Mostly chewing. Occasionally biting. Deep dives, digital trails & video receipts on the Kirk case and the circus around it.
Joined October 2025
- Tweets2.1K
- Following285
- Followers10.5K
- Likes21.7K
I owe Mitchell Manley (@ArtifexMemor) an apology.
Until recently, I had no idea I was witnessing the public career of a man of such remarkable historical significance. Charlie Kirk’s cameraman for thirteen years. His “close friend” and mentee. An extraordinary whistleblower. An acclaimed, award-winning creative talent whose work transcends the ordinary.
And, according to Mitchell himself, someone whose proximity to Charlie Kirk was comparable to being in Martin Luther King’s inner circle.
Naturally, one would expect @baroncoleman to reconize the magnitude of the man requesting his attention.
But Baron didn’t cover Mitchell’s story. And then, rather devastatingly, he publicly asked who Mitchell was.
Imagine that.
What followed was something of a one-man publishing operation. 276 posts and replies about Baron in the last 25 days, by my count, featuring “grifter,” “deep-state fedslopper” and “liar.” A truly tireles commitment to the craft.
Meanwhile, Mitchell’s own public debut is worth revisiting.
Black Line Brief. July 18. No financial interest, he assures us.
July 19. His domain is registered.
Then came the website, podcasts,paid membersips, a Buy Me a Coffee page, Charlie-centered book plans and merchandise, including a $33.33 T-shirt emblazoned with “Meet the Former TPUSA Videographer Selling Nazi Meme Shirts.”
And his earlier work history? Student activism, college in New York, internships, administration and later production assignments. Not exactly the thirteen-year cameraman story we’ve been sold.
Mitchell has spent an astonishing amount of energy questionning Baron’s integrity while turning his own association with Charlie into the foundation of his public identity.
His old interview discussed his humility.
It appears to have been a very private achievement.
The audacity would almost be impressive if the hypocrisy weren’t so ridiculous.
(Almost forgot. Add recently publicly criticizing @RealCandaceO, @DiligentDenizen, @researcherdaisy and @billiewebbb to Mitchell’s already remarkable résumé.)
And yep, there you have it. Me, officially out of patience.
So I’m trying to follow the logic here.
Candace questions Leah’s Glacier research.
Leah demands specifics.
Candace points to problems.
Leah calls her an idiot, an AI bot, and suggests she’s a paid shill.
Then publicly frames Candace as someone trying to destroy an independent researcher to protect an advertiser.
And somehow Candace’s integrity is now what’s being questioned?
Did I miss something?
I genuinely value this community, but watching people turn on each other over the past month has been exhausting. And this whole situation is doing absolutely noting to help. Can we seriously just stop with the drama already?
I’m not here to pick apart Leah’s work as a whole. I’m looking at this particular Glacier research because it’s at the center of the accusations against @RealCandaceO
And having gone through the original sources myself, I found factual errors, important omissions,and claims the evidence doesn’t support. Candace had good reason to question this research.
So here’s what I found, with sources👇🏼
1. Leah describes the old Glacier Dial as a free service and compares it to the new paid consumer app.
But the archived App Store listing she cites says “Corporate or organization subscription” under requirements. That matters. Free to download is not the same thing as free to use, and access through an organization with a subscription is not the same thing as an individual buying a consumer app.
The old listing does make stronger privacy claims. That part is worth looking at. But leaving out the subscription requirement makes the comparison incomplete.
Source:
web.archive.org/web/20240813…
2. Leah contradicts herself about whether Twilio was disclosed.
When discussing the burner numbers, she says Twillio was never mentioned in any of the archived privacy policies. Later she says Glacier added Twilio in July. Those two claims can’t both be true.
The July 24 policy explicitly names Twilio as a processor for phone number provisioning,calling, and voicemail. Whatever concerns someone may have about Twilio, saying it was never disclosed in those policies is simply wrong.
Source:
web.archive.org/web/20260724…
3. Then there’s the court-records point.
Leah says she searched a federal court archive, found no records for Glacier, and from that concludes requsts must be going to Twilio instead.
But that search doesn’t establish that.
Twilio’s own law-enforcement guidelines say authorities are encouraged to obtain data directly from customers where possible, and that Twilio can provide customer contact information so authorities can seek further details from that customer.
In this context, that customer would be Glacier.
This doesn’t establis whether Glacier has received any requests. It does show why an empty court search cannot support Leah’s conclusion about where requests go.
Source:
twilio.com/en-us/legal/law-e…
4. And finally, the policy-timeline claim, which @Villgecrazylady already flagged in her breakdown.
Leah presents a very specific sequence: people started payin on July 13, then Glacier changed its privacy promise 11 days later. But the archived policy copies she cites are from June 15 and July 24.
July 13 falls in between those two dates.
Those captures establish that the wording changed between June 15 and July 24.They don’t establish which version was live when the app launched on July 13.
Leah presents the change as something that happened after customers paid. The archive copies she cites don’t establish that sequence.
Sources:
web.archive.org/web/20260615…
web.archive.org/web/20260724…
itunes.apple.com/lookup?id=6…
I have not deleted a single post. Again, your pithy research is wrong.
If it needs reminding, I made one public and TRUE statement on X that I was not prohibited from speaking about any topic on Shawn Ryan’s show— including Peter Thiel, who we discussed. My episode aired the week before you went on his show. I made no further public comment nor would I have ever addressed you publicly had you not decided to publicly drag me, question a simply ad read, and refer to me as a shill because you could not comprehend the *private* feedback I gave you on the substack you shared with me.
You should be calling NO ONE a shill. Your entire background is manufactured (contract work for the NSA and CIA, finance and accounting and now a tech expert but never heard of a liability clause or the petrodollar? K.)
It is obvious that you are producing AI-generated substacks based on publicly available information. Nothing you present is new or breaking and for those of us who have spent an entire year working on just ONE story, watching you pop in as a chaos agent to sow unnecessary drama is an annoying deviation.
I’m responding to you because you are now annoying me.
You are not a victim of some deep state attack because you managed to google “who owns flock” and had a bad interview with someone who saw through your bullshit.
As a bonus, here is the full context of our correspondence which you read aloud at 3am in the morning in a random x space. This is the correspondence that led to your determination that I was a shill. I apologize for not writing you a 2am dissertation on why your article made no sense.
Will state again you are FREE to publish the entire conversation because I have nothing to hide.
For more than five years, this Reddit thread sat without a single new comment.
Then Lance Twiggs returned to it.
December 13, 2024. 08:46:58 UTC.
Using u/lancelott3, he commented on a post originally published June 11, 2019, explaining that he kept coming back because he referenced it so often.
Now consider the hundreds of drawings he made. The recurring symbols, the strange geometric forms, and the remarkable number of patterns resembling elements of that old 4chan imagery.
I find the repetiton deeply disturbing. Not because I understand it, but precisely because I don’t.
And I think about the darkest consequences of indoctrination. How a person’s entire perception of reality might gradually become shaped by the same ideas,repeated until there is no longer any meaningful distance between the person and the beliefs consuming their attention.
Everything turning inward. Every thought feeding another. The same patterns,over and over, with no clear exit.
And I have this nagging feeling that there’s something here we’ve overlooked. Something that might be far more significant than we’ve realized.
I’d never looked into Lance or Tyler before last week. I started digging around to see if I could find anythin I hadn’t seen shared or discussed before. That’s how I came across this comment. And it’s the combination that troubles me. The repetition in the drawings. The similarities. His repeated return to that post. That’s the connection I wanted to bring to people’s attention.
I know the video is dark, but I wanted it to reflect the darkness I feel beneath all of this.
@RealCandaceO @IanCarrollShow @baroncoleman @researcherdaisy @DiligentDenizen @ZachCostello_
Original 4chan post — June 10, 2019
Anonymous · Post No. 12662387
“I can’t be the only one who thinks this, but something about the overall design of transgender bodies just works. It just fits. It seems so natural and architecturally consistent in an inexplicable way. Try to imagine this, an ideal man. Think about his secondary sex characteristics, like his flat, fridge torso, body and facial hair, masculine proportions, and muscles. Now, imagine that while he stands tall, his crotch area has nothing sticking out of it so obviously; imagine that he has a vagina. If you consider his secondary sex characteristics, it actually weirdly fits. The apparent flatness of between his legs, with the shape of his hips and torso also being rather flat and featureless.
Now imagine the opposite. A feminine woman, who has a penis. Much like above, the penis compliments her female secondary sex characteristics.
It’s harder to explain than for me to visualize it, so here is a crude illustration of what I mean. There are other shapes I could use to demonstrate this architectural logic and consistency to the pair.
Why does this just work out so much?”
The text accompanying the drawings in the original 4chan thread:
No. 12662438:
“These shapes might also help my point get across. Same order.”
No. 12662476:
“Also, take note of how the shapes fit together (relationships/sex). Trans female shape combined with others…”
No. 12662482:
“Trans male combined with others.”
No. 12662486:
“Cisgender heterosexual relationship.”
No. 12662493:
“Cis gays.”
No. 12662496:
“Cis lesbians.”
The original drawings were uploaded individually in this 4chan thread on June 10, 2019.
Archived thread, including the accompanying text and replies:
archived.moe/lgbt/thread/126…
Reddit post — June 11, 2019:
reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/…
Direct link to u/lancelott3’s comment:
reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/…
Profile archive captured September 13, 2025, preserving the comment:
archive.ph/8uG60
Chewing The Void retweeted
So many of you asked me to look into ClipIt, the company paying people by the view to post political clips. I did, and it connects to Israel’s $55.5 million American campaign, Trump’s former campaign manager, Turning Point and the operatives working for the Speaker of the House.
A few highlights are below, and the full article with receipts is up on Substack now (link in bio, and it’s free).
(1) The man who runs ClipIt goes by “Matt Servius” online and has never been publicly named. Wyoming and Latvian records point to Matīss Tabūns, a 23-year-old in Talsi, Latvia, who formed ClipIt’s American company on May 28, 2025, with a one-dollar stake.
(2) Fourteen days later, on June 11, Brad Parscale formed Clock Tower X. It went on to register as Israel’s foreign agent.
(3) ClipIt’s own records label a campaign “Political” for December 14 to 21, the week of AmericaFest. In those same days, Clock Tower X took in $6 million from Israel.
(4) ClipIt’s campaigns kept Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson out of their clips. Israel’s campaign websites attacked both of them by name.
(5) Israel’s campaign made its own clip titled “Charlie Kirk,” and its contract appears written to collect repost rights to content made by outside influencers.
(6) Everyone keeps asking who paid. ClipIt paid its clippers from a $20 million crypto wallet that traces back to Stripe’s stablecoin system, and one clipper thanked the boss for his “Political Payout of December.” That means an American company has the name of whoever ordered the political payouts, and that record can be subpoenaed.
(7) ClipIt rewrote its terms the day before The Atlantic’s story ran. Then it changed its founding year and blocked visitors from the United States.
(8) Israel’s campaign sent $4.4 million for “media placement” to a firm run by Mike Shields. His other firm has been paid $2.98 million by Speaker Mike Johnson’s campaign.
(9) Parscale’s Israel firm uses the same Ohio office suite as his company’s White House contract.
(10) Turning Point denies working with ClipIt. But, it has paid Jake Hoffman’s firms millions a year, and Hoffman ran Turning Point’s 2020 teen troll farm. The attack operation on X reeks of Jake Hoffman's troll famrs
Enjoy the article!
Anyway, I made a little cartoon. I had to tone down a few details to make it remotely believable.
ALT A cartoon showing a job interview at the fictional Official Narrative Defense Team. The applicant has no evidence, can’t explain the timeline, but is exceptionally qualified to argue with strangers online. Hired immediately. @ChewingTheVoid
Can we talk about that white patch in photo 2 of Lance Twiggs’ phone?
Because everyone’s been busy examining the crack in photo 1, while this rather interesting detail seems to have escaped attention.
To my eyes, the white shape looks remarkably like a graphic overlay, complete with a strange little edge that almost appears raised. The entire shape also appears to extend beyond the screen’s boundaries.
And here’s what bothers me. Of the 10 photographs presented in court, these are the ONLY two where the timestamp area should be visible. Photo 2 was taken from a different angle, potentially giving us a clear view of the time.
And if anyone wants to tell me that’s a reflection, I’d love to hear the explanation. Especialy since it so conveniently covers the very area we might otherwise have been able to see.
I genuinely suspect the patch may have been added afterward.
I recreated a similar effect using an ordinary screenshot from X.
Photos 1 and 2 are attached alongside my comparison. The remaining eight court photographs follow in the replies, in their original order.
@researcherdaisy @baroncoleman @RealCandaceO @ZachCostello_ @MuppetMasher
For those of you who enjoy a good rabbit hole, I found a couple of interesting things while looking into Serviuos. Leaving them here in case anyone fancies digging a little deeper.👇🏼
1. Serviuos has an older trail on Gumroad under the name Matt Serviuos. In a post dated February 29, 2024, he claimed his AI-generated TikTok pages were bringing in nearly $6,000 a month.
serviuos.gumroad.com/p/how-t…
His Gumroad page also lists a course called AI Profit, offering Shopify templates, sales trainin and access to a private Discord community.
serviuos.gumroad.com/l/aipr
2. Serviuos has a Whop account linking to ClipIt, and his profile displays “This user has been suspended by the Whop police.” No reason is given. I saw the notice on October 8.
whop.com/@serviuos/
Whop’s stated grounds for suspension include:
• Fraudulent payments or suspicious activity
• Excessive chargebacks or refunds
• Failure to meet identity verification requirements
• Withdrawal of approval by a payment partner
• Policy violations, including misleading information or prohibited products
• Investigations into potential violations
@researcherdaisy @baroncoleman @RealCandaceO @ProjectConstitu @DiligentDenizen
Why the hell was the founder of an already massive organization personally interviewing Erika for a job?
We’ve dissected practically every detail of Charlie and Erika’s story, yet somehow this never even crossed my mind.
Under normal circumstances, an applicant would go through a hiring process before ever meeting the founder, assuming they’d meet him at all.
Credit to these guys for raising such an obvious question.
And the more you think about it, the less sense it makes:
1. Why would someone being considered for a job at TPUSA be sent straight to the founder of an already massive organization?
2. Since when does a potential hire bypass the entire recruitment process and go directly to the CEO?
3. How many other potential hires at TPUSA were ever given direct access to Charlie Kirk himself?
Here’s a relatively “small” detail about Frank Turek that has been bothering me far more than it probably should. Or perhaps exactly as much as it should?
The way he describes the beginning of his relationship with Charlie Kirk.
For a man with five years of friendship to look back on, Frank seems unusually preoccupied with establishing who made the first move.
Not Frank contacting Charlie. An apparently CRUCIAL distinction.
I’ve gone through interview after interview, podcast after podcast, since Charlie’s death. Different hosts, different questions, different conversatons. Yet whenever Frank recounts how their friendship began, he returns to the exact same sentence:
“Charlie reached out to ME.”
Repeated with almost religious consistency. As though five years of friendship could somehow be reduced to four words.
It’s the insistence that gets my attention.
And how remarkably convenient that, just days after Charlie’s death, Frank’s colleague rediscovered a five-year-old email supporting precisely the claim Frank has been repeating ever since.
Erika subsequently reinforced the EXACT same version in the foreword to his book. She even remembers Charlie telling her he’d emailed Frank and wondering whether he’d get a reply.
Meanwhile, I’ve searched their five years of publicly available material without finding this story told once(!). Charlie discussed discovering Frank through YouTube, but nothing I’ve found establishes who initiated the personal contact.
And yet, I find Frank’s extraordinary investment in establishing that it was Charlie far more interesting than he probably intends.
It’s a curious thing to insist on when remembering a dead friend.
@RealCandaceO @baroncoleman @researcherdaisy @ZachCostello_ @BasedSamParker
Of all the journalists Fox News could’ve sent to TPUSA headquarters, they sent GRIFF.
To interview the AMAZING Erika Kirk.
About Charlie’s legacy.
You know, at some point the universe is going to have to stop handing us material like this. I have other things to do.
The Department of Older Erika Kirk Videos would like to inform the public that its archive is now available in one convenient location.
Includes Erika Frantzve appearances dating back to 2012. Some clips have barely 100 views. Current holdings: 77 videos, with further materials being processed. The department appreciates your cooperation.🫡
(For the record, the department consists of me and a YouTube playlist I put together.)
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL…
Hi👋🏼 Sorry, I’m going to need everyone back in the Erika Kirk double-major folder for a minute.
Because this somehow seems to have been filed under “interesting” rather than LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
@baroncoleman has already documnted this extensively, including ASU’s records from the time. I’d like to add two more ASU documents to the evidence — and these pretty much close the loop.
So let me just reduce this to the part no amount of creative interpretation can fix:
Erika says she graduated from Arizona State University in 2012 with a double major in Political Science and International Relations.
Except she couldn’t have.
ASU’s own records show the International Relations degree wasn’t established until 2024 — TWELVE YEARS after Erika says she graduated with it.
And just to remove any remaining wiggle room, ASU announced it that year as a NEW(!) program, available starting that fall.
Take that in.
ASU University Senate — Motion 2024-56:
usenate.asu.edu/motions/2024…
ASU News — May 30, 2024:
news.asu.edu/20240530-law-jo…
@researcherdaisy
For anyone struggling to follow the highly sophisticated discourse surrounding @baroncoleman on X lately, here’s my completely unscientific reconstruction of the collective thought process:
Baron: agrees to fill in for Candace.
Normal people: Oh, nice.
🚨 Meanwhile, at X’s newly formed Department of Anti-Baron Investigations:
EVERYBODY STAY CALM! Who’s got Grok Premium? Ask it to analyze Baron’s soul. Nothing? Go back ten years. CHECK DAYCARE. Someone find out what Baron did in daycare. DID HE SHARE HIS CRAYONS? He shared them? RED FLAG. Find a photo of his teenage bedroom. Zoom in. A candle. Birthday candle. Birthday. Candace has a birthday! WE GOT HIM. NEXT. Check his law school locker. 214. 2+1+4=7. Add a C. C7. Charlie starts with C. HOLY SHIT. Now find someone who once stood behind him at Costco. Did he put the cart back? FIND THE CART. Enhance the background. WHO’S THAT BY THE ROTISSERIE CHICKENS? Ask Grok what it all means. Screenshot the answer. Start a Space. START ANOTHER SPACE ABOUT THE FIRST SPACE.
Anyway, call me old-fashioned but I’d probably start with actually listning to the guy.
Because you learn, eventually, that some people earn your trust without ever asking for it. Not through persuasion, but through the accumulation of small, unguarded moments that are very difficult to fake. Spend any amount of time listening to Baron and those moments begin to form a pattern. Character has a way of making itself known — and so does the unmistakable decency of a genuinely good human being.
I just needed to say that.
#BaronColeman @researcherdaisy @RealCandaceO
ALT Baron Coleman casually heading toward Candace’s show while the internet launches lies, Grok screenshots, old drama, AI theories and assorted nonsense in his direction.