier, he's the executive partner and yet he's going to run the the Doge. About him, he's the only one that admits the company on his LinkedIn. All these other guys conveniently typically don't have it on their LinkedIns.

>> And not Turning Point itself, but you mean these other companies?

>> Yeah. So, like...

>> American Philanthropic is...

>> ...list actually has that on his LinkedIn, but like Stacy Sheridan and these others. They leave it off and that struck me as odd because if you're not doing anything wrong, show us Clover Mountain, whatever that's called, Clover Mountain Ventures, GSM, put it on your LinkedIn, right? It's your business. Put it on your Twitter, put it on your social media. Why do they leave that off?

>> To me, you shouldn't leave it off, you know? So, I give this guy credit. He doesn't hide it. It's right there on his LinkedIn. And then then we get to the email. Like I said, he's he's in the email.

>> Right. It's very strange that he, he's the one that was named Justin Olsen. Not as egregious, but he's got a state job for Arizona State, conflict of interest because he's the commissioner. And then later, we're going to find because he's the commissioner, he helped Super Feed Technologies get out of something they were caught up in.

>> Now, I believe this guy is possibly the one that Brian Fearson Aference mentioned, um, he's had interactions with, um, in Arizona. And because I, I remember asking him, "How is this not a conflict of interest that you're, you're working these two jobs that are sort of overlapping?" And and Brian was telling me to his understanding, he didn't understand how it wasn't a conflict of interest either.

>> How can it, how can it not be? And we have proof they used it as a conflict of interest because his name is on the letterhead later when we look at Superfeed where they received a letter basically saying, "You're going to get shut down. You can't operate because you didn't meet certain compliance." And then nothing happened to them. So you would think, oh, well, that's convenient when the Turning Point guy is running that maybe that, you know. So it's a major conflict of interest. It should, this to me, I don't know how this could be allowed. Also, get, we got to remember, there's only so many hours in the week. How do all these guys have families and kids and and they have 10 different jobs? I know we're in a work-from-home environment, but this is like work-from-home on steroids. I mean, I don't get, you know. And then the last one we talked about, William Montgomery. Really interesting how, you know, he did exactly what they do now.

So then, uh, yeah, so we talked about the fundraiser. I just want to recap because it's really mind-boggling. If you were to look at other companies who process fundraiser payments, they're not $22 million, $30 million like Turning Point was doing, which just struck me as, then the only reason why they're doing that is to again funnel more money to the insiders because the insiders create the LLC that then processes these fundraiser payments. And I don't know what else would the reason be on top of it then being dark money. Like I said earlier, someone can give $10 million at one of these events and give it to the intermediary, which would be the LLC. The LLC acts as the custodian, then they cut the check to Turning Point. So, because it's done that way, we don't know who actually is the source of the check. Does that make sense?

>> Yes.

>> Okay, got it. So, and then more, I just talked about, yeah, the different dark money sort of things they're using. Um, well, if you want to scroll down to page 14, it's going to be a little small. Yeah, I want to show. Unfortunately, it's a little small for the video, but, uh, maybe we can fix it in post. This really is telling, right? This is it right here from their own filing. So, what we're looking at is this is the fundraiser name, and I'm looking at only the insiders. So, anyone who was on Turning Point payroll at the time, I wanted to see how much they made. And this is wild to me. This is absolutely crazy. So, the near the end percentage, I'm sorry, amount paid to fundraiser. So, that's how much they made for just like processing these payments. I mean, these are some big amounts. What? So, so GSM Strategies...

>> ...which is Stacy Sherry.

>> Stacy Sheridan. So, so is is this one year? Are these different years?

>> Yeah. Year on the far right I have the year. So, 2018 would be the, yes, broken down by year.

>> So, Stacy Sheridan by way of two different companies made more than $6 million. More than $6 million was paid to her.

>> No, no, no. You want to look at amount paid to fundraiser. Fund amount paid to, that's how much goes to them, and then I'm showing how much Turning Point because there's a cut they're taking, she's taking a cut.

>> Makes sense.

>> But in some cases, why are the cuts massive? If you look a little bit down, Justin Strife, he's getting 36%. So, it's all over the place. You know, there's not even like a standard percentage. You would think, "Hey, Turning Point, we have a rate. Let's say 5%, right? Anyone who helps us manage these fundraising payments and all that, you get 5%." This to me just seems wild. Some are as low as 2%, some are as high as 35%. How would you justify and come up with these percentages? Are they arbitrary?

>> Exactly. Because what I was wanting to say was it seems to me the higher the number, maybe the lower the percentage, but that's actually not the case. It's all over the place. You have $9 million paid to Turning Point and then 6% is paid out to them. That's crazy. That's crazy.

>> It made me think the insider is the one who decides, not Charlie Kirk and Turning Point.

>> What, and I know this is speculation. What would dictate them fluctuating between numbers? Like, how do you decide if you're going to do 36% and that's not going to raise a red flag as compared to maybe doing just 4%?

>> So, I've thought about that a lot and the only thing conclusion I could come to is another way to try and, even though they didn't do a good job, stay off the radar. So, if you're only charging 2%, someone would just be like, "Oh, it doesn't look that bad. 2%, you know, that seems fair. She's only getting $96,000." Someone would use the word "only." So, again, back to optically. It doesn't, to me, it's bad. But we're all about optics and I know these people because I'm in finance. I know exactly how these people think. I've been in meetings with them. Not them specifically, but I'm saying in general, I, I know all these conversations how they go. And that would be how that conversation would go would be exactly that. Hey, if we just do 2%, we're just skimming. Remember how the mafia would skim? We're just skimming. Just a little off the top for for Stacy. No one's going to notice. But speculating. But I think that would be why. But on the flip side, someone could say, "Hey, she helped bring in $3.9 million. Why not charge more? You got Turning Point $3.9 million here. 5 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent. Why you only asking for 2 percent?"

>> Right.

>> So either way, it's a lose-lose for her to me. Meaning like, I don't know how she can explain it.

>> Right. There would still be questions regardless.

>> Yeah. There's still. And it's all these guys. John McGovern. He even tried hiding it. His name is John McGovern. And he was a Turning Point. I forgot his position. Some kind of director. And then he has his name right on here. I think it's the fourth to the bottom.

>> Yeah.

>> He, like, at least these guys create a company. He said, "Oh, I'm not even going to bother. Who cares? Just pay me." And sure enough, you know, he gets, I believe, $26,000. So, if we ask ourselves, is this legal? I'm actually not sure. But to me, legality aside, especially from a Christian perspective...

>> ...it's unethical.

>> It's totally unethical, immoral. And why don't the donors know about this? Because the way we need to think of this, imagine yourself giving a dollar. Don't you want to know how many cents of that dollar went aligned with the mission?

>> Yes. And not only that, it's it's clear to me, and I think it has been clear to to many people, um, since everything has occurred over the past couple of months, that the donors actually do care. As many donors have reportedly pulled, um, their funds because of the things that have been taking place. They feel like certain questions have not been answered. And so clearly, they care about getting clarity on on on things that are important regarding the organization. So I think that alone tells me that what we're discussing right now, they had no clue or they have no clue.

>> They have no clue. Yeah. And another reason how I know they have no clue. I don't know if you know this, but typically a nonprofit on their website, they release an annual report. Some call it like an impact report. Y...

>> ...some call it like a company overview and then in a separate section they also release these 990s. Turning Point does neither. Someone doesn't believe me, go on their website. There is no impact report. There's no annual report. There's no, I couldn't find anything. And I think that's crazy because they're a $100 million company. I should see, "Hey, what are my objectives for 2025, right? These are my objectives. These are my milestones. These are KPIs, key performance indicators." In other words, how do we measure? If you donated a dollar, how do we measure that that dollar went right to the mission? We don't get any of that. So for these guys, remember earlier you said you got that email about the audit and all of that?

>> Yeah.

>> I would have responded, "Where's the report? Forget an audit. You guys don't even provide an annual report. Nothing. What are you hiding?" I don't, for all these guys that make $400,000, none of them can make a report. These directors, $440,000 can't sit down and make a report. That's crazy to me. I made this report, you know, like it's not. So, we should really hammer them on that, too. Again, not illegal to not make a report, but very, like, what are you hiding? I mean, companies far worse do it. The Gates Foundation provides the report. The Clinton Foundation, the Soros Group, like all these really bad nonprofits still provide that. And and from what I can tell, Turning Point doesn't. Uh, what else? So, we, we had their their salary expenses. I mean, when Candace mentioned how Charlie couldn't figure out where all the cash goes, someone should have just sent him this. He doesn't even need an audit. Look, they burn through all the money like insanely. I mean, between conferences, events, and I get it, events are expensive, but when you're spending $21 million just on events right there, man...

>> ...you know, out of your $80 million. So, I don't feel like it's that hard to figure out where the cash goes. I don't know why he would have needed a Doge. You can, you know, pretty quickly understand like, oh no, they're blowing money. $20 million on salaries, like I said, $20 million, that's $40 million right there. So, if they make $80 million, $40 million is just salaries and conferences.

>> And then another $7 million on advertisement and and promotion. I don't know, man. $7 million sounds like a lot.

>> Well, not if you're giving it to your friends. So, remember, uh, Jake Hoffman is, you know, does the not Google receipts and them paying Google for advertising. They pay 110, whoever the heck that is, you know. So, yeah, I mean, this is just...

>> So let me ask you, do do you believe that it's possible that obviously the the unspoken implications here is that they're finding loopholes to to fatten their pockets. But my question would be, so if if if they're pretending as if Jake Hoffman through 110 or whatever it is, is the company that's quote unquote taking care of the the ad promo and things of that sort, who's actually doing it then? And how much is it actually costing them? And where is that showing up? Or maybe it's somewhere in this number, but it's not everything that they're saying that it is.

>> I think the only way we could get that is we'd have to audit Jake 110, you know, not Turning Point, right? To see like, what are you doing for that money? Because other than that, this is another scam of the nonprofits. They don't get that transactional that line. That's why it's a great thing for them, you know, they can just put the amount and move on. So, you can give a guy the benefit of the doubt, and I think we should, but I think when numbers get this alarming, it becomes harder to give the benefit of the doubt, you know.

>> This seems like pure corruption to me. And I'm just speaking for myself. To me, as a small Joe, everything I say is alleged. This is just my opinion. This appears, appears to be corruption to me. Whether it's legal or not, if you're promoting and and and and presenting yourself, positioning yourself as a Christian, as a believer, this is unethical at at best and and corruption at worst.

>> Yeah, I don't see how it's not corruption. I mean, just remember what we started with the Donald Trump Jr. section. Him and Sergio Gore have a publishing house and it's getting $780,000. That right there, that's corruption. Because for what? For what service? For what value toward the mission? Anytime I look at money that a nonprofit spends, all I care about is does it align with the mission, right?

>> And if it does, then I move on. And when it doesn't, and it's this much, it has to be corruption. I mean, because if everyone around you is getting rich, isn't that corrupt? Like, I don't know. That just seems a very easy way to understand if there's corruption. If all my buddies and my family and everyone I'm connected to is all enriching themselves off of my nonprofit, like, is the world really a better place because of Turning Point? I think that's hard to quantify. That'd be hard to prove because we don't really see that, you know. We just see everyone making more money, buying bigger houses, flying private.

>> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Speaking of that, that's on somewhere in here. It spoke about how much was spent on like private planes or something.

>> In in one of the years, $198,000 first class and charter. That's just on the jet. That's not even a number of the hotel. Yeah.

>> And look, I, I, I, I just really want people. Let me zone it. Zone.

>> If you need the page, it's page 16 right at the bottom.

>> Okay. But I, I want to make sure people understand this part. So, $80, almost so basically $81 million at the. However, despite making $81 million, let me make sure I'm saying it correctly. Yes. In total $81 million in total expenses they had at the end of 2023, only $4 million in cash and $5.67 in savings.

>> And that's per their balance sheet. So again, everything in here is from their own IRS filing. You know, they have a balance sheet, they have an income statement, and that's just what it shows on the balance sheet. So, it makes sense in the sense when Candace says, "Hey, Charlie's worried about blowing the money because they're left with $5 million, you know, $3 million at the end of the year." So, they do blow it. And yeah, here's the private private jets, $198,000.

>> Man, boy, that's crazy, man.

>> Yeah. I don't think they travel a lot, but that's $200 grand just on the jet.

>> Just on the jet. How about all the security, the the the car services that are waiting for him? You know, the hotels. I don't think he's staying at a Red Roof. So, you start to look and it's just like, yeah, they're living the good life on the dime of the donor, you know, not like they're adding value. It's just simply on the dime of the donor. I think next we should cover this section right below this. I found this. It's hard to surprise me because I've been doing this so long and this really took me back. Let's try and like kind of clearly explain what's going on here.

>> Okay. In 20, let me make sure I got you right. In 2023, I found somewhere near the bottom that they, Charlie Kirk or Erica Kirk, rather, I'm not sure which one, but created an LLC called GG, uh, LF. Interestingly, if you know, one of the kids' names is Gigi. So, I'm speculating. First, let me explain what this is, then I'll speculate as to what I think happened here. So, this is not uncommon. You you use these life policies in the event if the guy who's running the nonprofit is like the face of the company, right? Elon Musk is the face of Tesla. Charlie Kirk the face of this. You can kind of protect yourself, I guess, financially. So, you take this out, if something happens to him, you get a a portion of it, a very small portion, by the way, and then Erica or the beneficiary gets the rest. Timing is odd because it's 2023. Remember, Charlie's been the face of this thing, I would say, at least since 2017. I know it started in 2012, but meaning like where he was on the map, everyone knew 2017. That it took six years for them to think, "Oh, we should, you know, get a policy," but, uh, so they did anyway. And it's a massive premium, $350,000 a year. It could be upwards of 10, 20 million. Erica's again, I'm assuming, Erica, the beneficiary is going to get because of how high the premium is, right?

>> How much your premiums usually, and I know I'm asking you that on the spot, is it $100,000, $50,000?

>> I mean, I, I guess it depends on on your net worth. Like someone like me, it's, I mean, way, way lower, you know, maybe $5,000 a year I was paying for for mine and this is $350. Again, Charlie Kirk is obviously a lot richer than me, but just to put into context.

>> Wow.

>> I think mine was four or $5,000 a year.

>> Wow.

>> And I pay mine. I love what they did here. Turning Point pays it. So just...

>> And that's totally legal? Well, I guess it would be.

>> Oh, you know how it's legal? Key word. It's a loan. But I guarantee you he would have never paid this back. It's, it's...

>> They're loaning it. So what do you mean he would have never paid it back? So why would you take it out if you wouldn't be able to pay it back?

>> I don't think anyone, I mean, I'm assuming, I don't think anyone would have ever because he is Turning Point. So I don't think he would come after himself and say, "Hey, you got to pay this back."

>> Okay, I see. You know.

>> This is legal.

>> Yeah, because if you look at the key word, it's called loan. So, loan to or from interested persons. So, on paper, it's a loan and, you know, they're just loaning him the money. They're paying the premium for him, and then they get interest back in return if something happens, plus their principal. So, in theory, they probably got the $350 back now that he died, but who knows what the beneficiary got because the $350 is such a large.

>> It could be in the tens of millions or something.

>> Yeah. Because $350 is such a large.

>> Wow.

>> Yeah. And so, you have to ask yourself, who, who did this? Did Charlie do this or did Erica do this? I don't know because we'll never get to see the policy, but I would love to see the policy because to me, it feels like what we've seen now from Erica, she's connected enough. I don't think it's out of the question that she could have finagled something where she did this, you know.

>> Now, just for the audience clarification, Brian, when you say she's connected enough, are you saying connected enough to Turning Point USA or connected enough to something else?

>> To something else.

>> I follow you.

>> To something else. So, based on her behavior, based on her family, based on her family. And again, that's all documented. We can get into that if you'd like, uh, you know, later down the road. But that's why I say that because it's just when you're that connected. I don't know if this would be that hard to do where Kirk wouldn't have known. You know, what is it? Just take a stamp of his name, hit the stamp, sign it. You know, uh, the fact that it's Gigi, I thought just caught my attention. That's her the daughter's name, you know. GG, that's the name of this.

>> Right?

>> Maybe. But either way, even if she didn't do it and Charlie did it, this is very notable.

>> Yeah. But like you said, why wait now? Why go six years and in 2023 all of a sudden now you you have the idea to create this split dollar life insurance policy?

>> It's possible they knew he was going to disappear. So, if you know he's going to disappear, you know, let's make some money off it. I don't know why else. I just don't know why you would wait. Again, I think it's reasonable to wait a few years. If they would have done this in 2020, that wouldn't have caught my attention because in 2020, he was really elevating his profile. 2019, 20, you know, but 2023, it just feels a bit late. So,

>> Yeah.

>> I would love to see the policy because that can answer a lot of questions. How much is the payout? Who's the beneficiary? You know, when, like, within 2023, when was this put together? But, you know, unless we have an insider, I don't think we're ever going to see that. But it's to me, we should not overlook this is all I'm saying. You know, why exactly this happened. That's speculation. But it happened and it's here. And keep in mind, that's $350 in '23, '24, and '25.

>> Right? Because he, he died in '25. So, that probably would have already been paid. So, someone's getting money off this. And I just think Charlie was rich enough he should pay a life policy on his own. That's just my own feeling because I don't think Turning Point should be on the hook for everything he wants to do, right?

>> You know, it's not, not unreasonable to ask him. Uh, you want to go to page 19? We can do that in a minute. It's just, it really jumps out to you. So, one other thing I like to look at with these nonprofits, who are they donating money to? Because, okay, we see they did a lot of shady stuff, but maybe, and hopefully, they're at least giving it to good organizations, right? Except that's that's not at all what's happening here. And what's really bad is when you look at the $400 million in revenue, only 0.7% has even been donated out to other organizations. And then it gets even worse because when you look at the organizations, they're not helping like people. This is Reince Priebus. He was what, the former, I forgot his position, but he was high up in the Trump administration. He's just your typical DC, you know, swamp creature. He's not taking that $1.5 and helping you or I or helping college students or anything like that. PragerU, you know, we know about PragerU. That's where Charlie came from, a large Zionist organization. James O'Keefe started a new nonprofit and a few months later, Turning Point cuts them a check for $400,000. Uh, you know, that's again, I think that there's no other way to look at it. Like this is not going toward the mission statement. It, you know, it just isn't. And so, this should be scrutinized as well in the sense of why isn't my money going toward helping the cause, right? I don't know how giving money to PragerU helps my cause, like, you know, Reince Priebus. Like this is more pay-to-play type stuff, right? You scratch my quid pro quo. I give money to Reince Priebus, I'm sure on the other end, Reince Priebus does something for Turning Point. That's what that would tell me. Same with, uh, PragerU. So, so really, when you extract all of this, there's almost no money going anywhere in terms of like helping organizations.

>> Zero. Less than 1% of revenue went to outside organizations. It stayed in-house.

>> Stayed in-house. And again, not illegal because, you know, you don't like. But an auditor...

>> ...but super suspicious, man.

>> Super suspicious, but not illegal. Yeah. And especially just because of how altruistic on the surface they are, right?

>> So, but then how come the financials don't show that? They, they show something completely different. They don't show, you know, how much you are about helping the community and all these different things. It's just everyone getting rich around each other. Then we have a quick snapshot of the salaries. I know we talked about it, but if you wanted to to pull it up, we can see.

>> Actually, and before we get here, I haven't, I hadn't even made it to this part yet, so I have no clue what we're about to read.

>> So, we, we got a few more in bombshells that you'll see then. So, here is just, I, I went to their, um, IRS filing and I just made a short spreadsheet, you know, showing their annual salary and it shows exactly what I said, right? Four different nonprofits, in some cases three, some cases four in one year getting a large salary. How they justify that salary is...

>> So for those that may have bad on or may be bad with eyesight, let me, let me help you out here. So in 2022, I'm seeing three different salaries for Tyler Boyer. One from Turning Point USA, one under Turning Point Action, and then one under America's Turning Point, which is probably the one that we've heard the least about before this interview. $240,000, uh, respectively between the three of those. And then, uh, I mean, it increases. It was higher in 2021. And then for Charlie, as of 2023, it's showing one salary here, but in 2022, it was two separate salaries of $392,000 a piece. Now, what I find interesting is that in 2023, there was only one. Do you have any, um, speculation as to why that may be?

>> No. It's because last I looked, they didn't release '23.

>> Oh.

>> So Turning Point Action, if you notice, stops at '22. I think maybe as of this interview, they have, but as of a few months ago when I did this, they just hadn't released '23 yet.

>> And to be clear, so, so this audit was completed, like there was no updates since everything that's happened with Charlie, or are you saying that you since added some things?

>> Yeah, I, uh, actually on September 10th, ironically, is right after that happened, I went and revisited this. So TPUSA had an additional filing. See the '23? That's how I got that. But on these other ones, it was still 2022. Wow.

>> And that's also legal. I think it's some crazy lag period like 18 months or, I forgot, but these guys get so much grace to file their their tax forms. So, I'm pretty sure they haven't broken any law.

>> I have to say this out loud. It's not even about pocket watching, but this is, I mean, it's public information and and as as Brian stated, it, people donate to these organizations. So, it's, it's rightful for people to know where this money is going. In 2019, Charlie Kirk had four different salaries. Turning Point Action, TPUSA, Turning Point Endowment, which is the, uh, and America's Turning Point, which are the two endowments that we spoke about earlier. $284,000, $329,000, $329,000, and $329,000. What? That was six years ago. Six years ago, just this alone. But we can see here. Oh boy.

>> Why are they the same amounts?

>> Why are they the same amounts?

>> Because to my point, and I know I'm speculating, I assumed it's because, like I said, $1.6 million looks bad on paper. So, just divide by four because in theory, shouldn't they not be the same amounts? If I'm working for group A, are they different work than group B?

>> Yes. It should depend on your job description. It depends on your your hours, you know, worked. And yes, but it's all the same here, which says to me, as I'm sure it says to you, Brian, it's simple math. You just take that 1.6, you split it in four ways, and you let the buy guns be buy guns because what is the IRS going to say to you? You're you're paying yourself. How can they prove that you didn't do such said job? Right.

>> Right. I don't know any other explanation. I, I really don't. I, I try hard to give benefit of the doubt, but they're the ones that make it hard by doing this. You know, like we should have seen, "Oh, for this group $100,000 salary, for this group $180, this group 20 hours, this group, you know," then it's like, "All right, that's still bad, but at least they're trying." They're not even trying. Look at this. They're not even. Same with Tyler. Aren't his the same? Yeah. $240, $240, $240. Same exact thing. 2021, $255, three different ways. Oh my gosh. 2019, $128, two different ways. 2020, $260, both times. Oh my gosh, man. 2022 for Charlie Kirk, $392. Um, 2021, $395, four different ways. And 2021, they're all $395,747. It's the exact same salary for each one. It's the same thing in 2020. $407, three times.

>> Yeah. And we have to remember he has a day job. It's not Turning Point. His radio show. Remember the Charlie Kirk show?

>> That's right. And that's not even Turning Point USA.

>> So that's why I keep harping on how are there this many hours. He allegedly has a wife, allegedly two kids, this job, turning four Turning Point jobs. He tweets all day. If you go back to his Twitter, every 10 minutes there's, you know, him cutting a video clip, him tweeting something. And I know he has a team, but again,

>> He's traveling and he's debating.

>> So how are you doing this? I can barely manage a job and doing this work on the side and coming on here to talk to you, right? Because you ask me, "Hey, can you come this time?" And I'm trying to finagle that seems normal because I have to sleep. I have to go to the gym. You have to do things. How is it possible? Or he...

>> ...we're expected to believe that this man had four different jobs that was paying him $400 grand. And and and to those out there could because Brian, as as you and I both know, we're going to have our devil's advocate and our staunch Charlie Kirk supporters to say, "Well, it was his companies. He's allowed to pay himself what he wants."

>> That's true. But then I'm allowed to judge what he decided to pay himself. I absolutely think he can pay himself what he wants. But like we said earlier, he can't have it both ways. He can't be the good Samaritan, you know, the greatest guy ever. He just cares about everyone when the numbers don't show that. So he can pay himself $10 million if he wants and then we can react to it. We can audit it. If the company wasn't a nonprofit, pay yourself a hundred million. But this is money that my neighbor gave, your neighbor gave, right? Your grandma gave $10. You know, this is people that a lot of people don't have a lot of money, but they love Turning Point. They love the clips. They love the things he said. I know people, they had, um, like a recurring thing, you know what I mean? Where every month money would debit from their account and go to Turning Point. That's the person I feel for because your money did not go to what you thought. It went to this stuff. So devil's advocate is great. It's just can't have it both ways. Is he the good guy then if he decided to give himself $1.6 million? You know?

>> It seems pretty unethical to me.

>> Yeah. Usually you're you're lecturing people about like, like, so, so for example, about food stamps and people being lazy and and and pick yourself up by your bootstraps, but you're taking people's donations because they're under the assumption that these dollars are being used for said purpose, but you're actually pampering yourself with this money while while cosplaying. And maybe cosplaying is a bit of a strong term, but one would say that it's quite fitting, cosplaying as this ethical person. Um, as far as the public, your public image.

>> And the bootstraps is misleading. You know, he, he does the usual story. "I started in my mom's basement with only $10,000," but then how is it the next year you had $420,000?

>> Same thing I asked.

>> Yeah. How would that happen if you and I start a nonprofit right now as two nobodies? We're not going to have that exponential growth in one year, right? And how did you get on Fox so fast? How did you get on not only Fox, but but...

>> ...everywhere?

>> ...how how are you with Don Jr. and just like that, you're you're you're in close vicinity to to, um, at the time presidential candidate Donald Trump. That's crazy to me. Like, and I keep telling my audience, and a lot of them get it. This is not normal. It's not that I'm trying to convince people that you can't be brilliant, brilliant enough, or you can't work hard, but, but we're talking about real life and how things usually goes. And to, and, and if something, if, if you know very few people to be to have pulled these things off, and then these people jump out of nowhere and all of a sudden they're doing it. If, if your antennas go up, it's probably a reason for it because we almost, we almost want to give people, Brian, the benefit of the doubt and say, "Well, it was something about them, someone that they knew, and they just had the perfect recipe to be able to pull these things off that no one else was able to do." What matters to me most is, do I agree with what they're saying? I get it. But these things are suspicious to me when these people come out of nowhere. But this right here is what I care about. Let's go behind the scenes and let's dig into the granularities of who these people are. And the numbers don't lie, as they say. Or the numbers can lie, but you got to know how to read the numbers.

>> Yeah. I mean, the, the other thing that blew me away about Charlie was he wasn't saying anything that would warrant this level of viralness. Like, go, anyone who disagrees, just go back and watch those early interviews objectively. I don't like Andrew Tate, but objectively he says things where it makes sense to me that you'd share that with your friend, right? That could go viral, right? Because at least it's, it's like provocative. Fintus would be another one of those are provocative statements. Not about agreeing or disagreeing, but do they provoke a thought in your head?

>> That's true.

>> Charlie Kirk was not provoking enough of a thought where it's like, man, Mom, you got to see this. John, you got to watch this. It was so basic. So...

>> What would be your speculation after looking at the numbers and and and and understanding that this person was being pushed on us? What do you think was going on? I think we both know the obvious answer, but I'm, I'm, I'm curious to hear what you say.

>> Yeah. So, maybe a little aside from the obvious, I, I think about the term "limited hangout." The first time I heard that, that always stuck with me. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that term.

>> I've heard it, but I don't know.

The meaning of it.

Sure. So, one of the main things the people in charge, whoever that is, they like to do is they create and install a character. And it's a limited hangout, meaning they're going to provide you limited truth as opposed to unlimited hangout, which is the real truth teller. So, it's a brilliant strategy because if you have people that are providing limited truth, you're controlling that. You're controlling that narrative without the audience knowing. So, you, you're taking them just far enough and they're going to follow you. So, if you don't go any further, they're not going to go any further. If you go left, they're not going to look right.

Correct. And then you let your guard down. Now, Charlie didn't do this, but others did. For example, COVID. If you liked Ben Shapiro as an example, and you, you quote trust him, then he tells you to get vaccinated. You might get vaccinated, right? That's a limited hangout. You know, I know people that got vaccinated because of Sean Hannity. They watch Hannity every night. He then, you know, is pushing the VA. That's limited.

So, and a lot of people suffered for that. A lot of people got their YouTube accounts deleted. A lot of people lost their jobs. It was a lot of it just so here we are, you know, I don't even I don't think it took four years, but years later, we find out that a lot of those people turned out to be right.

Yeah. Yeah. So, to me, again, what would make the most sense is you install Charlie because he's a, he's a good speaker. Not a great speaker, but definitely a, a very good speaker and he can herd young people in the direction they want to herd them. So you have someone on the left, maybe that guy is his name Hassan. He would be Hassan. He's a huge streamer on the left. Oh yeah. He'd be the equivalent of right-herding young people in that direction. You know, hey, cut off your hair, cut off your private, do this, do right, that's and then you just have Charlie would be the opposite. But you're still herding them within the establishment. Notice, notice this. What jumps out to me. You asked me earlier, if I vote, I've never voted or registered. Why didn't Charlie tell us not to vote? Instead, you're telling us no, vote for Donald Trump. Why wouldn't it be, why wouldn't it be fight the establishment, fight the, the this uni-party of right? No, they keep us in a left versus right fight and that to me shows you've been installed. Smarter than that.

Exactly. And I'm, I'm gonna tell you something and some of my audience won't like this, but that's totally fine because I'm about truth at the end of the day. This is part of the reason I was so confused with Candace. Candace is now saying this thing about how now she understands that it's not left versus the right, it's the people. Okay, I'm, I'm with you. I'm following you. But it's very difficult for me to believe Candace and I'm, I'm not trying to be too critical, but I'm being honest that you're just now coming to that because another way to know if these people are controlled or not. Charlie Kirk was supposed to be, um, you know, what is it? Limited government and the small, the less the government is a part of your life, the better. Okay, cool. Don't trust the government. The moment Trump was in the Trump administration came back into office, obviously, the Epstein, the biggest elephant in the room. To be fair, he didn't exactly run on the Epstein files, but he was 100% asked about this multiple times on podcasts. And Donald Trump was very, very clear and advocate and and very clear and advocating for going after those who were affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein. We all know the story. He gets into office, they, they do nothing. And they, they roll out these phase one like some sort of, uh, uh, TV show. And then, um, the pressure is building up on all those that advocated for Trump. And I'm saying, listen, I, it's clear to me. I'm not on the left. I don't agree with those people. I'm a believer and and and a lot of people who are, are who are not even believers, but don't agree with the left. I'm saying there are things on the right I don't agree with as well, from a political perspective, because at the end of the day, I just want what's best for humanity. But here's the thing. Charlie Kirk, all of a sudden the pressure was ramping up. What did he say? He became just like that. Charlie, I trust my friends in the government. Kirk, what did you say? We're telling you to say something about this man, President Trump, who literally said to the reporters, "Are you still talking about that Epstein guy?" Yeah. Yeah, bro. Like, children are the most vulnerable, um, population and community in the world. We have to protect those people because who's going to protect them if we don't? You're saying, "Are we still talking about this?" Yeah, we want to see justice. None of these quote unquote deep state individuals that you're talking about that you've been running on. You've never arrested Hillary. You never made an attempt to arrest these people because you're all two rings of the same bird and I'm sticking with it.

There's no way to argue that because that's just what, what they show us, you know. And and so you mentioned Candace and I feel like she kind of falls into that same trap because she also told us to vote for Trump.

Yeah. I just feel like someone I know because like you said, as a believer, you, you wouldn't idolize and let idolatry get in the way and and yet that just keeps happening. You know, you and I end up on an island alone because people get very angry with us. Oh, what are you a leftist? What do you like Kamala? I'm like, why do I, what do you mean I like Kamala? Because I said I'm not voting for Trump. That means I now all of a sudden I'm for kids being all because I didn't say, hey, go vote for Trump. It should, it's not binary in my mind. It's not one or the other. And these people that are so enlightened. I don't know. It's hard for me to.

And it only seems, and I've, I've said this quote multiple times, Brian. It seems to me that it's only on the internet where things have to be absolute. But in real life, we know that things are nuanced. I'm not, if I tell you my favorite fruit is an apple, that does not mean you go on the internet and say Dee said that he hates vegetables. That's not what I said. I said my favorite fruit is an apple. There's nuance. I like both or I don't like both. It just depends on what we're talking about. Like I've, I, I could not have said it any better than the way you put it. It's like, no, just do the things like if someone votes for you for something, then support them. Like, I, I, I didn't vote this last time. I, I voted once in my life and I quickly learned. I, I, I just saw the hypocrisy on both sides. I'm like, hm, do you all care about the actual policies or do you care about the politician more? Because I was under the impression the politician works for us and the politician is supposed to be loyal to the people. We're not supposed to be loyal to them. So when you're hopping over here after I've made 30 videos bashing this silly gender ideology and calling the things that the left has been doing demonic, the moment I'm consistent when it comes to Trump, how dare you hop in my comment section and say that I have what do they call it? TDS.

Trump derangement syndrome. Excuse me. I've made three videos. So, and I, I don't want to say praising Trump, but giving Trump credit for doing something that he said he was going to do that I agree with. Now, he's not. And some of these things I 100% don't like. I, I'm, I actually hate. I'm going to be consistent.

So, I don't know if you know this, but uh, Freemasons created sports.

I do know this. You're right. James Naismith was a Freemason.

Basketball.

Basketball. Right. I bring that up.

Walter Camp was.

Thank you. I remember the Walter Camp one. Right. So you got to ask yourself, why did Freemasons create sports? And I think it's to the point you just made. So now we view politics through our sports lens. Well, if you're not a Yankees fan, you're a Mets fan. If you're not, if you're not this fan, you are that fan. And you view, you view Republican and Democrat no different than Cowboys and Eagles. It's a Super Bowl is election day or as I call it, selection day. It's the same thing.

Yes. That is so beautiful. Praise LeBron for something that means that you, you hate Jordan. If you praise LeBron for something that means you hate Kobe. No, I, I found things about all of them that I can appreciate. Like, stop.

ESPN is really just CNN and Fox News and I believe that's on purpose to keep us in the mindset of that lens. So now we're always viewing Trump and Biden and come up through the sports lens and that's how you get into this problem. And it's perfect for the people in charge because we're always in left versus right. How come we're not talking about the banks? How come we're not talking about how they're manipulating interest rates right now, how you can't afford a house and inflation. None of that comes up. And even Charlie would dip his toes in it, but he doesn't tell you why. What's the root cause of why we're in this position? Because we have a Federal Reserve. We have central banking. We have, we have debt that's, you know, in the in the trillions. Like, no, he doesn't. They don't tell you that. And back to my point of limited hangout. That's why we have li. Alex Jones falls into limited hangout category. Tell you just enough so you don't riot, so you don't burn the banks down, so you don't realize who your, your enemy is. Who? The globalist. Who's that? That could be anybody. Why isn't it specific? These people also say, "I, I've read a hundred million books and you still can't figure it out."

Right. Right.

You read all these books. Come on. Like, so if we get back on track here, I can, I can finish up real quick. The next section is the, uh, Turning Point Pack. We talked a little bit about that, but this section really puts it into better context because you have the numbers right in front of you. You know how I said earlier, Turning Point Action, the 501c4 donates and funds the Turning Point Pack. And, uh, in 2025, this was the furthest I could get info on. So, 515 looks like another payment, you know, 500,000. But to me, this is going to keep up, right? What they're doing. And then I just looked at a few transactions. So you can go to fec.gov and download all the transactions like I did. And that's, and I've linked that in here. I think where it says there's some interesting stuff here. If you go in there, you can look at any transaction you want. This one jumped out to me because it's circular again. Performance One Media is the holding company of Real America's Voice, home of the Charlie Kirk show. What? Like, is it illegal? Okay, fine. It's not illegal. But why is everything so circular?

In October 2024, Turning, Turnpoint Pack gave essentially $300,000 to Performance One Media, the holding company for Real America's Voice, which is the home of. You're giving yourself money. Again.

That, that just doesn't seem. I know we've spoken about unethical, but I can't say too much because of legal reasons on my end, but I've worked for organizations that have given money to people and we've received and, and I've seen this stuff up close and personal where I'm like, why do we give them so much money for that small job and why do we give that money there and we, we're essentially owning the thing that we gave the money is that should be illegal. I don't know why that wouldn't be considered illegal to me. I don't, I don't know. I mean, this is just what the data says, right? As to why. I mean, maybe he funds his own show. Maybe no one really does watch it, even though they make it appear it does, and this helps, you know, cover the cost. I have no idea. We all we can do is speculate because no one tells us anything.

Right.

Like, you know, there is no real audit. If I was an auditor, I would ask this question. Okay, you did this. Why? But we're not allowed to, you know, I doubt you're going to get any of these guys on your show, so we're never going to get that answer. But this appears like to me at least he's funding his show, right? I don't know what else would be the.

Right.

I really don't know how else to explain that. Maybe this is a kickback to Bannon. This is all speculation. I hate even speculating because I, I truly have no idea. But this was from the pack. So this is from the FEC. This is their own filing and that's really all we know. Uh, what was right for America? Oh, Isaac Pruter. Isaac Promuter is, I mean, a guy from the IDF, which is, I would argue pretty sketchy and he's, uh, he's given 1.275 million to Turning Point. So now this is the them receiving money. I'm looking at as opposed to them giving out money.

Right.

And so you just have to ask yourself, why would the IDF be giving Turning Point 1.27 million? I don't know the answer, but these are the questions I ask myself as to why. I don't know the answer either, but I can tell you, uh, even though this isn't news, as far as I mean, I don't think anybody would be surprised to hear that Turning Point USA was receiving funding from anything Israeli. But what I will say is it further buys into the explanation as to why it took Charlie Kirk so long to even say anything critical of, of, of what was happening in the Middle East. Even though some of the things was just common sense, you know.

I would argue it took too long for someone that's.

As informed and as educated and as, as bold as, as controversial as they tried to sell him to be. This is the one. This is why Nick Fuentes, regardless of all the things we may disagree with him. This one thing made him the kryptonite. I said it before, I'm going to say it again. Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk is terrified of that kid. Terrified of him. And we can have a conversation another up time about Nick Fuentes and, um, who he may truly be and, and whatever, but, but what I know is like the things that Nick Fuentes has been saying, Charlie Kirk didn't want to touch it. That's the reason he banned the kid from even attending Turning Point USA events. Simply attending. He was on the no, um, attend list. As soon as he showed up, they blocked this guy. And I said, something else is going on here because I'm like, you don't notice anything. And then when Candace Owens got fired from Daily Wire, that sort of almost was like a domino effect. You looking at people like Officer Tatum. It's like, what are you doing, bro? Like, no one's saying, first of all, we're not even going to even give you that silly argument of because he went to what is it? The Republican Jewish Coalition and said that you fall into one or two categories. Either you're ignorant or you just hate Jews. And I'm like, huh? No. Or maybe we just don't like seeing innocent individuals, let alone babies, getting blown to oblivion. Could that be an option, Officer Tatum? And then you look at these numbers and it's like, "Oh, of course you're affiliated with with TPUSA. Of course, you, you interview Bibi Netanyahu and you're saying things like, I only got spit on once." Do you hear yourself? Why would the kid spit on you to begin with?

Yeah. And another one who gets massive views. I said earlier, I think the question was like, "What got you on to Charlie? Was it a, you know, was I against Republican or something like that?" No, when someone is getting these massive views, which Officer Tatum as well gets consistently until he got on my radar.

And he's not saying anything amazing in what was it 2015, 2016 when it was very rare to be a so-called black conservative. Fine, great. You were an anomaly. Those things aren't as controversial or new. Why are you still getting these massive views when you're not, and this is no shade to him, he's not the brightest. You're just not. You're not the most articulate. You're not saying them things people hadn't heard before. So why do you consistently, what is it that you're doing that we don't? And, and, and the biggest subconscious thing that people probably resort to, especially if you're a content creator, is they have the funding to be able to get or they have the marketing dollars.

There's no other explanation. I mean, that's, yeah. So I, I think you had said you didn't, uh, complete this, so we could probably skip through the pack. I mean, it's, it's straightforward. It's more all Zionist. This should really be a huge story. What's coming up next? Super Feed Technologies.

Before we read that, let me just read this paragraph out loud. Why would Turning Point set up the pack this way? Turning Point's Pack structure functions as a pressure release valve. It allows the organization to route money outside of its nonprofit filings, making it far easier to obscure obscure insider payouts in questionable vendor arrangements, for example, Jay Hoffman's firms. Beyond laundering risk, the pack, um, also gives them a political war chest that can legally spend in ways that charities cannot while blurring the trail of of who ultimately benefits from donor money.

So, exactly what I said when we first started talking. Remember you asked about donor money and why they would do this? Yeah, I probably should have just read this passage because this is exactly that sums it up right there. That's why they do that. Not to help anyone, not to make the world a better place. It's, it's that this is a wild story here. Super feed. I'm trying to just think how to even. So Tyler, uh, Boyer was involved in this and, uh, the idea was they created this cutting edge app, right? Which is around you register, uh, help get out the vote type thing. Weirdly, I found the developers were in the Ukraine, not like they didn't use American developers. They didn't, you know, hire American like they always push. They had Ukrainians build it. And, and then it just gets even more strange because if we go down to the next page, who's the director? Erica Kirk's mother, who is also a, a lifelong military and government contractor. So, and I do hate speculating, but at certain point, you know, we're not going to know things. We have to speculate. Was this just to harvest data for the government? Because what does Erica Kirk's mother have to do with with something like this? She's running two military contract companies and now she's the director of this app that really appears it's just to register, you know, your, your data on there. And then we have more insider, right? Here in 2024, Super Feed received, and I've hyperlinked it so anyone can see the receipt, $120,000 from Turning Point Pack. And remember Boyer, as you see above, eventually I'm going to get it, is the, uh, chief operating officer. He's been on.

Yeah, so hold on. The, the company was was formed or or the director is Erica Kirk's mother.

And other directors. I only highlighted Erica Kirk because she's notable. There's other directors that I just didn't know who they were.

And, but Tyler Boyer is is, um.

The CEO.

He was the director as well.

Yeah. And COO.

And then became the CEO.

And he has meltdowns on Twitter when you mention this to him. He says, "All I do is give my free time. I don't take any money. All I did was help." You know, another virtue, virtue signaling kind of response. And I mean, he may be technically telling the truth. Maybe he didn't like withdraw money from this company, you know what I mean? Right.

But it's still another sort of insider dirty kind of thing. Like, oh, how convenient. He creates an app, the company funds the app. Why doesn't he pay for it out of his pocket? If you and I start a business together, we're paying for it, right? Like, so, but instead, not these guys, you know, they always make sure Turning Point funds every endeavor they have. So, he's denying it. And like I said, he may be telling the truth from a technical perspective, but it's a bad look. And I think the bigger look is why was Erica's mother the director? What, what background does she have in in an app like this? She doesn't. She's a military contractor. And so, I mentioned this earlier, this next passage where I said lost its legal authority to do business in Arizona. And then when I look at the letterhead from it, it's Justin Olsen. Remember Justin Olsen, the commissioner?

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So, of course, can't prove it, but one would think maybe that's why that didn't get enforced, right? Because Justin Olsen is he going to enforce that on his own company?

Right.

I wouldn't think so. So I've noted that here. I suspect that's the reason. And then, you know, I'm talking down here, same thing about what I think is going on here. And I want to be clear, it's what I think. I, although after I wrote this, this did kind of come out because Andrew Kovit slipped and mentioned was it geo fencing or.

Death memorial, $270,000.

There you go. So I actually should update this because now I feel like I'm not speculating. He is essentially saying they do that. He didn't say Super Feed, but he said, you know, he said they do that. So I, I think it's no longer a speculating. It's kind of like, well, if we connect these two dots, right? Also read the feedback on the app. People said it didn't even work. So it feels like another front. You know, the app is just a front for moving this money and harvesting and collecting young people's data is what I suspect. Because if the app didn't work, then what's the point of the app? And where's the accountability? If I design, I told you I'm a programmer. If I design something that doesn't work, I'm accountable, right? Brian, this, this thing doesn't work, right? You, you made this application, the software. Hey, come fix it. We're like, Carrie Lake is caught up in this. I think she got some massive consulting contract to be with Super Feed. So, it's all the usual suspects that you see in Arizona. And I'm sure Brian would know the names better than myself because he's, you know, the guy you had on because he's an Arizona guy. But that's how this appears. We should really, if we have time, hit on Erica's parents because this, this is wild stuff. If you understand military connections, if you don't, you may, you may think this is nothing, but someone like me who does research, there's a certain pattern you see. And, um, you know, they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and I believe that's what's happened here with Erica. So, Erica admits to this. I found a clip on Twitter. She, she says outright her mother moved from Ohio to Phoenix because of this homeland security job. And then sure enough, I found the proof. So her companies that her mother and father run are getting huge government contracts and they're being subcontract subcontracted by the top military companies. That's what Rathon is. Rathon is like the number one weapons manufacturer. They're involved in Israeli projects. They're involved in everything you see in the world is pretty much a Rathon weapon when it comes to war. So that's, you know, that's a sign that that for someone to get that much money, they're connected in that in that system, you know, of military intelligence because they don't just give that away to anyone. If you and I have a company like this, we're not, we're not getting that money, you know. So I believe she's got some sort of deep connections. And even on their website, just some strange things, you know, this post 9/11 Department of Defense further tested our SAP system to support US war fighters. She got an award for that. So they're not nobody's. You know, she's getting this, uh, Joint Service Achievement Medal, which is a major Department of Defense award. And so, you know, it's not guilt by association, but I think it's like you can speculate by association. You know what I mean? Like,

Right.

Like, like you have to at least go, hm, something's a bit off here. Like these guys are just deeply embedded in this world. She's got nine patents around all this stuff. A state-sponsored book that I found called Blackout Wars and I've linked it there if anyone wants to read the book. It's really about like dystopian sort of things that can happen in the world and somehow she's offering the answers with a whole team of other folks that are like caught up in that line of work, you know, wargaming stuff out, uh, just like world-ending type stuff. You know, if this nuclear thing happens, here's this. And so just caught my attention.

Wait, wait, wait. Repeat what you just said. Say it again.

So, I didn't read, to be fair, I didn't read the whole book, but just I went through enough of it. It's a lot of like what I would call wargaming things out. So, if, um, if a nuclear goes off and half the world gets crushed, here's what we recommend, you know, like it's a lot of that type of stuff like this.

Did Brian, did you see, and I, I don't, I don't even know if you, if you have watched enough of my content, but I, I dropped a video two days ago, two or three days ago. It's called Erica Kirk's father, um, suspicious video from 10 years ago.

I haven't seen that yet, but I've seen the video. But I haven't seen your video. I've only seen the, the video that I think you're referring to. Is it that two-minute YouTube video?

Yes.

Okay. Yeah, but I, forgive me, I've seen.

Of this apocalyptic.

Weird thing of. Anyways, I found a lot of connections like when you get a chance, the video is like 15 minutes long. I, I connected it to to Erica Kirk's music video and some other things and, and her family's history. Anyways, it reminds me of what you're talking about with this book because that video is is is sort of talking about and leaning to this idea of being prepared for if a, if a bomb was to was to strike. And I'm like, why would they put a video like this together and maybe this will provide more information as to why.

It's just strange. And I know strange.

Yeah, you mentioned good points earlier about devil's advocate. You should play that, you know? So, like we're not saying they should be in prison or they're doing anything, but, and it's just strange that all these people that feel installed always have these backgrounds. That's why I started off by saying if you've never done research, this may seem like nothing, but if you have, this is everything.

Yeah.

I recommend your audience, if they're interested, to check out a book called, um, something at Laurel Canyon. The first name will come to me. Essentially, a guy named David, uh, his name will come to me did a whole deep dive on all the musicians from the 60s and 70s. All their parents had military backgrounds like this. They were all installed in a tiny area in Laurel Canyon out in the Hollywood Hills in LA. And he made the point of like, that's what you should be looking at when you're a bit skeptical of someone. Start with their parents. And it was in Jim Morrison, like he went down the list and it was all the same story and it's military. It's not like infantry. It's military intelligence, which is, you know, a bit different than just, hey, I joined boot camp or something like it's.

But see, this is part of Brian. This is part of the reason why like I go back and forth with the Candace thing. It's not that I don't believe Candace's quote unquote controlled opposition, but I have to give credit where it's due. The lady is is talking about all the things that we mentioned in this video for the most part, Freemasonry and, and these weird patterns and, and the audit, but she's also one thing that she has not shut up about since everything has happened. And I don't know if this is supposed to be some sort of reverse psychology. I don't know. She said, "Everybody that I'm telling y'all, some of the She said, "I think I'm starting to believe that every major event that's happened, including major tragedies, have military connected to them." She said, "Why is all these people at Turning Point USA?" She said, "All of them, Rob McCoy, these these pastors, military backgrounds." All of them. I debated a Turning Point USA pastor on my channel. His name is, um, John Amachuku. And surprisingly, he, he told me, at least this is what he told me on camera, that he didn't have a mil, a background in military, but I was sure to ask him because there's so many of them that that seem to have a background in the military and that can't be a coincidence, right?

Like that's why that's why I thought of that book I was telling you about. It's a 300-page book and every example is just musician, military parents, music, you know, he just goes down the list of all of them from the 60s and 70s. How can that be, you know? So, no. And by the Andrew Kulovit, I'm the one that uncovered that. Both his brothers are pretty high up in the military. Kurt Kulovitz and I forgot his other brother's name.

What? He's another one of those guys. First and foremost, he just gives me the heebie-jeebies. Like his, his energy, like we're all human. And for me, energy is is is everything. And when I listen to him, for them to come on that show and to ignore all the things that people are wanting to know, and Candace even said this on her show. She said, "The purpose of a podcast is that you speak about the things people want to hear about." For you all to be hosting Charlie Kirk show and to even reference Charlie Kirk when you're not talking about any of the questions that we want to know about that seem odd to me. And Andrew Kov is sort of spearheading this movement of let's pretend as if we really care, but we're not going to talk about any of the things that you want to know about, you know.

Yeah. I'm convinced he has a background in PR because really, he's just the PR guy, you know. Andrew Kovit is who they used to say Charlie had the neck of steel.

Yeah. But McCoy, you know, they used him.

Yes. But, but they're, but they're now claiming that Andrew Kovit never said that. They came out and said Andrew Kovit never said that. The medical examiner did not tell him that because apparently it's not the medical examiner that would even have the answer to if the if the bullet supposedly stayed in Charlie's body or not.

He's the one who tweeted it. So, right. It's not us. I mean, because he has a PR background. And when you have a PR background, you're very slick. He's a politician, right? He's the kind of character that if he wasn't in Turning Point, he'd be a state senator somewhere, a congressman because it's that type of language. It's this weasly sort of, you know, like he did say that and you shouldn't be able to walk something that extreme back, you know, neck of steel was his words.

Which is a Superman reference, but that's a conversation for another day. That's another, um, rabbit hole.

So, yeah, if we just get back to here real quick, I'll show you. I, I took, uh, some passages from the book and I think it does tie in to what you were saying about that video clip, you know, because it's, it's just like intense these EMPs and what would go on, you know, it's like she has this just, I don't know, she just, I don't know how to explain like just has a background that you're like, "Huh?" And we don't get like interviews from her where we could see in her own words explain that I'm aware of. There's no like YouTube clip of her speaking about what she's done or anything. It's just pictures on Instagram with Erica. But I'd just be curious like in your own words, what do your companies do? How do you add value? Like what, you know, we don't, we don't get that much from her. I would have also like to know why were you involved in, uh, Super Feed, the app? What was your contributions to that? Did you, you know, did you write the business plan? Did you strategically decide? We don't, we don't know. So they force us to speculate because they don't give us anything. They just, they just leave us to do that.

And I think that's all that's that, that's all intentional. Similar to the Charlie Kirk incident. They don't give us anything. We're left to figure it out on our own. And then they pretend like everybody else is wrong for noticing or for having legitimate questions about something that they're choosing to not clarify.

Almost back to the limited hangout that we talked about earlier. Give you just enough but not, not everything. Yeah. And then just like, uh, Lori Kent, Erica's father has a book.

Oh.

So he has a book. Oh, wow.

Yeah. The Desktop Business Intelligence Source Book. And so he, he acknowledged the guy that looks, I don't know if he's a Zionist, but kind of looked that way. Interestingly, and this doesn't mean anything, I'm just saying it's notable. Kent mentions his wife in the book and doesn't mention Erica. You know, in the sections where you acknowledge like your family, your best friend. Yeah. No, Erica.

What? He doesn't mention his own daughter.

And I'm an avid reader. So that's why that jumped out to me because people always mention the whole family. Even the dog. People will say, like, you know, my, my dog, my cat, my daughter, my this, and, um, it just says, "My lovely wife, Lori." Make of that what you will.

Wow.

So maybe he forgot. Again, who knows? Because they.

Who would forget their own daughter, you know? Or maybe one would argue, well, maybe I don't want to put a child in the book because in 1992, she probably would have been what? Um, probably somewhere around 10 years old or, or probably six.

No, she's '88. Erica was '88. So that would make her four.

Four. Okay.

Yeah. But, you know, apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Erica couldn't even remember her own wedding year.

Yes, I saw that clip.

Maybe the father.

And she said the, the reason apparently was because they get a lot of their years mixed up when they're thinking about their marriage because everything happened so fast. And I'm like, I saw someone that said it, maybe you can argue that for the husband, but a woman is not going to forget that. Not that she's not going to forget the day that you proposed. She's not going to forget the place. She's not going to forget when you got married. Those are just things that she's gonna remember because she's the woman, you know.

Unless they didn't get married.

Because vivid things, you just can't avoid a vivid. Just like the first time you hear someone close to you dies, you remember the phone you were on. You remember the room you were in. It's vivid.

It's vivid. And, and, and it also gets even more weird because during that conversation, it just, I, I got the energy from them, but I also ask myself because I try to play devil's advocate and I say, but why would they even talk about this on air and post it? Because, but I've been thinking that about many things about Erica Kirk over the past month, but Charlie Kirk seemed super, maybe dismissive is not the word, but he didn't seem super over the top about the conversation. He was like, "That was an easy question. Let's move on." And I'm like, what? You all just had a moment where you could barely remember the dates of these things and then you say they just knew that they were meant for each other and you move on from that. It was time to build a family. That's it.

He, he knew she was going to botch it.

Wow.

Right. Do, do you know how quick he did? You notice how quick he threw her the life jacket? He just starts yelling off all the dates. May 3rd, 20 May. I'm like, "Wow, that's a weird reaction that he's instantly. That's a life jacket."

Yep.

That's a life. You know, I mentioned Kurt Cobain earlier. Courtney Love had the same problem after Kurt died. She said the wrong day and the wrong date. And then Dave Grohl, who was Kurt Cobain's, uh, what would you call him? Bandmate, right? He's the guy that started Foo Fighters. He's asked how you found out Kurt died because he was talking about the most traumatic thing in his life. He didn't know. He didn't remember who told him. He didn't know where he was. He didn't know how he found out. He didn't know any of it. And.

Similar to how Erica Kirk is being asked about how she found out about Charlie Kirk and then she says that Mikey McCoy called her immediately and then we all know that story has been told like three or four different ways. I like at this point in time, I would imagine that you all can get these lies, allegedly, let's put it this way, you can get these stories on, at, at least get it on the same page or you all saying the same things. Mikey McCoy allegedly called his dad, allegedly called his wife, allegedly called Erica Kirk all at the same time when he reacted to Charlie Kirk allegedly getting pow-powed in 8410 of a second. He didn't jump. He didn't, he didn't run. He didn't seem shocked. He casually turned around and walked off. He never looked back. That makes no sense. Who would? And he never dialed anyone's number. We hear the sound. The phone raises up to his ear as he's turning and he walks away casually. Everybody else is screaming. It's pandemonium. He's casually walking away. How do you call three people and you never make a dial? How do you call three people and you never pull the phone away from your ear to call the next person? We see you on camera the entire time.

It's unbelievable. It was a movie scene, you know. It was no different than a scene you'd see, you know, going to the theater. You just, the internet is the new movie because I know you were talking earlier about the internet. The, the internet was created by DARPA. DARPA is an extension of the military. So, you should first ask yourself, why would the military create the internet? And it was for reasons like this. They, they can then install these kind of events, right? George Floyd happened on the internet. Charlie Kirk happened on the internet. You know.

By the way, those two individuals share the same birthday.

Same birthday. Very odd. It's odd that in the same video, George Floyd had tattoos and didn't have tattoos. I don't know how that's possible.

Yeah.

Unless, but anyway, that's a story for another day. But it shows you like, no, the internet is now the problem. The influencer class is now the problem. No one trusts the mainstream anymore. So the, so the influencer class is who, who controls our thoughts, right? The mind control comes from that. Comes from the internet. Charlie Kirk would be an example. Andrew Tape, all the different people we've talked about in this video. That's like my real concern with the internet that everyone knows CNN is garbage, but not these influencers. Jack Bobic, you got to follow this guy. So and so is great. They'll have four million followers. They all can get traction very quickly.

And many of them are, are, are just not likable. Jack Bobic, like I don't care if conservative, I, I don't care where you fall. To me, that guy just comes off as so unlikable to me. He just doesn't have stage presence, but you going to lie, he has this huge following. It's like, okay, cool. Somebody likes him. And I believe a military background, naval, I don't know if it's naval intelligence, but some kind of, uh, some kind of military background. So, something in in that you'd have to look it up, but he's definitely another one where it's like, oh, it's weird. He's got that background. Then he gets installed into, he's with Steve Bannon, you know, on that network with the Charlie Kirk, the Real America's Voice. He's not questioning the shooting.

At all.

Whenever a MAGA guy is is considered and done that, we're questioning it. And now at all. So.

Speaking of MAGA, I know this is a little bit off topic, but I'm curious what you think about, uh, the, the, what many would call the groundbreaking news that just came out about January 6th. Did you see the news?

I'm going to look really bad. No, actually, I don't know what you're talking about. So, how.

Instead, busy, forgive me. I'm like on the internet and then I'll go be completely dark.

Absolutely. Well, let me, let me, let me instead of, let me, let me do it like this. I'll show it. Like I saw Jan 6th headlines, but I didn't actually read.

You didn't see what, what, what news came out. Let me.

I just saw headlines. So no.

It officially came out. Boom. Let me, let me share the screen. Sorry everybody. I know this is going to be a little bit off topic, but I want this is important for you all to see because it's sort of related to what Brian and I are talking about right now. Let me show it to you. Breaking. Former Capitol Police Officer Shawn Ray Kirkoff is a forensic match to the long sought January 6 pipe bomber. That's all a cover up.

That's. Wow.

Do what?

I mean.

Dude, what? I'm pretty sure Alex Jones is the one. I know you mentioned him earlier. Gives you just enough to break. Actually, it wasn't, uh, Alex that broke the story. It was, uh, what's his name? Is it Glen Beck? Beck.

From the Blaze. My Glen Beck. Yeah.

He, he broke the story. Yep.

Yeah. I mean, to some, this may seem crazy. I guess to me, it seems like a given because I just don't believe these events, you know? So, I'm sorry. Like.

Reasonable explanation is that it was an inside thing because you're able to pull it off the best.

I would have been more shocked if you told me it wasn't.

Yep.

Then you would have seen me with like, wow, oh my God. But no, that's, that's what I expect. You know, that's go as far back in time. Go back to in the 60s, all these events that happened that were engineered, right? COINTELPRO, you know, remember where the feds and the CIA would infiltrate? How was this not COINTELPRO? How was Ray Epps not COINTELPRO? How was Jan 6, you know, it's hurting you. And we talked earlier, why do we have Charlie Kirk herding people in a certain direction? Why do we have this guy and Ray Epps and that? It's the same thing. Herding them into the capital, herding them to Jan 6, then herding them into jail for doing it. You know, that's what to me all these events feel like. We have to somehow get, get active, get involved, but then it hurts us. And, you know, slightly off topic, but not really. It reminds me of like when Kanye was making it feel acceptable. Post anti-Jewish memes. Post that. But then who's going to go down for it? You will. Elijah Schaefer. I just saw a headline where he's, forgive me, I don't know the details. I only saw the headline, but something, I don't know if he posted a meme or he retweeted something and now he's caught up in something. So I feel like they make this feel acceptable. So then when you do it, you go down. Candace Owens is not going to go to jail for being anti-Zionist. I.

assure you. But you might, and I might. But she won't. Same with Tate. Same with Fentes. I guarantee you none of that because they're hurting you in that direction. Whether intentional or not, that I don't know, right? I'm not inside them to know that. But I just know none of them ever seem to get in trouble. It's always the peasant that thinks, "Oh, this is awesome. I can now post these memes and then you go down." So it feels like Jan 6 and all of that, you know. So these engine, these events feel very engineered. The Ukrainian white girl felt very engineered to me.

Yeah, I have some opinions that may not be YouTube friendly, but I've actually spoken about that. I'm not, I, I'll just say it this way. This is a safe way of saying it. I'm not so sure it happened.

>> Yeah, I think it happened in front of a green screen. So, I don't know if it's safe for me to say that on here, but >> yeah, I'm not so sure the incident happened. >> My opinion, you know, >> it's so let's put it this way. It was very convenient because shortly after that, um, Charlie Kirk spoke on it. Then the Charlie Kirk situation happened and what happened the same day or the day after they passed a bill where they decided not to pursue the Epstein thing and then they decided to continue to um fund the Ukraine war and it was a Ukrainian girl involved or Ukrainian refugee involved in this incident. It's just all too weird. And I'm, I'm only 30, but I've been around long enough kind of like what Charlie said in the clip. He said he started to notice patterns when he started to question things about the mil, the war in the Middle East. And I'm like, bro, you, you, you had the ability and the cognitive ability, ability to notice patterns 15 years ago, Charlie Kirk. You, you're not just noticing patterns when it comes to that war and things that are, that are not adding up on October 7th when they're telling you it took them however many hours to respond. You knew it was red flags before that point. But I digress.

So, if you're ever interested in me having me back on, not to invite myself, but you said something caught my interest. I had studied once all the CIA psychological studies that they've done, and it's probably maybe 50 that I went through. It goes to exactly this. Meaning, just having Ukraine in the in the woman's name, you know, that she's Ukrainian will have a a psychological effect on you where now you're more likely to co-opt the Ukraine war as opposed to before we hated it, right? Screw Ukraine. I'm anti. They've studied this. I'm telling your eye, if you haven't read it, it is really fascinating stuff to start looking through starting in like the 20s. From the 20s to probably the 70s, just wild studies they would do to gather the most important intel to then effectively use that, right, for stuff like this. They know that now. They, they know that's huge. Smelly fish was one. I mean, there's so many just crazy ones where you wouldn't believe that the audience would fall for it, but it's that powerful.

>> Right? >> You know, so >> heck yeah. Well, Brian, man, this was incredible. Um, this is going to because obviously a lot of people have already heard about the audit. Some people have never heard about it, but I've yet to see someone go this in depth to talk about uh the things that were found from a is it safe to call it from a forensic perspective.

>> I would definitely because we looked at every transaction. So yeah, that is safe.

>> From a forensic perspective um and even go as so far to to you know and you know safely speculate and it's just our opinions of what some of this stuff could mean because there's been very little transparency given um about what some of these transactions could mean and at the very, I think at at very best you can call it unethical. I don't know if you can call it anything better than that because it just makes no sense. So I appreciate you, man. Um, if you have any last words, um, please feel free to share.

>> Now, >> I mean, I, I think we covered a lot. And, uh, the only thing I'll reiterate is I would just urge anyone that may think something's off with anything we're saying, go to IRS.gov and we can provide what are called the EIN numbers. Every nonprofit has a unique number. Look for yourself. You shouldn't trust me. Go there yourself. Put in the EIN, download the filing, and start to read it. You know, like, like that's what I always tell people. And they're so quick to think, "Hey, I got it wrong." There's nothing wrong with that. You should think that. So, go there and read it and you'll see, you know, or maybe I did get something wrong and you'll see what I got wrong, but you should do that. If you're thinking something is off here, go look.

>> The last question I want to ask you is in an ideal world, do you believe that this, this sort of activity could in some scenarios land some people in prison?

>> Man, that, that's tough. I think in a real just world it would. But I think the problem is when you go back historically and look how this all got started, it was the robber barons. It was the elites, right? Who writes the laws? Who, who created this nonprofit system? So that makes me pessimistic in the sense that someone would ever like go down for this. I mean, historically, it has happened, but it is very rare that someone will go to prison for this because I said earlier, I don't think they want to open that can of worms. Wouldn't you then now look into the Clinton Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Jeff Bezos? We can go on and on of all these, the Blexit Foundation, right? You would just start digging into that. They don't teach this in college. I was a finance major. This never comes up. You take an auditing class, not on nonprofit auditing, of course, just on like corporate auditing, you know. So, there's just really not for me enough of a precedent that's been set that we could say, "Yeah, if we really push hard on this, people are going to go down." What will happen because I've been involved in other stories, they'll make their Twitters private. I did another story where I exposed a nonprofit and they all made their their Twitters private. So that told me, well, I was right about this. None of them, none of them challenged it. They just went private. All of them. It was private. I sent you the report today. Won't talk about it on air, but that one that I had said to you kind of connects to this. Those guys their Twitter private and quickly made it private like that day. Yep. So, but no one went down. No one got in trouble. No one even got removed from the board. They just made their Twitter private. Then there's a new big story in the media. You know, that one is forgotten.

>> And they just move on.

>> Yeah. So, I mean, I'm not trying to sound like doom and gloom, but I don't know if you agree. It just seems hard to think some of the people we talked about are actually going to going to like do jail time.

>> Right?

>> I just they're always going to hang on. Hey, it was legal. And they may be right, but I, I think for one, the funding, why can't we do that? Funding should be pulled. Or how about no one goes to jail? You lose your tax exempt status. I don't know why we can't do that. Maybe we should have talked about that a little more. Think how big of a deal it is to be tax exempt. You're not paying taxes.

>> Like churches, right?

>> Yeah. But Charlie Kirk is is tax exempt. That's the whole point of the. So, if they're not going to go to prison, we can't have them lose that. Now, you have to be for-profit where you pay taxes and you have a whole different set of rules. Why can't we at the minimum make them lose their nonprofit status and their tax exempt status? I think that's more than reasonable when you look at what we've uncovered. If jail is too extreme, then can we at least do that? How about remove some of them from the board? They don't have to again be in prison. They can't be gone from the board. So, I think there's things we can do. It's just is there an appetite for it? And maybe you, you have a good following maybe from you know pressing this sort of thing maybe there will be an appetite but from what I've seen there really never is an appetite to push nonprofits because if we're all getting in on the gravy train we're not going to point fingers it's like Epstein Island right the guy that's there isn't going to tell any other guy that's there because then he just so it this feels very similar to that.

>> Yeah, I 100% agree. Brian, thank you so much once again and to answer your um self-invite invitation earlier um absolutely I plan to have you on if you're open to it. Um, I'd like to have you on live. I think my audience would love to hear from you, man, because you have a lot of information. You seem well-balanced and and u um m maybe that's something we can put together in the next couple of weeks or so, man.

>> I would love to do live with you. Yeah, I feel like now that I've done this, you know, first time, hopefully that went okay. But yeah, live sounds fun and thanks again for giving me the platform and and showing my story. I really appreciate it.

>> Absolutely. I'll be speaking to you soon.

>> Okay, Dee, take care.

>> All right, that was great. Now, the last thing I want to say uh before we get up off of here, like I said, man, this is long. Like, lot of files, man. I printed this out and it's a lot of damning information here. I'll try to remember to link this below. It's crazy. It's crazy. Last thing I'll say is I've shared this story before. I actually interviewed with Turning Point Action earlier this year. Um, probably about four or five months before the whole Charlie Kirk situation happened. I interviewed with Turning Point Action. I was going to be working with their social media team. And something that stood out to me that in retrospect, in hindsight, looking back now, is that when I through email, my entire time talking to them, I was speaking to older women, which was normal. HR, you would expect that from HR being older individuals, typically women. But once I actually joined the interview, it was two younger girls. I thought that was interesting that I was, you know, I'm 30. I was interviewing with like they looked like they were no older than maybe 21, 22 years old. But it wasn't until I interviewed with them. I joined the interview. One of the girls, it was two girls. One of them was giving me like this super entitled energy and vibe. She, she, she may have looked at me two or three times the entire interview. She looked down the whole time. Looked like she was maybe on her phone. I got super privileged, entitled vibes from her. But the other girl um was super, super professional, super polite. And what stood out to me from the interview more than anything else other than other other than their age, I wasn't expecting that was the fact that they waited until the interview to tell me that the job that I would be doing and the job description was actually going to be different because they were starting a new company that was going to be public facing as a um bipartisan or nonpartisan organization, another 501c4 that would encourage people to go out and vote. And the reason they were going to be doing that was because Turning Point altogether, not just Turning Point USA, but Turning Point all together had taken a sort of hit because of Charlie Kirk becoming so popular across the country that people who were not already conservative probably had preconceived notions about who Charlie Kirk was, about what his opinions were. So they were trying to find a more strategic way of convincing people to become conservative. And that just rubbed me the wrong way that they waited until the interview to tell me that they were sort of going to pick a completely different name that was completely unrelated to Turning Point. I understand that that's strategic and it's not necessarily sinister to be doing that. But given all the other information that we know, looking back on that seemed a bit weird to me.

Anyways, man, y'all in the comment section, hit the like button if you don't mind. Thank you so much for um watching this far if you made it this far. It's a pretty long interview, but I think it was very informative. I appreciate you all. Um, I'm Demetrius. I go by Dee. Until next time. Peace. Oh yeah, Diddy got a podcast.