Baron Coleman guest-hosts the Candace Owens podcast, covering the Tyler Robinson case, a WebEx intrusion, and Israeli foreign agents in a Michigan Senate race
Baron Coleman fills in for Candace Owens while she prepares to give birth, covering three major stories.
Summary
Baron Coleman guest-hosts the Candace Owens podcast, presenting new video evidence that challenges the timeline given by Agent Bagley — the officer who found the only physical evidence linking Tyler Robinson to the rooftop shooting of Charlie Kirk. Coleman argues that Bagley's preliminary hearing testimony is contradicted by footage showing he spent nearly ten minutes in a covered walkway before heading to the crime scene, during which time an unidentified figure known as "Slender Man" was already on the roof. Coleman also reports on a disruption at a pre-trial WebEx conference caused by a man named Brian Simowitz — identified as a cousin-by-marriage of Charlie Kirk — who connected without authorization and refused to identify himself for thirty minutes. Finally, Coleman covers the revelation that two registered foreign agents for Israel were serving as spokespeople for Republican Michigan Senate candidate Mike Rogers, and connects this to Senator Chris Murphy's warning about a potentially catastrophic US military escalation against Iran, followed shortly by Murphy suffering a stroke.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Introduction and Overview
Baron Coleman: Welcome, welcome, welcome. Yes, it's a little different here from where I usually broadcast, and I look a little different from Candace, but I'll be with you, hopefully, for the next few weeks while Candace welcomes a new life into the world. We are big fans of new life on my program, big fans of new life on her program, so nothing is going to change there, and we look forward to welcoming a baby that is going to be born. I don't know if she has announced whether it's a boy or a girl, so I won't say it on air.
Guys, we have a lot to talk about today. My name is Baron Coleman. If you don't know me, you can find me on my channel, but I'll be here with you for the next few weeks and we are going to have a lot of fun. It may be a little different from what you're used to, but buckle up. You won't need your whole chair — just the front edge of your chair — and you'll be ready for the ride.
Today we have a lot to cover. We did a Bagley vs. Bagley show about a week ago on my show. We're going to talk about that today. We have new footage — new footage that I don't believe has been seen anywhere — showing where Agent Bagley was after he said he was on his way to the Losee Center. Well, it turns out he was not on his way to the Losee Center when he said he was, or at least that's one possible interpretation. I'll let you decide where you think he was and whether his testimony is accurate.
Second, there was a snag last week at the Tyler Robinson hearing. Few people heard about it. Few people were aware of it, because they didn't broadcast the media coverage — and in fact, it was the lack of broadcast coverage that caused the snafu. We're going to address that today. We're going to look at that snafu and ask who caused it, why it's connected to this case, and why he was present at the hearing.
We also have a notable critic of the Iran war who spoke out against the proposed measures in the Iran war and then had a stroke. We're going to address that. And we have a Democrat who endorsed a Republican — but why? We'll speculate on that today. All of that and more, coming up on Candace.
Agent Bagley's Timeline and the Losee Center Rooftop
When we first met Agent Bagley, most of us encountered him for the first time when he was testifying at the preliminary hearing. In that testimony, Agent Bagley gave a sequence of events — a sequence that told us roughly where he was and how he managed to get to the Losee Center. Agent Bagley, you'll recall, is the officer who allegedly discovered the screwdriver. The screwdriver is the only piece of evidence that places Tyler Robinson on the roof. There is no video footage that definitively places Tyler Robinson on the roof. No weapon definitively places Tyler Robinson on the roof. No shell casing definitively places Tyler Robinson on the roof. No fingerprints or DNA — except on the screwdriver. And we have to trust Agent Bagley. We have to trust his veracity. We have to have confidence that he is telling us the truth about how he found the screwdriver.
So let's revisit that story a bit, and then we'll show you some additional footage today so you can determine whether he is being honest. Because if he's not honest, how do we know he found the screwdriver?
First, let's establish how the shell casing was discovered, because Agent Bagley will later tell us that he discovered it. Let's look at a short clip showing the discovery of the casing in the Menorah courtyard at Utah Valley University. Here is the discovery of the casing. Agent Bagley is here in the lower right. We have Agent Alan Robertson of Utah State University and Chief Jeff Long of Utah Valley University. They are up there discovering a casing. Agent Robertson directs Agent Bagley to come up to the casing. We'll hear Agent Bagley's testimony in a moment, which may or may not match what you just saw.
Then we lose Bagley for a few minutes. Bagley is now pushing people back — back, back, back. Bagley is pushing people back. Notice what you do not see Bagley doing: nobody sees Bagley talking to Jeff Long about the Losee Center. Nobody sees Bagley looking up at the Losee Center to get a direct line of sight. Nobody sees Bagley pointing at the Losee Center. No, Bagley is in crowd control mode after the discovery of the casing. I'm highlighting all of this for a reason, because when we hear Agent Bagley tell this story in a moment, you're going to see a slightly different account from what you just saw.
We lose him from view for a few minutes. Fortunately, the video footage we just showed was from a streamer called Life is Driving — a man named Adam Bartholomew. He was very kind in allowing people to use the video he posted on his YouTube channel. If you want to go watch it, you can find it there. It runs about an hour and a half.
The next time we find Agent Bagley is the last time we see him in the Life is Driving video. There's a small clip of him walking away. One might be tempted to think: well, if they discovered the casing at 12:30, and that's when this footage is from, let's start a stopwatch. How long after finding the casing does he end up on the roof of the Losee Center?
So we need to follow Bagley. Let's look at the last time we see Agent Bagley in the Life is Driving video. We'll see him exiting the courtyard. There's Agent Bagley right there, in the lower portion of your screen. I can tell you it's just before 12:33 — approximately 12:32:50, I believe, is the closest we could get. That's him going out under the breezeway, and we never see him again in the Life is Driving video.
When that was all we had — when the only video we had of Agent Bagley was the Life is Driving video — a lot of people assumed that was the moment he began heading to the Losee Center. Because, frankly, that was his testimony. We'll revisit that in a second. But many people thought: okay, 12:33, he's heading to the Losee Center.
Well, what was happening at the Losee Center around 12:33? We know now, because Candace received a tip. And Candace showed us what happened at the Losee Center between 12:33, when we just saw Agent Bagley, and approximately 12:42 or 12:43. Let's watch that now.
It's approximately 12:35 — a few minutes after Agent Bagley passed under the breezeway. We have what has been called "Slender Man," and he is walking around on the roof. It's now 12:36. He walks to the corner where Tyler Robinson allegedly did the Fosbury Flop, according to one of the agents — or one of the attorneys. It's now 12:38. He's still walking around. He's already been up there for three minutes. He's going back and forth. We now have 12:42. It's almost 12:43. We don't have the exact second, but it's almost 12:43, and we finally see Slender Man heading toward the stairs.
So we lose Agent Bagley at 12:32. Ten minutes later, a figure is on the crime scene. And you'll recall that Candace told you the footage had been cut. The footage had been cut. It wasn't there. It disappeared. You could go into the system and look — police, everyone — nobody has the footage. Nobody has the footage. This figure is walking right next to the crime scene, and then boom, it's gone. That footage disappeared.
So we have to ask: what was Agent Bagley's version of events? Because what we just saw is that the casing was discovered at 12:30. At 12:32–12:33, Agent Bagley exits left from the scene. He heads toward the breezeway. At 12:42 — ten minutes later, nine-plus minutes later — Slender Man is still walking around. It's just before 12:43 that he finally leaves the stairwell.
Let's listen to Agent Bagley's testimony and ask him to explain what he was doing during that time.
Agent Bagley (from testimony): "After getting some of the people evacuated, I thought I needed to start preserving the scene because we had a crime scene. And with some of my experience and training, I decided we needed to now cordon off the scene and help preserve as much evidence as possible. So I started pushing people out of the grass, out of the courtyard, because I knew that's where the crime scene was. As soon as we started pushing these guys out, my chief — Chief Long — who was right next to me, looked down and saw an empty pistol casing sitting just above the grass. And at that point, things had calmed down, and in a fraction of a second I realized that the shot I had heard was more of a rifle shot and not a pistol shot."
Questioner (from testimony): "And what makes you say that?"
Agent Bagley (from testimony): "Just being around firearms throughout all my training. The difference is — a handgun is more of a short, violent detonation sound. With a rifle, it's more of a longer, violent detonation or a crack. It's a more violent sound. It's longer. That's why I recognized it."
Questioner (from testimony): "Is a rifle shot generally louder?"
Agent Bagley (from testimony): "Yes."
Questioner (from testimony): "Going back to when you heard that shot — could you tell where it was coming from? What direction?"
Agent Bagley (from testimony): "Yes, I knew it was coming from the east of me."
Questioner (from testimony): "From the east of you. So this realization comes to you. What did you do next?"
Agent Bagley (from testimony): "At that point, when I saw the casing — the empty casing — I turned to my chief and said it was a rifle shot. He said he agreed. And I looked up at that point, just in the line of sight, and I could see that the Losee Center had a direct line of sight. So I went to check that out and see what was going on up there."
Baron Coleman: That's what he said. That's not what I saw. Again, I'll let you be the judge. I don't want to tell you what the video showed. But did you see him find a casing? Or did you see Alan Robertson and Chief Long find a casing and go get Bagley and bring him to the scene? That's somewhat what I understood. Did you see Bagley pointing at the Losee Center, looking for a direct line of sight, discussing a rifle shot with Chief Long? I don't recall seeing that conversation take place — but again, we can't hear them. Maybe they were ventriloquists. Maybe they were talking without moving their lips. I don't know what they were doing.
And then he says: "What did you do after that?" Well, he decided to go to the Losee Center. How long does it take him to get to the Losee Center? Because we saw in the original Life is Driving video that at least two and a half, maybe three minutes later, he was still hanging around in the Menorah courtyard. When did he decide to go to the Losee Center?
Let's do a quick recap, because I want to find the moment when the figure known as Slender Man finally leaves the roof. Let's look at that precise moment. There's Slender Man. He's been hanging around for eight minutes, walking around, and he finally decides it's time to go down. I can't give you a precise time to the millisecond, but what I can tell you is that it's just before 12:43.
Why does that time matter? Because shortly after that, Officer Bagley arrives. He decided to stop hanging around in the Menorah courtyard. He decided to finally head to the Losee Center. So what was he doing all that time? We lost him at 12:33, remember? From the Life is Driving video, no more Officer Bagley. But guess what? We have new footage of Officer Bagley. Let's watch it and see what he's doing and when.
Here is Officer Bagley hanging out with Mikey — the general, the admiral. Mikey the Great, Mikey the Amazing. Now Officer Bagley decides it's time to leave. Now he finally exits into the courtyard. But guess what time it was? It was around 12:41. It was around 12:41.
So imagine what would have happened — because we know when Agent Bagley decided he was going to head to the Losee Center. It was clearly not before then. He was hanging around in the breezeway chatting with Mikey McCoy. Who knows what they were talking about. But let's listen to some radio traffic. Let's listen to some radio traffic from Agent Bagley, and we'll get a sense of when Agent Bagley decided to go to the Losee Center, and more importantly, how long it took him to get there once he decided to go.
Agent Bagley (radio transmission): "Whoever has the drone, let's get up on the east side of campus — called the Losee Center. I'm going to go up on the roof."
Baron Coleman: So he's going up on the roof. Whoever has a drone, get a drone up there. The time of that radio call was 12:41. It is 12:41. He found the casing at 12:30, and according to his testimony, decided it was time to go. He was going to head to the Losee Center. Pronto. Let's go. But he doesn't. Instead, he hangs around the Menorah courtyard for a few more minutes, then goes under the breezeway, chats with the guys, and it's not until 12:41 that he decides to go.
Well, what's happening at the Losee Center? Slender Man. Slender Man is at the Losee Center. And we don't know what he's doing because clips are missing, remember? Clips are missing. So we really have no idea what Slender Man is doing, but we know he arrived at 12:35. So if Bagley decides at 12:41 to go to the Losee Center, how long does it take him to get there? We see him leave at 12:41, so we know he didn't go before then. Listen to this radio traffic and it'll give you a sense of what time he arrives.
Agent Bagley (radio transmission): "I'm talking about the Losee building, and you've got kind of a footprint — that would be a great angle. It's 10:14, I'm on top of the Losee."
Baron Coleman: So he's on top of the Losee Center. That radio transmission was at 12:45. So it took him less than four minutes to go from under the Hall of Flags, behind the Charlie Kirk tent, to the roof of the Losee Center — from which he was able to get to the alleged sniper's perch and find a footprint? That's less than four minutes.
Slender Man was on the roof for eight minutes. And most importantly, Slender Man didn't arrive on the roof until 12:35. If Agent Bagley had the intuition at 12:30 that the shot might have come from the Losee Center — making it an active crime scene in his mind — that's the moment Agent Bagley could have chosen to go investigate that active crime scene. And if he had done that, guess who he would have beaten to the Losee Center? Slender Man.
He would have arrived before the mysterious figure who is again hanging around in exactly the same spot on the roof where Tyler Robinson approached, stayed for about a minute — just like our friend Slender Man. He stands in exactly the same spot, exactly the same corner. And then the camera cuts when Slender Man is there, and the camera cuts when Tyler Robinson is there. Terribly convenient. Terribly convenient.
A lot of people say: "Do you have any evidence this is some kind of cover-up involving other people?" Well, we have strange things. It's pretty strange. If you count the strange things, check the box in the strange column. Add another strange column after today.
Agent Bagley could have arrived before Slender Man at the crime scene. I seriously doubt Slender Man would have been hanging around there. You remember how eager Agent Bagley was to push people back when they were near the casing. Imagine if he had arrived on the roof of the Losee Center and some strange figure was walking around, had been standing in a corner for eight minutes. That wouldn't have happened.
But I also find something else interesting. It's almost as if the Slender Man figure was waiting beside the crime scene until Agent Bagley was very close. Because Agent Bagley testifies that he arrived at 12:44. And we've told you that Slender Man exits the stairs around 12:43. So at 12:30, Agent Bagley is involved in finding a casing. He decides — or testifies — it's time to go to the Losee Center. It's now an active crime scene in his mind. But not yet. Not yet. We have to wait ten minutes. Why are we waiting? I don't know, but I bet Slender Man is glad he waited.
If Slender Man was involved in some way, he must be the happiest man in the world that Agent Bagley decided not to do what he testified he did — but instead walked around the Menorah courtyard, went under the Hall of Flags, chatted with Mikey McCoy. I don't know if they were fist-bumping or elbow-bumping. I have no idea what they were doing under there. They could have been discussing very serious things. Mikey is a general, after all. And it's not until 12:41 that he decides: "Hey, maybe we should go to this active crime scene in my mind."
Meanwhile, Slender Man is on the crime scene, walking around, and the camera goes back and forth. I cannot tell you what conclusion to draw from all of this. I cannot tell you that Agent Bagley intentionally delayed his arrival to allow Slender Man to do what he did. I cannot tell you that Slender Man did anything. And I cannot tell you that Slender Man intentionally delayed his departure from the roof of the Losee Center until he knew Bagley was very close. But I can tell you that this is exactly what happened. I cannot tell you what was in their minds, but I can tell you that this is the set of facts that occurred. And you can draw whatever conclusion you want.
If I were a defense attorney at trial, I would be jumping for joy shouting these facts while banging on the podium, hoping to get the jury's attention and saying: "Hey, these are important facts." I don't know why Agent Bagley delayed. I don't know why Slender Man went up there. But I can tell you that if Agent Bagley had not delayed, there was no Slender Man on the roof — because Bagley would have beaten him there.
So again, how do you explain that? I look forward to Bagley explaining it at trial, frankly. I really do. And I think they're going to have a hard time building a case without Bagley. He is a very important piece. Remember, he found the screwdriver. He didn't radio it in, but he allegedly found the screwdriver. They're going to have a hard time building a case without Agent Bagley. But I don't know how you build a case with Agent Bagley when his testimony at the preliminary hearing is, in my view, fairly easily impeachable. We have video evidence that he did not do what he said he did.
Now, he could say: "I was deliberating and seeking help." It will be interesting to see what his explanation is. It will be interesting to see how the defense handles it. I've said for a long time — if you've watched my show for a long time — I think this is a very difficult burden for the prosecution to meet beyond reasonable doubt. And it's cases like this one that concern me most for the prosecution. I don't think you can meet reasonable doubt when problems like this arise with a key witness. And this is only the first witness. This is Agent Bagley. This is the very first witness they presented. And he is a witness they are going to need in order to convict Tyler Robinson.
The WebEx Intrusion at the Pre-Trial Conference
When we come back, I'm going to talk about a scheduling problem that occurred at the pre-trial conference. A scheduling problem. Who was involved? And what is the strange connection to this case?
When you talk about all the different hearings that have taken place in this case — hundreds and hundreds of filings — I think we're at over 800 entries in the docket so far. This is a significant case. It's a death penalty case. They're all important, but it's a high-profile death penalty case involving a very prominent public figure, so it has attracted a bit more attention. The attorneys are dotting i's and crossing t's a little more carefully.
Another thing that has occurred throughout this case is that seats to access the hearing are highly contested. People want to get in. People camp overnight. You have a good on-the-ground journalist camping overnight to get in. You have journalists filing motions weeks in advance to get in, to have access. There are disputes about whether you can record the hearings, whether you can video-stream the hearings, whether you can take photographs. All of that is happening, and the judge has to make real-time decisions on all of these things.
This was no different from what happened at the pre-trial conference. Just a week or two ago, we had a pre-trial conference, and in the weeks leading up to it, no media outlet filed a request to broadcast the hearing. As a result, the judge did not allow anyone to broadcast the hearing. So we had to rely on journalists on the ground, present at the hearing, to inform us of what had happened. Because they didn't even let you connect to the WebEx platform. Attorneys know this. Many other people know this. Think of it like Zoom for meetings. People connect by phone and you can listen by phone or computer. It's a company called WebEx, and it's apparently the system used by Utah County courts. People connect by phone and listen to the WebEx stream, watch it on YouTube, or just get a summary afterward.
That sets the stage. One of the things that happened when no media outlet filed a request for access to the pre-trial conference — the scheduling conference where they were going to hear arguments about the trial date — when no media filed a request for live streaming, the judge decided he was also going to limit the number of people who could be on the WebEx platform. I'm informing you that someone broke that rule. In fact, only two people were authorized to be on that pre-trial WebEx platform.
I want you to see that Andrea Burkhart got hold of the audio from the WebEx conference. I don't know how she got it. I didn't ask her. I haven't seen it anywhere else, so I don't know if she — I'm not going to ask questions. But she got it, and we're grateful, because we were able to listen to it. I had been tipped off by someone named Diligent Dennison, who was in the courtroom. Diligent called and said: "Hey, something strange happened that day." I said: "What happened?" He said a guy had connected to the WebEx platform without authorization. I thought: "Well, that's strange."
Andrea Burkhart got hold of the WebEx audio and I listened to it. As an attorney, I was fairly shocked by what happened. I'll let you watch Andrea replay it. She talks a bit over the audio, so there's some overlay, but we'll play it and I'll tell you afterward why it shocked me so much.
Andrea Burkhart (from clip): "Half an hour has gone by and nothing has happened yet. All of this because the public can't listen in via WebEx. The agent arrives. Disconnecting and rejoining the junior. Listen."
Court audio (from clip): "Yes. Yes, he'll text us to let us know if there's a problem. Alright, so we have an objection from the defense. He appeared on the previous website and tried to connect. I believe he was there before. I'd like to begin the argument. Your Honor, there is a certain Brian Simowitz who tried to connect. I believe he was there before. He represents Charlie Kirk's parents. And that's my name. Knowing that he has previously appeared at prior online hearings, we would like him to be able to access this hearing via WebEx. I don't want to say there's an objection from the defense. Yes. Alright. And if the link could be sent to Sarah Warner in my office. I don't want to do that. I want to hear from the defense. I need to make a decision on this, rather than — what concerns me is that the mandate, the order, was clear when it was issued."
Baron Coleman: Here is Andrea Burkhart's take. She's a longtime attorney. She's litigated at the trial level. She's litigated on appeal. So her reactions are fairly genuine, I think. What she identified here is something that probably could have been avoided. The judge didn't have to limit the number of people who could listen on WebEx. I don't know why he did, to be honest with you. It's not something he had done in the past. And because he limited it, someone came in and connected to the program without identifying themselves and with no apparent connection to the case — and everything stopped, and there was a thirty-to-forty-five-minute delay. This was barely reported. It was only when I spoke to Diligent Denizen and watched this clip that I understood.
The person who connected to the program was a man called Brian Simowitz. Brian Simowitz. And that name reminded me of something. It reminded me of something in this case — not just in general. I searched, because they hadn't said who Brian Simowitz was. So initially, they said he represented Kirk's parents. I searched for a Brian Simowitz who is an attorney. I searched in several different states that have connections to this case — Illinois, Florida, Arizona, Utah. I could not find a Brian Simowitz. So I wondered if this was the Brian Simowitz who had a connection to this case.
First, I want you to see the order, just so you can understand what I'm talking about. Here. Only two people were authorized to connect to this WebEx. Here is the relevant portion of the judge's order on the WebEx. If you go down to the last sentence — the last three or four lines, beginning with the word "the" on the right. "The court also grants Mr. Burt's request to participate remotely." Mr. Burt is a certain Michael Burt. He is Tyler Robinson's attorney. He was not present in person. He was attending virtually. "The court also grants Mr. Burt's request to participate remotely and authorizes the remote participation of Miss Erika Kirk, the victim's representative, her attorney, or both, as indicated in section three and paragraph seven below."
Only two parties are authorized to be on this WebEx platform: Michael Burt, Tyler Robinson's attorney; and Erika Kirk, the victim's representative — the widow — or her attorneys or representatives. So you can imagine: when Erika Kirk is already online, or her attorney is already online, and Michael Burt is already online, and a third person comes in — they think it's been hacked. They think it's been leaked. It's chaos. The person doesn't want to identify themselves. "Who's there? Speak to us." He doesn't want to do it. And it took about half an hour before they resolved the issue and learned it was Brian Simowitz.
Well, how did he get the WebEx ID? Only two people were supposed to have it — Erika Kirk and Michael Burt. I cannot imagine that Michael Burt gave the WebEx ID to someone who turned out to be a representative of Charlie Kirk's parents. That would be pretty strange — the defense attorney giving it to Kirk's parents. That's bizarre. So we have to assume it came from Erika Kirk or someone associated with her. Those are the only two people who were authorized to be present. The only two people who had the credentials.
So if she's the only option, and if Brian Simowitz truly represents Kirk's parents — who is Brian Simowitz? The answer I'll give you is: we don't really know. But we do know of a Brian Simowitz connected to this case. And it's a strange connection. A very strange connection.
I have here a clip from the Restaurantology event in Salt Lake City. If you recall, the Restaurantology event was the last interview Charlie Kirk gave before losing his life at Utah Valley University shortly after noon. It happened around 10 in the morning. He gave an interview at the Restaurantology event. It was given to a certain Andrew, but they make reference to a man named Brian in the crowd. Let me let you listen.
Restaurantology event audio (from clip): "But before we get into our entrepreneurial journey and share that with a room full of entrepreneurs and executives — Charlie, we're both from Chicago. Where are you from and what's your story in Chicago?"
Charlie Kirk (from clip): "From Wheeling, in the Arlington Heights area."
Interviewer (from clip): "Arlington Heights? Yeah, so I'm Elgin?"
Charlie Kirk (from clip): "Yeah, so Brian's there. He's a big Vikings fan. That's just all of that. And so — tough week. Tough week, very tough."
Interviewer (from clip): "It was tough. I think it was last minute, right?"
Charlie Kirk (from clip): "Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know."
Baron Coleman: So that's Brian. That's a Brian. He was a Vikings fan. Well, guess what? When you look at the social media of Brian Simowitz — the Brian Simowitz they're referencing there — he's a Vikings fan. He's a Vikings fan. So it makes sense that they'd identify Brian Simowitz in that clip.
Well, how did Charlie end up at that Restaurantology event? It's a strange bit of scheduling. Candace has pointed this out multiple times. It's strange scheduling because he has an event at noon in Orem, Utah. Orem, Utah is about an hour from Salt Lake City. You'd think it's strange to schedule it this way — have him come in a suit, give an interview from 10 to 11, change clothes, jump in a car, race to Orem, and arrive basically on two wheels, pulling in and heading to Orem, Utah, then jumping out of the car and immediately throwing hats, without even really having time to use the restroom. He was supposed to do a green room event. It was cancelled. So who is this Brian Simowitz?
Well, let's look at a well-known home renovation blogger — there's a well-known home renovation blogger who, for some reason, had the scoop. She wrote the whole story of Charlie Kirk at the Restaurantology event. I'll pull out the relevant part here. Here's Brian. Notice what happened to Brian. The attention turned to Brian. This well-known home renovation blogger, Jessica Reed Kraus, writes this:
Jessica Reed Kraus (quoted): "The attention turned to Brian once he appeared. Married to Charlie's cousin. He arrived in rough shape after a violent fencing accident that had left him with three broken ribs, a fractured shoulder and wrist, and a partially collapsed lung."
That was Brian Simowitz. That was the state he was in when he showed up at the Restaurantology event. Yet, the day of the event — go to the second paragraph:
Jessica Reed Kraus (quoted): "The day of the event, Brian woke up with something urgent — what he considers a divine intervention. Something told him to go. To go as he could. Charlie understood why he had missed the event, but something that morning told him he needed to be there. So he got dressed and left against the advice of his friends and doctors."
My friends, I know a lot of people from Arkansas. I don't know any of them who have had violent fencing incidents — violent fencing accidents that resulted in multiple broken ribs, a collapsed lung, a fractured shoulder, a broken wrist. That is the very first violent fencing injury I have ever heard of. In fact, I Googled violent fencing injuries and they are almost unknown. The little thing — assuming they're talking about fencing — the little thing bends and you have all that protective equipment. If they're talking about building a fence, what kind of fence are they building that causes broken ribs and a punctured lung? I don't want to dwell on it, but that's Brian Simowitz.
Here's what a renowned home renovation blogger tells us about Brian Simowitz. I want to give you confirmation of this, because I don't just take what this blogger says at face value. She says he's a cousin. Let's hear from Brian Simowitz himself. He posted on LinkedIn or made a comment on Facebook explaining that he is the cousin of Charlie Kirk's wife, or that his wife is Charlie Kirk's cousin.
Brian Simowitz (from clip): "He was my wife's first cousin."
So as I understand it, Charlie's mother had a sister. Sister Mary has a daughter. That makes her Charlie's first cousin. This Simowitz guy marries that girl. But I have to ask questions — and I'm going to speculate here. Because the reason Charlie is at that event is because of this Brian Simowitz. It's a strange event. It's strangely scheduled. This Brian Simowitz, shortly before the event, has an incredibly violent episode. They're going to call it a fencing accident. I'll call it an episode because I don't really know what happened. But it looks like he got beaten up, to be honest. It looks like he got pretty badly worked over — fractured ribs, punctured lung, fractured shoulder, fractured wrist. You can see him in this photo. He's wearing black and a black sling. He hasn't lost an arm — the first time I saw this photo I thought he was missing an arm. He's not. It's a sling. You can see his fingers there, next to Charlie. This photo was taken after the Restaurantology event.
So my question is: is this the same Brian Simowitz who connects to the Charlie Kirk WebEx on behalf of Charlie Kirk's parents? Why can't Charlie Kirk's parents connect on behalf of Charlie Kirk's parents? Why can't Charlie Kirk's father — he's a fairly sophisticated man, he runs an architecture firm — you're telling me he can't participate in a phone call, a conference call? I doubt that. I find it impossible to believe he has never participated in a conference call. We're in the post-COVID era. I find it impossible to believe he has never participated in a Zoom meeting or an online meeting platform. So why Brian Simowitz?
And if it is the same Brian Simowitz, why didn't he identify himself for half an hour? That raises a lot of questions. I wonder a great deal whether there was a rush to explain who this man was, why he didn't identify himself, and what he was doing during the call. Because if you have a guy who, shortly before Charlie's death, ends up in a violent incident with broken ribs, a punctured lung, a fractured shoulder, a fractured wrist — and then shows up the day of his death against the orders of his doctors and friends. His doctors and friends say: "I don't want you to go. This is not a good idea. You shouldn't be there." He lives in Arkansas. The event is in Utah. Maybe you should sit this one out. This is not the best time to travel across the country. You've had a violent incident. You show up the day of his death — and then nobody hears from you until you show up at a random WebEx conference more than a year later and refuse to identify yourself.
I'm going to keep an eye on this. This is the kind of story where I hope someone has more information than we do. Someone, I hope, has more information on a story like this and can say: "Oh, that's a different Brian Simowitz." Or: "Oh, I was there during the fencing accident. He was facing a world fencing champion." Or: "They were working on a particularly rough fence and he had this bizarre accident. The tractor rolled over on him." I have no idea what happened. Because my mind goes to the worst possible places with this. My mind goes to the worst possible places when you think there might be a potential cover-up involving multiple agencies and very many parties that led to Charlie Kirk's death. And I tend to believe that. That a guy shows up in a violent incident — another one — that left his body fairly battered on the day of Charlie's death, and he fights to show up on the day of Charlie's death, and then he's still involved in the case thirteen, fourteen months later, such that he has to attend court hearings. That's strange. I'm sorry. That's strange.
I'm sure all the FBI apologists will say: "Oh, you're so skeptical. You don't take anything at face value." No, I don't. I'm sorry. You lost that right. You lost it when people like Officer Bagley told me he rushed to the Losee Center immediately after finding the casing — and then we learned he had been hanging around for eleven minutes while Slender Man was up there doing God knows what. You lose that right. You lose the right to the benefit of the doubt when strange things happen.
I'll quote Dr. Erika Kirk: I don't believe in coincidences.
Senator Chris Murphy's Iran Warning and Subsequent Stroke
I don't believe in coincidences. But I do believe in strokes. Let me change the subject. There's a senator in Connecticut. His name is Christopher Murphy. Chris Murphy. When these guys become senators, they think they're somebody. Anyway, I digress.
Chris Murphy, being in the Senate, being on the Appropriations Committee, being on the Foreign Relations Committee — he has been somebody for a long time. He had just done a delegation trip. He had traveled to the Middle East to speak with different people. On the way, someone briefed him and told him: "Do you understand what the United States is planning to do here shortly after the midterm elections?" Murphy listened to that, digested it, seemed a bit unsettled by the plan, and so he spoke about it. We have a clip. He speaks for about a minute about this alleged plan, and more importantly, what he thinks of it.
Senator Chris Murphy (from clip): "During one of these briefings, we had the opportunity to have a pretty detailed conversation about what the war plan would be if we resumed military operations. You've heard a preview that it would be a short-duration plan. I'll just say this: their plan is insane. It will — I don't know. But the plan they've developed will lead, in my view, to a prolongation and escalation of this war that will be devastating to our security interests."
Baron Coleman: He looked scared. He looked scared. I know sometimes people exaggerate when someone from the other party is planning to do something. Senator Murphy is a Democrat, Donald Trump is a Republican. That means the Department of War is run by a Republican, the Secretary of State's office is run by a Republican. And I know sometimes people exaggerate just for political purposes. This did not seem like that to me. This did not seem like that to me.
In fact, over the weekend — he gave this speech, he spoke out these last few days — he said: "Hey, there's something devastating coming." And it seemed almost unprecedented. And so you start thinking: what is it? Are we going to send ground troops? Are we going to bomb nuclear facilities again like last time? Are we going to bomb civilian infrastructure — water desalination plants, power plants, schools? We've done it once before. What are we going to do?
Well, Tucker Carlson spoke out yesterday. Tucker Carlson spoke out on Twitter yesterday and gave his take on what he's hearing behind the scenes. So we had Christopher Murphy. We now have Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson stated that under pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be days away from launching a nuclear strike against Iran. The target would be Fordow Mountain in central Iran, where, according to Israeli intelligence, the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate ninety meters of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is allegedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pressing for one. Bibi calls Trump about this every day, says a knowledgeable observer.
Is that what Christopher Murphy is talking about? Is that the dangerous escalation that made his voice crack at the end? Why are we even talking about this in the first place? I mean, they're going to do what they're going to do. They didn't consult us. That's a point Tucker raised in that tweet. We didn't broadcast the full tweet, but it's a point we raised and Tucker raised in that tweet. The people who will be most in danger are those who are not being consulted. The President of the United States did not call me — he didn't call any other civilian that I know of — to say: "Hey, should we bomb Iran?"
That would, of course, be unprecedented. Only one country has ever dropped a nuclear weapon in anger. That's the United States, twice. But that was in 1945 — eighty-one years ago. It's almost without precedent, almost never done, and nobody knows the consequences. Because when we dropped a nuclear weapon in 1945, nobody else had one. Nobody else had one. So nobody could drop one back. Nobody could escalate weapons to a comparable level. Nobody could do anything. They just had to sit there and not know how many we had. We could have had a thousand. And so everyone had to throw their hands up and say: "Yeah, this isn't ideal."
Well, guess what? Times have changed. We are eighty-one years later. There are thousands and thousands in the hands of different countries all over the world. Even countries that have never officially acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons possess them as well. And what happens after that?
Imagine you're a senator and you go out and say: "Hey, Donald Trump is considering doing something crazy. This is going to lead to an incredibly dangerous escalation." And you go on TV and say that. Well, let me show you what happened to Senator Chris Murphy after he said it. A few days later — hospitalized for a stroke. Hospitalized for a stroke.
I can't help but wonder if that's connected. I don't know. I mean, he was at his kid's hockey game, his left arm went numb. He started feeling numbness in his arm during his son's hockey game. He was taken to a local hospital, discovered he had had a stroke, was transferred to Johns Hopkins for further follow-up, and has responded well to treatment. He had recently returned from a multi-stop tour of the Middle East, after which he warned that President Trump was going to significantly escalate his war against Iran after the midterm elections.
I believe Chris Murphy is around fifty years old, a bit over. He's not an old man. He's not someone like Mitch McConnell who had a stroke. Mitch McConnell was dead ten years before he had a stroke. He was already dead and he's still there, walking around the Senate. That's not what I'm talking about. Chris Murphy is a young man — you saw a photo of him. He's not old.
Yes, young people have strokes. But how many young people have a stroke right after being briefed on a devastating escalation of the Iran war, while serving on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Appropriations Committee, and then going on television and describing what might be this insane operation underway?
So I'll let you again imagine: does all of this have a connection? I can't say with certainty.
Michigan Senate Race: Foreign Agents and a Democratic Defection
The last story I want to talk about today concerns me completely, and it begins and ends in the same region, but it takes place in Michigan. It's a very strange story.
Haley Stevens. Haley Stevens. I first learned about this when someone texted me — a friend texted me to say: "Have you seen what Haley Stevens did?" I said: "Who on earth is Haley Stevens?" I had never heard of Haley Stevens. I had to do some research. I hadn't heard the story, but I sat down and watched a few clips and thought: "What is going on here?"
She's a Democrat. She's a member of the House. She voted twice to impeach Donald Trump. She supported the Democrat in the US Senate race. She had previously run in the US Senate Democratic primary. Haley Stevens lost that race to a certain Abdul El-Sayed-Sayed. Abdul El-Sayed-Sayed is now the Democratic Party's standard-bearer for the US Senate in Michigan. He had every hope of being elected tomorrow. And then the woman who lost to him, who endorsed him, who said Donald Trump was a danger to society and couldn't be trusted — all of those things — came out yesterday and endorsed the Republican. Here's a short clip of what that looked like.
Haley Stevens (from clip): "Thank you, and greetings to the press. My name is Haley Stevens. I'm proud to be a Democrat, and I am endorsing Mike Rogers for the United States Senate. I am a voice in this state. Michigan is a pivot state, and I have a divided household — as some of you have heard. Until last night. But even my own mother voted for Mike Rogers, just as my own father voted for Abdul. It's a very close election. We all know that."
Baron Coleman: The man standing to her right was the Republican — Mike Rogers. That's the man standing to her right. I'm going to show you another explanation, and then we'll go back and look at an image from that event, because there was someone else on that screen you should know about.
There's Mike Rogers, the Republican running for Senate, his election taking place tomorrow. There's Haley Stevens, the Democrat endorsing the Republican after having endorsed the Democrat. Let me make sure everyone is paying attention. Here's a very short clip from Anderson Cooper on CNN, where Haley Stevens gives a bit more explanation.
Haley Stevens (from clip): "Well, listen, it's just a weight off my shoulders. Abdul is increasingly angry. I was trying to help him and I endorsed him. That ad hurt me a lot. There are so many Democrats who have voted for him, who want to vote for our Democratic candidate, and they're just being told: 'Hey, this is a party you don't belong to,' or 'This is a campaign you don't belong to.' And I've never voted in Congress. I'm making a decision here, and you know, this is just where I landed. I woke up this morning, clear-eyed, fresh, and focused on what I had in my heart, and that's it."
Baron Coleman: She mentioned earlier in that first clip that her household was divided on this. She wasn't just talking about her mother. Her spouse is a committed Zionist, obviously on the opposite side from Abdul El-Sayed-Sayed on that point. And that's perhaps what she was referring to rather than her mother. Perhaps she's referring to her spouse. But that's not the strangest part of this story.
I want to show you a photo here of Mike Rogers's spokesperson. That woman in white, right there. You see Haley Stevens at the mic. You have Mike Rogers there in a blue suit with a green tie for some reason. You now have a woman between them with aviator sunglasses and a white t-shirt. Her name is Abigail Ronson. Abigail Ronson.
I'm going to show you a document filed by Abigail Ronson, and then we'll see what she's doing as a spokesperson for a US Senate candidate. Here's a document right here. You see those highlights? Abigail Ronson at the top. She's registering for a company called Clock Tower X X. What is that? Havas Media Network. What does that look like? Pretty innocuous. Let me explain what this is. This is a FARA registration. A FARA registration — the Foreign Agents Registration Act. She is registered as a foreign agent through a company called Clock Tower X X. We've talked about this on my show. I know Candace has talked about it on hers. Clock Tower X X runs an Israeli pop propaganda campaign on American territory, in the United States. Millions and millions of dollars — not one or two. Tens, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. They funnel it through a company called Havas Media Network. So it looks pretty innocuous, right? Oh, I'm just registering for a German media company called Havas. No — Havas is registered in Israel. This woman, Abigail Ronson, spokesperson for a US Senate candidate in an election taking place tomorrow, is a foreign agent for Israel. She is a foreign agent for Israel.
Documents show that the spokesperson for Mike Rogers's campaign is a registered agent for Israel. There are actually two. Abigail Ronson is the one we just saw. We'll talk about Jessie Stokes in a second. They have been working for the Israeli government since May and October of last year respectively, while also working on Mike Rogers's Senate campaign.
You remember the last election cycle and the one before that — everyone was panicking about foreign interference in American elections. Russian interference, Chinese interference. This has been going on for a long time. Going back to the Clinton administration — Chinese interference in elections. I remember that. Imagine if the spokesperson for Abdul El-Sayed-Sayed were a registered foreign agent for Iran, or a registered foreign agent for Russia, running the campaign's communications. I made up that word — "spokespersoning." They're running the communications for Abdul El-Sayed-Sayed's campaign and they're a registered agent for Russia or a registered agent for Iran. You people on the right would be having a panic attack and an aneurysm. You'd have a stroke like Chris Murphy. You'd lose your minds.
Well, guess what? I'm losing my mind. I'm losing my mind. Abigail Ronson — let me play the Drop Site News piece, or just the headline. Display the Drop Site News piece.
Drop Site News (quoted): "Abigail Ronson, spokesperson for Mike Rogers's campaign, is a registered foreign agent for the State of Israel — one of two foreign agents working on Rogers's campaign, according to a review of Foreign Agents Registration Act records. Ronson, omnipresent on the campaign and in its interactions with journalists, worked on Rogers's campaign through a major vendor, Convergence Media. The campaign paid millions to Convergence Media during this election cycle, according to FEC reports."
Baron Coleman: So that's Abigail Ronson. That's already bad enough — just one. But guess what? There's a second one. Look at the foreign registration for Jessie Stokes. This will look familiar. Clock Tower X X, there in the middle. Havas Media Network. Again — oh, that looks pretty innocuous, Havas Media Network. Trust me, Havas Media Network is Israel in this case. They are Israel. That's why Drop Site News was able to report that she is a foreign registrant for Israel — because everything Clock Tower X X does goes through this Havas Media Network, and they have filed additional documents explaining the relationship between Israel and Havas, and how Havas is fundamentally Israel in this relationship.
So you have Jessie Stokes. Here's the Drop Site News reporting on Jessie Stokes:
Drop Site News (quoted): "Ronson is joined by at least one other Israeli agent on the campaign — Jessie Stokes, another Convergence Media staffer who is registered as a foreign agent in October 2025 under a contract with Havas. Stokes appears to have drafted many of Rogers's press releases and is the author of the April press release announcing his Senate candidacy, according to document metadata."
Baron Coleman: Foreign interference. This is foreign interference. I'm sorry, it is. You have a registered agent of a foreign country as a spokesperson. I don't understand why Republicans aren't panicking. I don't understand. Do you understand why you might get your butts kicked tomorrow in the election, honestly? If we're being honest, let's take stock. Let's look around. What is the biggest problem that's going to make you lose tomorrow? The Iran war. Israel. That's it. That's it. You want gas prices? Let's come back to that problem. You want to talk about food prices? Let's come back to that problem. You want to talk about rising mortgage rates? Let's come back to that problem. You want to wait until next year, when the fertilizer deficit, the oil and diesel deficit, completely wipes out crops and everything else? Let's come back to that problem. And now we have a foreign registrant for the State of Israel as Mike Rogers's spokesperson, and they just flipped a Democrat at the last second. This isn't even an October surprise — it's just a November surprise. They flipped someone at the last second.
And I cannot imagine that if a Democrat had a foreign registrant for Iran or a foreign registrant for China, Republicans would say: "Yeah, that seems fair. That's about right. That's normal. That's fine with us. Move on. Next issue. We're not going to talk about that." I don't believe you. If you take that approach, you have no credibility with me on any other subject. Period. End of story.
Foreign governments should have no say in American campaigns, and people registered as foreign agents should have no say in American campaigns. I will die on that hill.