Transcription
Cuz this is most recent with respect to our interview with Charlie Kirk. Charlie's assassination was a cult ritual and I believe the people around him are into dark demonic stuff. I think his his assassination had to be livestreamed and people who are evil.
Some ritualistic thing or. So for two minutes the people who orchestrated his assassination it was ritualistic. I think that they wanted to be publicized in that way because they thought they were then going to harness our emotion from having seen it to their benefit and what it did was it certainly did harness emotion but it was not to their benefit. The emotional reaction that happened if they could have controlled it and built a conduit for it would have been amazing.
Okay, some of this went through she went on to elaborate that the place where Charlie Kirk has an outline of a pentagram and so that was ritualistic. There's also been suggestions that you know jewelry that Erica Kirk wore had an M and a G which stands for the the G stands for you know God of the Great Architect within Freemasonry and the M stands for like Mossad or something like that which again I think Erica Kirk or could just be the initials of her children. So is it more likely that it's the initials of her children or it's more likely that this is a part of a ritualistic Masonic cult that wants to assassinate Charlie Kirk with the help of the Mossad? But there is something that she says here that I do think is interesting and that's the idea of the harnessing of the emotion around Charlie's murder for your own nefarious purposes. I could see where somebody might do that. I could see where somebody might harness the emotion of the murder of Charlie Kirk in such a way as to benefit themselves or achieve some sort of objective that was not pure or honest. I could see how that could happen. I could see how that could happen.
Um, here's, here's what I want to just kind of conclude with. I'm not asking anybody to accept the official narrative. All right? If you, if you have questions, I have questions. In fact, let me go over some of them right now that I saw questions on. One of the questions that I have, um, has to do with the 16 minutes of redacted testimony from Twiggs. I don't know why they redacted that from, uh, public viewing at this stage in the game. Remember, we're in a preliminary hearing. So, in the preliminary hearing, there's approximately 16 minutes of testimony from a key witness, that's Twiggs, were redacted from the public record. I don't know why. Um, is that proof of a conspiracy? To me, it is not. Uh, it is curious. I don't know why it is there. I'm interested to hear what's in those 16 minutes, but I also understand this is a preliminary hearing, not the actual trial. And so, I do, I would like to eventually know what that is. But I, I'm curious about it. The other thing is there was an abandoned, uh, pistol holster. So, a pistol holster was recovered near the scene of the assassination, and it's not been definitively attributed to Robinson or to any other individual in any publicly available law enforcement, um, statement, hearing, testimony, etc.
I want to talk about our good friends over at Good Ranchers because July is National Grilling Month for obvious reasons, right? And this is the perfect time for great meals with family and friends. It's not just about having a good meal. It really is about coming together around the dinner table with family, with friends. And Good Ranchers is what you want on the plate. Deliver 100% American meats sourced directly from local farmers and ranches, so you know exactly where your food is coming from. And look, we're celebrating the 250th anniversary of American people. Let's buy American beef, pork, poultry, and wild-caught seafood. Now, as a subscriber myself, I can tell you that both the quality and the convenience have made a real difference for me. Whenever the Good Ranchers box shows up, like we're all giddy in this household cuz we know we're going to get delicious Wagyu burgers. We're going to get delicious New York strip steaks, ribeyes, you name it, it is coming and we are super excited about it. Now, if you would like to try Good Ranchers, you can go to goodranchers.com/discount/nick and then when you check out use code Nick because that checkout at that checkout you're going to get $50 off your first order and free meat for life when you start a plan, right? You're not just going to get the meat you ordered in there, they're going to throw on some on top of that if you start one of the plan. So, go to goodranchers.com/discount/nick, use code Nick, get that $50 off and free meat in every box. That's Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.
So, I don't think that pistol holster necessarily proves that somebody else was involved or there was a second shooter or anything else, but it's interesting. You know, who's it there, how's it been documented, what's the chain of custody, do we have any, you know, what does law enforcement care to enlighten us on on who it could have belonged to? By the same token, knowing something about carrying firearms, concealed carrying firearms and things like that is it possible that somebody could have dropped a holster without having any nefarious intent? Sure. But the fact that it was there and the fact that everything that happens, that's that's an interesting line, an interesting line of investigation and so I would like to know why it was there or what they why they think it was there.
When it comes to the .30-06 round understand that again, I'm a weapon surgeon. So, when a .30-06 round generally hits something, usually there's an exit wound when it hits like flesh, when it hits like the neck. You would think there would be, you would think there would be an exit wound. Now, sometimes bullets don't behave the way you anticipate. What causes them to behave that way? Well, if they hit something else first, if they ricochet off of something, sometimes bullets when they hit bone don't do what you would expect them to do. Sometimes there can be something wrong with the bullet itself. The bottom line is is that if you tell me 30-ought-6 wound to the neck, I expect certain things to happen. Some of those things did not happen with respect to Charlie. So, I, I would like to know why. Like, what is the explanation? And from what I understand, they're talking about possible ricochet, they're talking about fragmentation, they're talking about possible problems with respect to the round or the way, you know, it was it was fired. The people that are trying to claim like this was some expert shot, no it was not. Uh, a bolt-action rifle, uh, that has been properly zeroed, you should be able to hit a a target at the range that they were at fairly easily. Uh, especially when you're doing it from a a prone position. So, I, I don't think it's, you know, weird that, oh, you're telling me this kid hit Charlie with this rifle at the, yeah, that's totally possible with with very, very little training you should be able to accomplish that. Um, it, it's also probable that he was aiming for his head and hit his neck. Right? Or he could have been aiming, in the military we would have said aim center mass. Um, and he, he could have been off a little bit and and that's why the bullet went where it did. Uh, but I, I agree that it's interesting. Now, a lot of people are coming forward saying, "Oh, this is proof that this is a cover-up." No, it isn't. It just isn't. And and again, stop confusing being a special forces operator or a SEAL or, uh, uh, especially with weapons, stop confusing that with being a ballistics expert. It, it's perfectly legitimate to say, "That's unusual." Cuz it is. But what that should cause us to do is say, "Okay, we'd like to hear the explanation." And and the doctor saying, "Oh, you know, his, you know, neck was like made of steel." That's, that's not a good explanation. It's not a good explanation, okay?
By the same token, when we look at things like the weapon itself, Robinson identified the weapon. He noted in his own text that it likely had no serial number, would not trace to him, and he was right. The rifle predates the Gun Control Act of 1968 which mandated serial number markings. The ATF's unsealed blister report confirmed a casing match. The spent cartridge casings recovered at the scene are consistent with the recovered rifle. Okay, DNA on the weapon is consistent with Robinson. And this part of the forensic record at this point is not inconclusive. So, the bullet itself inconclusive, but all those other things came back conclusive. Now, if you want to believe that they screwed up the DNA and they handled it, right? Okay, but I'm going to ask for the evidence of why you believe that. And if you just say, "Well, because it's a conspiracy." What's your evidence of the conspiracy? So, you know, again, but this idea that, um, you know, hitting soft tissue at that range, again, I, I would want a greater explanation on that.
Um, now, when it comes to the whole idea of the radicalization of Robinson, there's some people that list this as this is a real unknown at this point. How do you explain how this guy one day just decided to murder someone? Well, I don't think it's just one day. I mean, the guy actually has a trans boyfriend. Now, again, if you don't believe any of that narrative and it's all this elaborate conspiracy, one thing I'm going to tell you is the more and more elaborate a conspiracy gets, the less likely it is to hold up. Somebody cracks. Somebody breaks. Somebody. And there has, it's not like there hasn't been enough people actually offer an out here. So, you know, again, one of the, one of the ways to keep a conspiracy a conspiracy is to limit the number of people that actually have knowledge of the conspiracy. Well, we're getting to the point right now where so many people have to be in on this. This is like the people that think that the LAPD framed O.J. Right? Yeah, that's right. Everyone got together and decided to do really cool to frame O.J. one day. Like I, elaborate conspiracies have a real hard time remaining conspiracies. That's, that's all I'm not impossible, but a real hard time.
When it comes to this idea that, you know, how do you, how do you, how do you explain him becoming radicalized? I'm sorry, have you been in America recently? Have you listened to the left talk? Here's a question. Did any of you watch the sort of reaction that otherwise normal people had on the left when Charlie was murdered? The, the normal reaction would have been like, you know what? I don't like Charlie. I don't like what he had to say, but this is horrible. This is horrific. He was a husband. He was a father. He was trying to have conversations. I may not have liked what he said, but man, this is horrible. No, I was watching leftists, especially like young leftists, giddy. Just having Halloween outfits. You know, celebrating Charlie being murdered. You really think it would be that difficult to radicalize someone? We, we, we already have the polling which shows that the more left-wing you are, the more acceptable you believe political violence is. And that's from self-identified leftists voluntarily answering a poll. I went to the University of Washington, Seattle, and I got challenged to a fight. There was another guy running around crazy, challenging other people in the audience. So, I'm sorry, this idea that, you know, how do you, how do you possibly explain this guy being radicalized? He attended a college campus, right? He was dating a trans guy that he became convinced was under threat of trans genocide from a Nazi fascist. Yeah, I think you could convince somebody that was not completely mentally stable. And a man dating a trans man is not someone mentally stable to do something fairly dangerous, fairly horrific, fairly horrible, in the belief that it was morally justified in his own mind. C.S. Lewis said this best where he said that, you know, it's, it's the, it's the moral busybodies that can torment you the worst because they can do so with the approval of their own conscience, especially when they can outsource their moral reasoning to somebody else that they believe that they're defending. So, I, I don't think it's crazy.
Again, as I, at Intel, I'm saying, "Hey Nick, based off of everything that's going on right now in these circumstances and what do you actually see, do you think it's possible that someone like Tyler Robinson could be convinced that killing Charlie Kirk was something that he had to do to protect someone he loved?" >> Yeah. Yeah, I, I think that would be a motive.
So, here's my question. Cuz another claim that Candace Owens has made is she doesn't think Tyler Robinson was even there that day. Well, I will say this, there is some video evidence that is harder to tell, there's others that I think are sufficiently clear to to say, "Yep, that's probably, that is probably Tyler Robinson." Plus, they have also information that his car was actually on the campus as well. They have two different things where it looks like he's changed clothes. The other thing is you have corresponding DNA evidence. So, now we're looking at this going, "Okay, we have one source, the video surveillance. You have other source which can confirm that it's his car being there. You have another source in the form of DNA. You have another source in the form of him writing letter and engaging in conversations with Twigs."