#116- Good vs Evil: Charlie Kirk’s assassination, comeback confessional, mission reboot

we unpack the Charlie Kirk assassination questions, sift media narratives vs. facts, confront the censorship creep dressed up as “hate speech”, and revisit the Epstein files as a litmus test for elite accountability. We also tackle geopolitical pressure points (including the Israel debate), analyze digital forensics around chats and “confessions,” reflect on memorial optics and power plays, and—most importantly—chart a path where faith becomes the compass for clearer thinking and better action.

Where I’ve been, why I’m back. We open with a candid reset: how the mission blurred, why the mic went dark, and what brought it back. The answer is both personal and public—a resolve to tell the truth in a way your kids could replay someday and still find courage in.

The assassination lens—questions that won’t die quietly. We examine the lone-gunman storyline, angle-of-shot disputes, timelines, and the now-infamous chat fragments. Not to force conclusions—but to keep the questions precise, persistent, and public.

Media narratives vs. receipts. Next, we pressure-test official statements, “fact checks,” and neatly tied bows. If an explanation demands your blind trust, we’ll ask for the evidence—and show you where the holes still are.

Free speech, relabeled. Then we move into the censorship fight: how “hate speech” framing is being used as a lever to silence inconvenient opinions, and what stress-tests (big and small) reveal about who holds the switch.

Geopolitics, incentives, and the unmentionables. We engage the Israel debate and broader foreign-influence questions with sober skepticism and documented context—because real analysis follows incentives, not hashtags.

Epstein as the honesty test. We revisit the files, the evasions, and the convenient amnesia. If leaders won’t tell the truth about this, why trust them on anything harder?

Forensics & ellipses. We decode the chat logs and digital “confessions,” highlight linguistic oddities, and separate what’s provable from what’s theatrical—so speculation doesn’t drown the signal.

Memorials, optics, and power. We assess the staging, speeches, and symbolism—not to snark, but to understand how grief, politics, and influence collide in public rituals.

Faith as compass. Finally, we pivot from critique to construction: Scripture-anchored principles that make life better—and make activism braver, wiser, and harder to co-opt. That’s the new North Star.

Call to Action

If you believe truth still matters, subscribe now and turn on alerts. Watch full episodes on YouTube, get deeper dives on Substack, and follow along on social for clips, receipts, and live Q&As. Your listens, shares, and reviews keep this mission moving—thank you for riding with me.

All the Links

One tap to everything: https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams

 

Support My Business: Https://roninbasics.com

----more---- Full Transcript

 Adams archive. Hello, you beautiful people and welcome to the Adams Archive. My name is Austin Adams, and thank you so much for listening today. On today's episode, we're gonna talk about where the heck I've been for over a year, because this is my first podcast back and I cannot be more excited about it.

So we'll talk about what happened that caused me to drop off the way I did off of social media, off of my podcast. Uh, it has to do with obviously some of the. Political situations that are happening, some of the infighting, kind of just finding my own way and my own mission again. And so I'll tell you all about that journey and actually how I was affected by Charlie Kirk, and he inspired me to grab the microphone back and begin to continue my journey of speaking out for that mission.

So then we're gonna talk about all of the happenings with the Charlie Kirk assassination. Absolute tragedy. It has now been. 13 days, almost two weeks since the event happened. And we're gonna talk through all of it. We're gonna talk through Charlie Kirk's character. We're gonna talk through some of the learnings that I had from Charlie Kirk, and all of the clips that we've all been seeing over the last couple of weeks.

Uh, we're gonna talk about, um. All of the questions that I have surrounding his assassination. 'cause I have a lot of them. I have gone through and had analyzed many of the previous, uh, assassinations that were super high profile and politically motivated in the past. And through that lens I have a lot of.

Questions a lot of them. And so we'll walk through what all of those questions are. We'll walk through what the actual narrative that's being given to us by the government is we'll talk through what are those current plot holes, who is talking about them. And even more importantly, who's not talking about them.

We will talk about, uh, and when I say that, I'm mostly sa saying, you know, cash Patel and the FBI and the, you know, the governmental agencies that are responsible for this. Although, I would say one thing we're gonna talk about too is that Cash Patel actually came out and, uh, kind of, uh. Called it what he saw a lot of people talking about.

So we'll go through the FBI director's tweet that actually broke down a lot of the conspiracies, so we'll, we'll go through that as well. Then we're gonna talk through what, what could be the political motivation to this? Who could have, this is actually been, if it's not the guy they're saying it is, if it's a patsy, who could it have actually been?

Right? A lot of people are throwing out the word real, and I don't know if that's the only name that we should be throwing out in the political landscape that we're in. I have a couple other theories. So then we'll talk about how freedom of speech has been under attack since this happened, and why that's the worst possible reaction you could have ever had to Charlie Kirk's assassination.

And then we'll talk a little bit about the memorial 'cause I have some weird thoughts about that, including some thoughts about Erica Kirk, although she had an amazing speech. So nothing to take away from that. But I got some questions guys. I got some questions and I'm here to talk about it with you. So stick around and before I forget.

Leave a review, hit that five stars, subscribe. If this is your first time here, thank you so much. I appreciate you from the bottom of my heart. If this is the first time listening to me in over a year, I appreciate you too. I'm so glad to be back. Thank you for listening, and without further ado, let's jump into it.

The Adams archive.

All right, let's jump into it. So the first question you might have is, where the heck have you been to Austin? Good question. Let me answer that for you. So about a year ago, um. With all the situations that was happening politically, Trump kind of looking like he was getting into office and I kind of lost my mission in, in what I was doing this for, right?

We go all the way back to the very first episode. The goal of this podcast was to give my thoughts in a way that I thought that my children, my grandchildren, could hear my opinions as to certain current events and previous historical events. And if nobody ever listened to it, that would be pretty cool to me if my children listened to it and got to hear their dad, their grandpa, their whatever, talk about these events, first person, and not have to take it from some textbook that was written for them without any additional narratives around what actually happened.

So that's where this started. Then that turned into me being, uh, very politically motivated in, in a lot of the things that I saw that I think were against the better good of our country. And being the patriot that I grew up being, uh, I wanted to correct those and speak out about those things and, and give my opinion on those things and be a voice for people like you who maybe didn't have the time or the energy or the effort to be able to do these types of things or, um, you know, maybe the, the, I don't know.

I would say hopefully not. Uh. You know, eloquence to be able to do so. Um, so that was some of the reasoning behind what I did this four, right? If nothing else, my children could listen to it and they would think that's pretty cool. And I would think that's pretty cool. And along the way, a lot of you guys also cared about my opinion.

And so I found myself in a situation where I continued to continue, continued to talk about current events. And I found, found myself getting washed out a little bit, um, because. It felt like we were winning, right? It felt like the war was kind of won. It felt like we overcame the, uh, the wokeness that was ingraining itself into our society, and, and the, the pendulum had swung back.

And so I didn't feel as motivated to take the time to speak out about those things as, uh, energetically as I had previously. And so. From there. I also have a business or multiple businesses. I have a family, and so I decided to put my time, energy, and effort into that. But now I realize after tying this into the full narrative here, where that went wrong, right?

There is a bigger picture here for those children who will be listening to this, for those grandchildren who would be listening to this. And what I would say to them is, let your voice be heard. Your voice matters, and. But I think there's a reason, there's a, there's a way that I kind of went wrong with what I was doing before, and hopefully I can correct that.

It fell very much into the right verse left category right. What I found to be really interesting watching a lot of the clips with Charlie Kirk is that he wasn't just taking his finger and wagging it at people and telling them what they were doing wrong. He was telling them how they could do better and then pointing them in a direction that would help them do so.

And by a direction, I mean up towards God, towards Jesus, towards the Bible, towards biblical teachings and how they can improve their life. If they followed these teachings, your life will get better. They don't just tell you, you shouldn't do that thing, right? You should, well, maybe you shouldn't do that thing, and let me show you how this can help you to improve your life, not only in this facet, but in others.

And so I think that was something that was missing from my approach before where I don't think I gave enough positive. Answers to the negativity that I found myself having to bask in every day. Right? There was just so much negativity, whether it was the trans stuff, whether it was the, the political landscape or the wars that were breaking out or all of these things like the, the, it just was so heavy and so negative constantly without the guiding light to push people towards.

That was what Charlie Kirk. Was able to do and the impact that he had. And what we saw is that the, the biggest theme about Charlie Kirk wasn't his socioeconomic beliefs, his his beliefs on the tax regulation or his judicial beliefs on certain laws and regulations. Like it wasn't, it was none of that.

Right? The reason that Charlie Kirk had such a big impact was because he pointed. People up, he ported them towards something better, even if he was critiquing something that they were doing. And usually this morality that he found himself holding was based fundamentally in those teachings that he learned from the Bible.

And I, myself, as you, you may know from the years that you've been listening to me, wasn't as, uh, entrenched in my faith as maybe I am now. And I'm glad to say that I, I'm there. I found it. I've, over the last couple of years, I, I have been able to. Read more about the Bible, read more about Jesus, read more about Christianity, and have been able to find something for myself and my family that has made me a better man and have made me a better leader for those around me.

And so, um, yeah, that's what I got to say about it guys. Like it was so negative and there was no better way, right? It was just, this is bad, this sucks. You guys are terrible. This is not good for humanity. It was never like, Hey, but check, check this thing out over here. This is pretty cool guys. Like this could actually help you improve your life.

And, uh, and so I'm, I'm happy to say that I've found that, and, and the, the way that I plan to approach this moving forward is not that of like left verse right. It's not blue verse red and it is truly about good verse evil. That is what this podcast will be about. If I see something that I think is morally wrong, I will call it out, whether it's on the left, whether it's on the right, whether it's nothing to do with politics, I will call it out.

That is the goal of this, and so if you don't like that, if feel free to leave now, that's perfectly fine with me. That's perfectly fine. I will find my tribe, although I have an inkling to think that the people who have been listening to me are also on the same wavelength as me, and for so long I have also criticized Trump and, and the things that he's doing.

And, uh, I will continue to do so if those things I believe are morally unethical, including the Epstein files. Right in including the preemptive strike on Iran, including like some of these things that we've been talking about that I've been calling out for quite some time. That is going to be the theme of what we're doing here, guys.

Okay. So with all that being said, I found a better way and I am so thankful that Charlie Kirk kind of paved the way for this type of discussion. And, uh, happy to say that I'll be picking up the mic myself along with many, many other people to hopefully continue his legacy. All right. With all that said, let's talk about the event with Charlie Kirk.

Right? And one of the things that he taught me is that politics is the battleground for morality, but it's not the only battleground, right? There's so many other things that we need to discuss and talk about, including the health movement, including, you know. So many different topics. And so there's been a complete illusion of choice, right?

It's not left versus right. It's not blue versus red. It's good versus evil. And what we saw with Charlie Kirk was absolute evil. And where that came from, we're gonna get to the bottom of it. Alright? So the mainstream narrative with Charlie Kirk is that there was a lone gunman who acted alone, who assassinated Charlie Kirk because of his beliefs on trans ideology.

That seems to be the narrative, right? That's the writings on the bullet, right? He, he took himself onto the top of the rooftop and took a shot from almost parallel to Charlie Kirk, and it went into his neck and didn't have any exit wound, and Charlie died right there on the spot. And then, then some weird stuff happened and occurred that we'll talk about too.

So one of those things being. One thing that I seem to have the biggest problem with here is that so many people, Donald Trump, k Patel, uh, even Erica Kirk, during the Memorial service, everybody is out there saying that. Anybody who tells you that this is case closed at this point, September 23rd, 2025.

Anybody who tells you that this is case closed with Charlie Kirk's assassin, we should stop. Looking at other, other, pulling on other strings, looking in other directions, asking questions that aren't anything to do with this man, Tyler Robinson, then you should be suspicious of them. One, he's made no confession.

Why are reacting like this is the guy if there's no confession? He hasn't been tried by a jury. It's not even the court of public opinion at this point because it's not the public's opinion. It's the court of government opinion. We're being told by everybody in the government right now that this is the guy stop asking questions case shut.

He did it. Gonna get the death penalty. Doesn't that seem weird in a society that you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? That is how this is supposed to go. The government does not get to jump on a news cycle. Say he did it. We know he did it. We don't have the evidence yet besides these discord, discord, uh, discord chats that Discord says didn't exist.

Right. And we'll look at those chats together 'cause those are super suspicious. So he goes on the roof, he shoots him, then he gets off of the roof right after dissembling his rifle, which would take more than a minute to disassemble. Big pothole there. Right shot shot him with a 30 out six into the neck, but it apparently had no exit wound.

Very weird, right? According to the surgeon that worked on him, according to the PR agent, that works for Turning Point, that's the case because of his bone density. Okay? Anybody who knows anything about guns would tell you that a 30 out six caliber rifle, right, a 36 bullet would completely have an exit wound.

No situation where that doesn't occur. That is meant for big game, right? No way. That's the case. So shoots him, jumps off there, goes into a forest, goes, walks through the back area of this, you know, of UVU, takes his rifle, puts it into his backpack while he is on the roof, jumps off the roof, goes into the woods, wraps, reassembles his rifle.

Wraps it in a towel, leaves it in the middle of the woods. Just the murder weapon. Right? Just the murder weapon. The one thing that you probably don't wanna leave, the one thing decides to leave it in the towel there. Okay. Then goes to his car, seems to do something for several hours, including go to a McDonald's or a Dairy Queen, I think was where the picture was taken.

The same day and then lingers allegedly around where he left his rifle during a huge lockdown, right? Helicopters, tons of police presence lingers around there for like six or seven hours according to the timelines, waiting for the perfect moment to jump in and get his rifle weird. So let's look at those text messages and see what they're telling you was said between them.

And this is him and his boyfriend slash trans lover that he lived with. All right, here we go. Here are the text messages. Now, some of the biggest questions people have about this is the type of language that they're using, right? Some of the specific words here come from this bottom paragraph. Now, one thing I'd like to point out that I thought was brilliantly pointed out by.

Candace Owens producer or somebody that was on the set with her is that there is a ton when it comes to the Tyler Robinson text messages. There is a ton of ellipses, ton of them. Every single sentence it seems like right ev, above each of these individual text message, ellipses, ellipses, ellipses, ellipses, ellipses.

That's not written. That's saying that they cherry picked different statements from different parts of the conversations and omitted others. That's not evidence being given to the public. That's doctored evidence being given to the public. And by the way, there's no timelines here. You know how every single texting platform since a IM has told you when a message came through.

They're not telling you that here. Pretty suspicious. Now, if you get to the bottom of this doctored conversation that apparently happened on Discord, but Discord said didn't happen on Discord, you would see this, this writing by Robinson to his trans boyfriend, roommate, lover. And what people are saying about this, by the way, is that it sounds like.

They put something into chat, GPT saying that, oh, write a conversation between two people in their twenties where they're talking about, you know, X, Y, and Z. Right? What I would do if I was writing this, if I was the FBI writing this, right? If I was the FBI, writing this conversation between Tyler Robinson and his boyfriend, trans lover, here's the prompt that I would give it.

I would say. Write a conversation between two Gen Z men. Both are gay, one is trans, and make it check these evidence boxes. One, he used his grandpa's rifle. Two, he left it in the forest. Three he wrote on the bullets. Four, he X, Y, and Z. Right? Write down the line. Here's exactly what the evidence that I need you to integrate into this discussion.

That's what this looks like. Now, what other people are saying is that it doesn't look like people took the, the prompts that they put in said between people in their twenties. It sounds more like they said people in the twenties, like in the 1920s, makes it so much more believable with the way that they're talking.

So some of the questions, some of the su suspicions that people have around this are this particular statement which says, I'm wishing I had circled back. This is talking about how he left the, the gun within the forest. I'm wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle.

Vehicle. Kind of a weird term for a 20-year-old male to use and not somebody who's. Federal law enforcement, which is what it much more sounds like. I'm worried ab, I'm worried what my old man would do if I didn't bring back grandpa's rifle. I don't even know if I, it had a serial number, but it wouldn't trace to me.

I worry about my prints. I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. Outfits another weird thing for a 20-year-old male to say, most guys don't change outfits. They change clothes. Most guys don't drive a vehicle. They drive a car. Weird. Didn't have the ability or time to bring it back with me.

And I also should probably give you where these ellipses are. 'cause we've already had three in this singular sentence where they're jumping around and cherry picking statements anyways, uh, and changed outfits. Didn't have the ability or time to bring it with me. Or to bring it with ellipses, I might have to abandon it and hope they don't find Prince.

How the F will I explain losing it to my old man, the old man and grandpa. Thing's kind of weird. Kind of weird. Maybe some people say that. My old man, like it's still going back. It sounds a little, little off to me right now. There's a bunch of other things in here, but the biggest thing is the ellipses.

The biggest thing is the vernacular. The biggest thing is how weird and off this sounds for a 22-year-old. Guy to speak this way. Okay. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's weird. Probably is. Now, let's look at the tweet from Cash Patel. All right. He wrote this, I think it was two days ago now, on the, yep, the 21st.

He wrote a direct. Response to all of the cons, all of the conspiracies, right? Cash Patel says, Hey, I'm going to address these conspiracies. So Cash Patel wrote this tweet addressing these conspiracies, and here's what he had to say about it. As the director of the FBII am committed to ensuring the investigation in the Charlie Kirk's assassination is thorough and exhaustive.

Pursuing every lead. Pursuing every lead. Um. To its conclusion. The full weight of America's law enforcement agencies are actively following the evidence that has emerged, but our efforts extend beyond initial findings. We are examining every facet of this assassination. We are meticulously, and I'm gonna break down each one of these for you.

'cause he says all of the different conspiracies, not all of them. He points out some of the inconsistencies in their reporting, and I'll go through what each one of them are broken down into it in detail. We are meticulously investigating theories and questions, including the location from where the shot was taken.

The possibility of accomplices, the text message, confession and related conversations, discord chats the angle of the shot and impact how the weapon was transported. Hand gestures observed as potential signals near Charlie at the time of his assassination and visitors to the alleged shooters, residents, and the hours and days of leading up to September 10th, 2025.

Some details are known today, while others are still being pursued to ensure every possibility is being considered. So let's go back up and let's talk through each one of these individual things that he's addressing. One is including the location from where the shot was taken. Okay? And I'd like to remind you guys when it comes to Charlie Kirk's assassination, we've been training for this, we've been studying for this.

We have an entire society. Who has spent five years uncovering government conspiracies. Now they think in real time they can pull one over on us on a, with a huge world stage assassination. And we're not gonna figure this out. Like guys, we've been training for this from C-O-V-I-D-J-F-K assassination, MLK assassination, right?

All of those, we know when there is a lone shooter. That lone shooter. A lone shooter is never usually the person that actually conducted the hit. That's what we call a patsy, the fall guy, right? We know this. That's the formula of these conspiracies, right? That's what happened with JFK. That's what happened with MLK, right?

We go back and back to each one of these major assassinations or assassination attempts, right? You go back to the assassination attempt by Trump, which. Weirdly enough, we know far more about Tyler Robinson at this point than we ever figured out about Trump's assassinator, right? Or attempted alleged assassin.

Kind of weird, kind of weird that Trump's not even asking questions about why this guy tried to kill him. Kind of weird. Trump. Trump, the guy with the biggest ego in the world. We all know it. Is not even trying to figure out why this kid tried to kill him. You know, the one that was in the BlackRock commercial, kind of weird and everybody just dropped it.

Everybody dropped it. Nobody's asking questions about that anymore. We're not even exploring that. That conspiracy over done case closed, shut, bye.

But we have been studying for this. We have been. We, we were born in the dark. You simply adapted Bain. Right? We have been studying for this. They think they can pull one over on us. They think you're stupid, just like they've thought for a hundred years. Just like they thought they did when they pulled off JFK, just like they thought you were when they pulled off MLK.

Right? Just like they thought when they were doing Operation Northwoods or MK Ultra, or. Any one of these things, right? Go back. I got a whole list of episodes for you to listen to on government conspiracies, but guess what? We're too smart for this now, and we are in real time uncovering exactly where the potholes are, which took us 50 years with the other assassinations.

We're gonna figure this out guys. We're not gonna let this go.

So here are some of the things that Kash Patel pointed out. We are meticulously investigating theories and questions, including the location from where the shot was taken. Right? Question number one, was the shot actually taken by the man who was running across the top of the building from the location that was directly in front of Charlie Kirk?

Well, that would be kind of weird if it was actually a 30 out six cartridge because the location. Everybody's thinking is probably more likely an exit wound, which usually, and everybody saw that video, everybody has PTSD from it. It was horrible to see. That's usually where you see that type of blood amount coming from the body.

Not an entrance wound, the exit wound. So that would mean that he wasn't shot from straightforward and it hit here. He was shot maybe from this direction, which is what people are exploring. There was another location that people seem to think there's even videos online where people are slowing down and saying that they saw a bullet from that direction, right?

Or I guess the direction to Charlie's right from where he was facing right and up instead of directly in front of him. So people are slowing down that footage and seeing that. So that would mean that there was not only one person on the roof over here, but potentially one person on the roof over here.

Not only that. There's also another theory because they seem to have cemented over the patio area that he was shot on, right? All of that, that, you know, the crime scene within 48 hours, they went and covered the entire thing, kind of suspicious. But what people saw when they were covering that with. That there was actually immediately behind, and I saw this on X and I didn't even believe it.

I thought this was AI being used to put fuel on the fire of the conspiracies with Charlie Kirk. I didn't believe this one until Candace Owens came with receipts and said there is a trap door behind where Charlie Kirk was sitting. That image is real

weird. Very weird. So the question being asked there is, could that person have shot him from that trap door behind him? Seems crazy. Seems super wild. But guess what? People are crazy. Governments are crazy and they've done wild stuff forever. That seems like a pretty clean way to make this happen. Barely gotta even open it, right?

Other people are looking at the microphone. Trolley's shirt and seeing how that completely moved. Right. Some people are thinking that it's a, you know, do you wanna get really into the weirdness? I don't agree with it. And I, I think this is, uh, kind of a gross conspiracy where they're saying that it was like some sort of, um, device that would shoot out the blood.

Right. But other people are saying, is that where the bullet came from? There's a microphone on him. Right, so, so many questions about it. Just from that first, first statement, so many different theories, so many different possibilities, and I'm sure there's thousands of others possibilities just from that first statement that we're not even thinking of yet.

The next question is the possibility of accomplices. Now, this is a weird one. There is a man, there was a man, an old man on the scene after Tyler Robinson allegedly pulled the trigger. Who raised his hand, threw himself in, into the, the, the police and said, I did it. I shot him.

And that guy later going to jail for child pornography on his phone. Surprise, surprise,

then says, I just did that 'cause I wanted the guy to get away. Hmm. That seems pretty weird to me. Does it not? That seems pretty weird. What person in a situation like that, they hear a gunshot. They, they, let's start from the beginning. They go to an event for somebody they dislike. Now, that's not out of the norm, especially for Charlie Kirk.

He invited those people out. He wants to debate those people perfectly fine. Makes sense. Maybe he went to the location for that. Okay. Let's say that then gunfire rings out. In the midst of the chaos, he sees Charlie Kirk get shot. He decides I'm going to not only say that, you know, I'm, I'm gonna raise my hand, say that I did it, which means that he thought through, not only that, but he thought through the idea that, well, I'm probably not actually gonna go to jail for this.

If I say that I do it right now, that's also gonna help that guy get away. And that means I'm gonna get away with, or I'm gonna get out of here because there's no real evidence to indict me. Because he's basically saying, I'm gonna be the fall guy for this. Right. Weird. Who thinks to do that during gunfire?

Super weird.

And who thinks through that far and says, well, I know they're not gonna be able to indict me. I know they're not gonna be able to charge me, even though I'm admitting to it in this moment. It's really just gonna allow that shooter to get away. And by the way, I care so much about that shooter. I don't want him to go to jail for this.

I'll be the fall guy all in within a minute or two of this shooting happening. Five minutes, whatever. It's. Super weird. Now other people are saying he was on a discord chat with other, uh, 20 other people and there was a Utah L-G-B-T-Q-I-L-M-N-O-P, something about, uh, gun owners or learning to use guns within that community.

Okay? Pretty weird, right? 20 people in the Discord chat. Only Discord still says that they have nothing to do with this. Still says that they don't have the the, the messages. The next one is the text message confession. We just went through that. Super suspicious. The next one is related conversations, discord chats.

Okay. The next one is the angle of the shot in the bullet impact. We need an autopsy. The third one is fourth one, fifth one, whatever it is, how the weapon was transported. Was it taken down in real time? That took him an entire minute. Well, that's weird because he jumped off the building within 15 seconds.

So how did he take that down? Put it in his backpack, like disassembled a rifle, which takes about a minute. That rifle specifically puts it in his backpack, a backpack that wouldn't fit that rifle. Also suspicious, then gets into the woods, changes his clothes, reassembles his rifle, wraps it in the towel.

Throws it in the bush. Yeah, nothing makes sense about that. Okay, good. And then visitors to the alleged shooters residence in the hours and days leading up to September 10th, people were saying with around Tyler Robinson's, uh, location where his house, where he lived with his boyfriend that he had out of state plates visiting his house in the days and weeks leading up to the shooting.

Okay, so there's everything Cash Patel is addressing within his tweet about this, but at least he's addressing these things. Now. I don't know if he really had a choice in this environment, right? Anything that Charlie or that that Kash Patel says at this point, I'm just super suspicious of because I've seen him lie about Epstein so many times at this point.

Why would we believe anything that he has to say about the assassination of Charlie Kirk? Why would we believe anything? He has lied to the community. He has lied to your face. He has lied to the American people so many times about Epstein. So many times, right? We still don't have answers of why the security footage was cut at the exact time that Epstein was.

Suicide. Still don't have that answer. Right? And we'll get into the reasons why. I think, you know, this happened in just a moment, but these are some of the questions that people have, right? So now who, if not he, if not Tyler Robinson, who could it be? Now there's a whole online community of people pointing the finger.

It is real. And the reason for that is somewhat legitimate. Everybody. Everybody who has been watching Charlie Kirk over the last several months has seen that Charlie has been criticizing Israel, has been super skeptical, whether it's about what they're doing in Gaza, which he called an ethnic cleansing, literally word for word, just a month ago, to tying Mossad to Jeffrey Epstein, which he said just a month, a month and a half ago.

With Patrick Beda, his podcast, I believe it was, and then hosting AM Fest, where he had Dave Smith debate somebody, and not only debate them, but demolish them on the topic of Israel. And how what they're doing is wrong and how it's a genocide and how it's horrible and atrocious. And then he also spoke about how he believes the Mossad and Israel are blackmailing all of the politicians in the us, not all of them, but many of them.

And he also spoke about APAC and how he thinks that, you know, they should be registered under Farah, which is also quite interesting. Something that JFK talked about almost in the weeks prior up to him getting assassinated. Then you get into the situation with the Hamptons that Candace is talking about, which is the fact that there was a meeting of influencers, and by influencers, I say all of the traditionalist, uh, corporate influencers in this space, right?

All of the Zion. Pr you all of the Zionist daily wire. Um, and then you have some people sprinkle in there that aren't that. But a lot of it had to do with the, you know, the, the entrenched corporate influencers that have been propped up by those types of organizations. And meeting there with Charlie. And originally the idea was that they were gonna talk about menani, the, the, you know, New York, um, mayor.

And then it turned into a somewhat. Very serious, uh, cornering of Charlie Kirk about Israel and how, what he's doing wrong. And then that led to a final Stitch effort by Benjamin Netanyahu of offering Charlie Kirk $150 million to Turning Point USA. Why would he do that? Why would you offer $150 million as a country to a foreign country's, uh, media company?

Well, for influence. To turn it into a propaganda arm for you, and guess what? Charlie Kirk said, no. Guess where we're at now. Just a month later, he's dead.

Makes pretty logical sense, right? That's one of the theories and that's a fair theory, but I don't think it's the only theory that we should be pursuing a question that I have. Who else is gaining off of this? Who is gaining something from this assassination? And maybe we marry these two ideas, right?

Every assassination in the last a hundred years was not done by a lone gunman in this political sphere. And there was always some, some of these two, one of these two organizations or groups, Masad, CIA, that's it. Now, it's not to say that there's other foreign governments that aren't doing these things and doing it in different locations, but all of the prominent ones that we know of likely allegedly had to do with one of those two organizations or both of them.

So when we look at this situation, the fact that nobody is calling out the Trump administration or the CIA or our local domestic government being a part of this. Seems like a big hole to me. Why? Why would they do this? Who's set to gain from it? Well, Trump has a 39, a 39% approval rating. Right now. Trump has lost much of his base because the litmus test for him being truthful and honest and really wanting to improve American politics and drain the swamp, as he would say was Jeffrey Epstein.

Then he went on the gaslighting tour telling us, Jeffrey Epstein is a hoax. It doesn't even really exist. He didn't traffic it to anybody. He was backed up by Dan Bongino. He was backed up by KS Patel. He was backed up by Pam Bombi. Right. Who also said that there was 10,000 hours worth of tapes of horrific things that they found, but then retracts that later.

Right. That was the litmus test. That's how we knew if he was being honest or not, and he wasn't, and he lost his base. He lost me. I tried to convince everybody that I talked to to vote for Trump. I would not do that again at this point because he's not being honest and he's very likely a part of the Epstein files.

I've reported on that before. Several times. He was on the flight logs, right? He, there's 17 different separate pictures of him at different times. He drew that picture for his birthday and gave it to him. Kind of suspicious and weird. Um, lots of reasons. Lots of reasons. So now with a 39% approval rating, you see what happened at the memorial service, which looked like to me more of a Trump rally when Trump got out there, right?

Walked out with his WWE walkout song and fireworks shooting down and a a, a live musician singing. I'm proud to be an American. Right? Not amazing grace. Not, not anything glorifying Charlie Kirk's legacy. I'm proud to be an American. The same song Trump came out to, to his rallies and he treated it like a rally.

Majority of the statements that came out of Trump's mouth were not about the legacy of Charlie Kirk. Now he ended most of his sentences trying to tie it back, and Charlie would agree with me on this, that we've done a great job on X, Y, and Z. Right? Then gives his big reveal about vaccines. And Tylenol and autism, right?

Uses this as his podium to come out and try to gain public approval again, and we'll get more into detail on that in just a second, but I just thought that's weird. But first, before we jump into that, let's talk about this bringing up Pam Bondy's name is The Situation with Hate speech, let's watch Pam Bondy's own words when it comes to the difference between hate speech and free speech. According to her, here we go. There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society. Do you see?

More law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people. So we show them that some action is better than no action. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate, speech, anything, and that's across the aisle. There's free speech and then there's hate.

So let's be clear what she's talking about there, because she, she came out and said, oh, I was, I was speaking about people who are making threatening remarks. No, no. That's not what hate speech is. Right? There's laws around making violent threats, right, that are credible. But when she's talking about this here, what you have to understand when you have Republicans clapping right to the sound of her saying that they're gonna go after people for hate speech, especially in light of like this Jimmy Kimmel switch of hands where they made it seem like they were actually gonna get rid of him, but they actually didn't.

Right. What they were doing is called a shock test, right? They were trying to figure out what would the public's response be if we go after people on mainstream media and get rid of their platform by leveraging, you know, the tools of the federal government, right? Because that's what happened here, is that.

Apparently Trump went to the FCC Board and put pressure on them, and they went to A, B, C, and to Disney and to all of these affiliates, and they basically got him pulled off. Right, but the, the point of that was not to actually pull him from the air because today's Tuesday the 23rd and he's going to be aired again already.

They were trying to figure out exactly what your response would be. Republicans, Democrats, both sides of the aisle, libertarian, everybody. They were trying to figure out what the response would be, and you guys, maybe not you, but you guys failed right on both sides of the aisle. Right. We were so against hate speech when it had to do with COVID, when it had to do with, uh, the Black Lives Matter riots when it had to do the L-G-B-T-Q-I-E, letter P, whatever, right?

We were so against it until it's time for us to, right. The Voltaire quote, uh, I wholly disagree with what you have to say, and I will put down my life to defend your right to say it. Something like that, right? And so the idea. That they were testing you, they were trying to figure out how you would respond, right?

And they did that. And now he's gonna be back on air. And now they know that you'll crumble under pressure. And again, maybe not you, but the general public. And so we have to be clear here. This hate speech that Pam Bondy is talking about is not going to be about Charlie Kirk. This had nothing. This statement has nothing to do with Charlie Kirk.

They tried to make it seem like that with Jimmy Kimmel. Interesting timing. But it has nothing to do with that. What it has to do with is going to be your criticism of who Take a guess Israel. That will be the new shadow banning crusade. That will be the new lose your platform, get banned from Instagram, Twitter, x, TikTok, all of them, right?

That is gonna be the new battleground that will have to be fought on for free speech, right? It's no longer COVID. It's no longer LGB, whatever. It's gonna be Israel. That's what these laws will be used for. And guess what? If you're under 30, if you're under 40, and even if you're on the right, generally statistically, you don't agree with what's happening and what Israel's doing, and so they will come after you.

That's what she says at the very bad, at the very end of that clip on both sides of the aisle. Well, what are both sides of the aisle saying that they don't like? It's about Israel. That's gonna be the anti-Semitic hate speech that's going to cause you to get banned on Instagram or TikTok. Right? Trust me.

Lost my TikTok. Totally banned from TikTok and lost my Instagram platform for, from growing for like two years during COVID because I was speaking what the truth if they, if they knew that you were lying, they wouldn't have to silence you because the truth eventually comes out. Right. They wouldn't have to label you because they know that what you're saying, right?

They don't have to say you're anti-Semitic or you're anti-vax, right? They called you anti-VAX when they didn't like the facts of what you were saying about vaccines, right? They called you vaccine hesitant, right? All of those situations, this will come around to bite you. So if you are the person clapping to this, realize this is not.

For what you think it is and it is always and will always be a Trojan horse for the government to gain more power. And guess what? That's what we're against here. Right? Right. That's what we're against here. We do not want to centralize more power to the government to tell people what they can and what they cannot say or think, or this is not the minority report.

We're not able to handcuff people for thoughts or words. That is what our forefathers, the founding fathers said explicitly, the freedom of speech is what everything else is built off of. The First Amendment is protected by the Second Amendment, and all the other amendments have to be protected by the First Amendment.

That's it. So disgusting, not something I support. Absolutely not, and just further makes me dislike Pam Bondi. All right. Now moving on to the Charlie Kirk Memorial, which I think is important to this to touch on too. There were some beautiful moments. There were some kind of weird moments, right? Some things to do with Erica Kirk that some people are now pointing out is kind of weird.

We'll talk about those. Uh, so some of the things that I would like to point out that were positive about this one, I do think it's incredible that we're having a national discussion about our faith. One Nation under God, one nation under God. I think it's amazing that you had all these Christian artists out there singing the gospel.

Pretty awesome, pretty cool, all the biggest ones, right? Brandon Lake was there, right? You had all these huge artists there that were, were singing amazing songs. Uh, and then you had almost every politician that was there mentioned. God, Jesus. Right? The believing of Charlie Kirk and what had brought this, this new rising of Christianity within our country.

But I do think that there was some bad faith actors leveraging that name, right. Leveraging the name of Jesus in a way that I find to be disingenuous. Right? I also didn't like Jack Poso ex's talk where he was basically doing some sort of weird, like. Rally cried. His, like thinking it was like his coming out party for, for himself to take the stage and not just like honor the, the legacy of Charlie Kirk.

I do think that the, uh, you know, Tucker Carlson had some amazing highlights, one of which was talking about exactly what we were talking about earlier, where he was pointing out that, you know, the, the, the very similarities of the story of Jesus and him being crucified for saying things that. A specific party didn't seem to like him saying and was alluding to that being the exact case here, which I thought was interesting.

Uh, especially in light of Candace Owens and him being the one that was given a platform to speak at this event and still platforming, platforming stupid word, but still talking about that in an open discussion for this specific party, right, of people that he was claiming might have something to do with this.

Right. Tucker's moment was amazing. You should go listen to his entire speech. I thought it was incredible. Uh, now when we get into, uh, Erica Kirk's moments, you know, the, the fact that she was able to stand on stage, I'm not this good of a man yet. The fact that she was able to stand on that stage 10 days after her husband was assassinated, and forgive the person that she's saying assassinated him or believes that assassinated him.

Man, that was unbelievably powerful. Unbelievably powerful and incredible. And, and I also loved the part of her statement. You know, often when it comes to Christianity and people getting into Christianity, especially women, they seem to have this negative idea of Christianity based on the idea that they should be subservient or servant to their serve, their husband.

And there's this complete wrong way of thinking about it that I think Erica addressed perfectly, which was that you are not his employee. Do, do treat your wife as if she is your partner. You are partner. She is your partner, you are her partner, and she's not your employee. She's not your slave. Right? And I thought that was a great way to address the women of this nation who are maybe interested in Christianity in their Christian faith and exploring it further, but finding some distaste for the way that some people misrepresent the biblical teachings in the way about the way that you should look at your wife and the way that she should, uh, you know, kind of.

Allow you to lead your family, right? That doesn't mean that you take advantage of her. And I thought that was a great statement that she made as well. Now, a couple of things that I thought was weird about this, weird about the, the, the situation at the, uh, the memorial service, one being. Trump came out to Charlie Kirk's memorial, like he was about to storm John Cena in the WWE Fireworks and sparklers and music being sang by somebody in the background.

God bless America, the whole three minutes, not a little excerpt, the entire thing. And then Trump walked on stage and had the audacity for 30 to 40 minutes, however long it was to barely touch on the legacy of Charlie Kirk. I thought this was completely distasteful. I thought it was gross. Everything that Trump talked about was himself.

It seemed like he took that opportunity as a moment for him to try to win back the popularity of the people with a 39% current approval rating to try to, Hey guys, also, you know, this guy died, but also I'm amazing. Look at all the great things that I'm doing. And Charlie thought so too, and that's exactly how he stated all these things was like he would do a whole thing on what he's doing.

That's great. Right. The, the vaccine or the autism thing with Tylenol. And then he would, and Charlie would, Charlie would love it. Charlie would love it. He would just, he would put an exclamation point that was about Charlie. He would tie him into every single statement, but none of the statements were truly about Charlie.

Maybe the first five minutes, I thought that was gross. I thought it was distasteful. I don't think that was the right platform. This is literally something to honor the legacy of a great man, and you took it as an opportunity for you to grandstand at this man's podium over his casket. Figuratively speaking to talk about how amazing of a job you're doing when you know the general public totally disagrees with you on that.

Starting with the Epstein files,

it was gross. It was weird. Not the place, not the time. The next thing that I thought was weird was the ending, and, and I'll preface this with I'm.

I am not going to, I'm, I'm going to preface this with the idea that I don't believe there's actually something, well, I'm not gonna say that I don't believe it. I don't have any credible evidence that there's something here yet. But there's something weird about the way that Erica Kirk went about her, the ending of that.

Like, it was very pageant esque. Right. And she was Miss Arizona, right? Like she was in that environment. So maybe that's just the, the. Muscle fibers, the fast twitch muscle fibers, they're the muscle memory that turns on when she gets on a stage and starts public speaking, which is super fair and, and also we'll also preface this with the fact that if you tell anybody that they need to stand in front of a 10 million people and give a speech about their dead husbands who was assassinated, who died 10 days ago, and also do it next to the president, they're probably gonna act a little weird.

But there's a lot of people in the public who are starting to ask questions about Erica Kirk and if she's, uh, in any way, shape, or form, not thinking either in the best interest of Charlie's legacy or something of that sort. I dunno. I don't necessarily agree with it. I did think there was a few weird points.

One being at the very end with the hug with Trump, it looked very pageantry. It looked very like, uh, like a photo op. Not like you're literally actually grieving your husband's death and then you so happen to hug the president and lay your head on his chest and like weep in this weird, pageantry way. I just didn't like it.

I thought it was weird. I, again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful to her. I have the, the utmost respect to her and her family. I just thought it was weird and a lot of other people did too. I'm not the only guy. Now, this started a whole thing around Erica Kirk and people digging into her background. One of the things that people are starting to point to, and I have found no evidence of this, no proper evidence that supports this, and I looked, but people are saying that Erica Kirk had this.

Nonprofit that she started like 20 years ago, almost. Not sure how that's possible with her being 36 or so, 37. Uh, she started this thing called the Romanian Angels and where she set up an orphanage in Romania. And uh, there was some people alleging that locals were saying that they were in some way, shape or form trafficking children or selling them through some adoption channels in the US or.

Something of the sort like that I found no evidence of that. But how many people do you know at 19, 18 years old start a Romanian, uh, children's orphanage and work with the US military to do it? Uh, I also saw some. Allegedly, I have not seen any, any validation of this. Some people saying that her dad was, had some ties into, um, like the military industrial complex in Raytheon.

I saw some other people pointing out that a, she was a casting director during the time, uh, or not a casting director, but there was like some, she claims to have been in some way, shape, or form a part of the, the movie industry or some sort of like a casting person that would find talent or would, there was something around that, that idea.

And people were saying it's kind of weird that at the same time that. Donald Trump owns the Miss USA pageant. She also is a part of Miss Arizona and he's also friends with Jeffrey Epstein. I don't see a connection there. Doesn't make sense to me. And then last but not least, her and Charlie met in Israel of all places.

Somewhat interesting. They met for a job interview. He went to interview her, said he didn't wanna hire her, he wanted to marry her, or something along those lines. Great background story. Beautiful love story. Uh, and again, what I'm saying about majority of this is there's no substantial evidence that supports any of these theories at all.

I don't. I do not think that there's anything to the Romanian Angels thing at this moment. I don't think that there's, it is kind of a weird coincidence with the Miss Arizona thing and then them meeting in Israel at the same exact time. Kind of weird, but again, doesn't lead me to believe anything. I just had a weird gut feeling when I saw her on stage.

And again, that maybe is just the, the muscle memory kicking in with her pageantry and the way that she was on Trump just seemed awkward and weird and like very forced, very photo oppy to me. Uh, I dunno, time will tell. A bunch of people are looking into it a hopefully, and, and you know, all likelihood is that she's a great person because Charlie wouldn't have married her if that wasn't the case.

Some people just come off super genuine and some people don't know how to go in front of a crowd like that without, you know, turning on a different mask. Uh, and I'm my gut feeling she's probably a great person and she also probably is used to being in a pageant and has those muscle memories when she gets on the stage and speaks in front of millions of people.

That's what makes sense to me. All of that being said, this whole thing's weird guys. It stinks. There's something going on here. There's more than what they're telling us. We need to figure it out. Is it Israel? Is it the us? Are they trying to stop somebody from speaking out and building a large organization of youth, right?

The next 20 years from now, the people who are under 30 right now that are completely against Israel are gonna grow up and they're gonna be the next stage of politicians. And how easy are they gonna be bought off when they think Israel is the literal state of the devil? Right. So something weird are going on here.

Never let a good crisis go to waste. That's what we're seeing with Pam Bondi and Freedom of Speech, right? That's what we're seeing with the Shock test with Jimmy Kimmel, and we still don't know what's gonna come out from Cash Patel, but I'm glad that he addressed all of those points. Again. All that being said, thank you for being here.

I'm excited to go down this journey with you and continue to bring you the truth. Continue to call out things where I see fit and I will see you next time right here on the Adams Archive. Thank you Adams Archive.