Lloyd Trushel

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

@IanCarrollShow Nice. Now do Building 7.

[RyanMatta 🇺🇸 🦅 @Ryanmatta]

Candace Owens needs to see this immediately. We now have evidence from the medical examiner that proves that Charlie Kirk was not shot by a shooter on the roof.

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

@jakeshieldsajj This is gold

[Mikki Willis Official @MikkiWillis]

Case closed! Tyler Robinson was the lone shooter. The evidence is overwhelming. Move along!

Why do so many social media influencers want this case closed? They claim the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was “crystal clear,” “damning,” and “conclusive.”

They are either seeing what they want to see, or they are lying.

I’ve been thoroughly investigating the Charlie Kirk assassination since the day it happened. This is the first time I’ve said anything publicly about the case. I couldn’t care less about being the first to break a story or about the clicks and cash that come with it. I care about accuracy. My track record speaks for itself.

What’s happening on social media right now is identical to what happened during COVID. Anyone who dared to seek information about the safety and efficacy of an experimental mRNA injection was labeled a science denier and shamed into solitude.

Ask questions about the public assassination of Charlie Kirk and you’re “crazy,” “a grifter,” or “a Candace cult member.”

To conclude that Tyler Robinson acted alone requires setting aside a number of glaring details that, at a minimum, warrant further scrutiny. These are just a few:

THE OTHER GUNMAN
An eyewitness videotaped an individual on the roof of the Losee Center, dressed in all-black tactical gear, including a face mask and helmet. This witness reported seeing what appeared to be a smaller/shorter rifle than the one later associated with the case.
He stated that he observed the individual run across the roof, set up, and take the shot at 12:23 p.m. The weapon he saw appeared to be a smaller rifle than what authorities later highlighted. He noted the sound as a “sharp crack,” not a big hunting rifle boom. The witness reported these details to authorities, but to date no one has followed up.

DISPATCH AUDIO
911 audio was broadcast shortly after the shooting. Dispatch relayed the suspect description to officers: “He’s on top of the building on the far north side, just east of the library… He’s going to be wearing all black, black long gun, black tactical helmet, a black mask, possibly wearing a tactical vest and jeans.”

DESTRUCTION OF THE CRIME SCENE
The lawn where Charlie Kirk was shot was paved over just four days later. The crime scene was excavated and covered with concrete on a Sunday. Dan Merrell was hired to pave the area. When he arrived at the scene, approximately 10 inches of topsoil had already been removed. Merrell stated on camera that someone coordinating the work told him, “The governor and the FBI said they want this done by Monday.”

DNA DISCREPANCIES
Forensic testimony indicated that DNA recovered from the towel wrapped around the rifle belonged to two individuals. One profile was identified as Robinson’s roommate, Lance Twiggs, while Robinson was identified only as a possible contributor to DNA found on the towel and on a screwdriver recovered from the rooftop. ATF forensic biologist Kaitlyn Oliver testified that Tyler Robinson’s DNA sample was “the most degraded.” What this could mean is that Lance Twiggs was the last to touch the rifle.

INCONCLUSIVE FRAGMENTS
During the preliminary hearing, ATF examiner Samantha Karner testified about a bullet jacket fragment pulled from Kirk’s autopsy compared against test-fires from the Mauser bolt-action rifle. Her analysis concluded the fragment “could not be identified or excluded” as having been fired from the rifle, with the report stating “the result of the comparison was inconclusive.” She testified she was “unable to say one way or another” due to a lack of microscopic marks on the bullet jacket fragment.

THE UNFIRED BULLET
During cross-examination, the defense asked investigator David Hull about a bullet found on a rooftop other than the rooftop where Robinson is alleged to have fired the fatal shot. Hull said he “believed” there was an unfired bullet found on another building, not the Losee Center. He said the area wasn’t treated as part of the crime scene because the bullet “was accounted for as an ejected cartridge from an officer who had cycled his rifle.” When pressed on specifics, Hull said he could not identify the building, could not recall the type of round, didn’t know when it was found, and didn’t know where it currently was.

ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE VIDEO
Judge Graf agreed to play an “enhanced” UVU surveillance video showing the person alleged to be Robinson on the rooftop—but ruled it would be shown only to people physically present in the courtroom.
As if following a script, conservative influencers who were in the courtroom that day echoed the same talking points. They claimed that the footage was clear, high-definition proof showing Robinson taking the shot—framing it as “undeniable.” However, others who were in the courtroom strongly refute these claims.
Brandi Siciliani posted on X “I was in the courtroom today. There is no high-quality, zoomed-in footage showing anyone taking a shot. The video shown is the same distance as the footage of ‘Tyler’ jumping off the roof… I have no idea why people are claiming otherwise. They know the video isn’t going to be released publicly, so they’re misrepresenting what was actually shown in court.”

As a filmmaker, I know a thing or two about video technology. 4K resolution alone doesn’t overcome the physics of distance and digital zoom. 4K refers to the sensor/output resolution (roughly 3840×2160 pixels), not how much detail exists on a subject 100+ yards away. If the subject occupies a tiny fraction of the frame, you only have a small number of actual pixels covering that person. Zooming in digitally (enlarging in post-production) doesn’t add resolution—it just makes the existing pixels bigger. It can improve visibility of shapes and colors, but it doesn’t recover facial detail or other identifying features that weren’t resolved at capture.

Not even AI can be trusted to upscale pixelated video. Enhancing a blurry face with AI can produce a coherent, convincing face that doesn’t match the actual person—because the model is filling gaps with statistically likely features, not real ones.

And… exhale.

These are just a few of the outstanding details that, in my opinion, should warrant deeper investigation into the murder of Charlie Kirk.

What you’re witnessing is a psychological operation cunningly deployed to further divide us and stop us from asking questions.

Beware of anyone pushing to close this case prematurely. We must never allow politics to thwart the pursuit of truth and justice.

This case holds the power to kill critical thinking or pull back the curtain to reveal the inner workings of “fifth generation warfare.” Which way it goes is entirely up to us, the people.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Mikki Willis
Investigative Filmmaker

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

@DrJackKruse Karma, I suppose.

[Scott Erickson @CapitolCrimeWD]

@ZeekArkham Absolutely. Call your Senators and House Members. Demand accountability. Enough is enough. Let the world know California is nothing but fraud on all fronts.

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

@AuntieRobijr @AaronSiriSG @realDonaldTrump Hi Auntie,

How does that work when the vaccine does not stop the transmission, nor was it tested to prevent transmission?

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

@DannyKPolitics Wow

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

@elonmusk Please incentivize your team @Tesla to communicate with customers.

I’ve trying to buy my first Tesla and have been promised a call back between 24-48 hours - three times in the last 10 days - but they never call.

[Harrison H. Smith ✞ @HarrisonHSmith]

“Is denying the Holocaust more important than killing kids?”

Important question as to the morality of our future world.

(She doesn’t answer.)

[RT @RT_com]

TUCKER: Who’s more morally repulsive, Ted Cruz or Nick Fuentes?

NYT: Who do you think is more morally repulsive?

TUCKER: Ted Cruz… called for KILLING of people

NYT: Fuentes DENIED Holocaust

TUCKER: Is that worse than KILLING KIDS?

[Peter Girnus 🦅 @gothburz]

I have three monitors on my desk. The left one shows the order book. The middle one shows Truth Social. The right one shows the investigation queue.

On April 21st, the left screen moved first.

I am a Senior Surveillance Analyst at a commodities exchange. I have held this position for nineteen years. My job is to monitor trading activity for suspicious patterns and generate compliance reports. I am employee of the quarter. I have a mug.

At 19:54 GMT on April 21st, someone placed 4,260 sell orders on Brent crude futures. They did this during post-settlement. The window after the market closes when daily volume is typically in the dozens. Sometimes single digits. Sometimes I watch the screen and nothing happens for forty minutes and I think about whether my daughter is happy.

On April 21st, someone placed $430 million in directional bets in 120 seconds during that window. One hundred and twenty seconds. I timed it on my watch because the system clock rounds to the nearest minute and I have found, in nineteen years, that precision matters to no one but me.

At 20:10 GMT, the President posted on Truth Social that he was extending the Iran ceasefire.

Brent dropped from $100.91 to $96.83.

I flagged the trade. I flag a lot of trades. I want to tell you what happens to my flags.

My flags go into a system called TRACE. Trade Review and Compliance Evaluation. I did not name it. The system generates a report. The report goes to a committee. The committee has a name I am not allowed to share but I can tell you it meets quarterly and the conference room has a credenza with bottled water that is sparkling because someone once put still water in the room and a managing director sent an email about it that was longer than most of my surveillance reports.

The committee reviews my flags. The committee has reviewed all of my flags. Here is the complete record of actions taken on my flags in 2026:

Reviewed.

That's it. "Reviewed" is a status. In compliance, a status is the absence of an action that has been given a name so it looks like one.

Let me show you my flags.

March 9th. Someone bet millions on oil falling at 18:29 GMT. Forty-seven minutes later, a CBS reporter posted that the President said the Iran war was "very complete, pretty much." Oil dropped 25%. Forty-seven minutes. I flagged it.

March 23rd. Someone sold 5,100 lots of Brent and WTI crude futures between 10:49 and 10:50 GMT. Fourteen minutes later, the President posted on Truth Social about a "COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION" to hostilities. Oil dropped 11%. Over 13,000 contracts traded in sixty seconds after the post. Fourteen minutes. I flagged it.

April 7th. Someone established a $950 million short position in oil futures at 19:45 GMT. Three hours later, the President declared a two-week ceasefire. Nine hundred and fifty million dollars. I flagged it.

April 17th. Someone placed $760 million in bearish bets twenty minutes before Iran's foreign minister confirmed the Strait of Hormuz would reopen. Seven hundred and sixty million. I flagged it.

April 21st. The $430 million. Fifteen minutes. I flagged it.

That is $2.1 billion in directional oil bets in April alone. Every one of them landed on the correct side of a presidential announcement. Every one of them was placed in a window so narrow you could measure it in bathroom breaks. I flagged every single one.

The CFTC chair told a Congressional committee that his organization has "zero tolerance" for fraud and insider trading. I wrote that quote on a Post-it note and stuck it to my right monitor. The one that shows the investigation queue. The investigation queue has not moved since March.

Zero tolerance. Zero staff. Zero budget. Zero prosecutions under the STOCK Act since it was signed in 2012.

Fourteen years. The law has existed for fourteen years and has been enforced zero times. In compliance, we call that a compliance rate of one hundred percent. No cases filed means no cases lost. You cannot fail an audit you never conduct. We call that excellence.

Last month the White House sent an internal email to staff. I was not on the distribution list but I have read reporting on it and I need you to sit with what I am about to say. The email instructed White House staff not to use insider information to place bets on prediction markets.

The White House had to send a memo telling its own employees not to insider-trade.

I want you to read that sentence again. Not because the instruction was unclear. Because the instruction was necessary. Because someone in the building looked at the same pattern I have been flagging for months on my three monitors and decided the appropriate response was an email.

The President's son sits on the advisory board of Kalshi. He is an investor in Polymarket. Both are prediction markets. Both saw accounts created days before U.S. military action.

One account. I cannot stop thinking about this account. It was called "Burdensome-Mix." It was created in December. On January 2nd, it placed $32,500 on Venezuela's president being removed from power. On January 3rd, Maduro was seized by U.S. special forces. Burdensome-Mix collected $436,000. Then it changed its username. Then it disappeared.

One account is a coincidence. But there were six.

Six accounts were created on Polymarket in February. All bet on U.S. strikes on Iran by the 28th. When the President confirmed the strikes, the six accounts collected $1.2 million between them. Five of the six never placed another bet. The sixth went on to correctly predict the ceasefire date and made another $163,000.

My surveillance system logged all of this. My system logs everything. My system does not have opinions and neither do I. I generate reports. The reports go to committees. The committees meet quarterly. Between meetings, the windows get shorter and the bets get larger.

March 9th: 47 minutes. March 23rd: 14 minutes. April 17th: 20 minutes. April 21st: 15 minutes.

The window is compressing. In March, you had time to make coffee between the trade and the announcement. By April, you had time to send a text. By summer, at this rate, the trade and the announcement will be the same event.

The spokesman said any implication that administration officials are engaged in insider trading is "baseless and irresponsible reporting."

Then the White House sent the email again.

I have been in compliance for nineteen years. I have seen insider trading run out of strip mall offices by men who could not spell "derivative." I have seen pump-and-dump schemes coordinated over WhatsApp by people who used their real names. I have seen a man try to manipulate soybean futures from a Panera Bread.

I have never seen $2.1 billion in perfectly timed trades across five presidential announcements in a single month go uninvestigated.

But I have also never seen a compliance system work this beautifully. Every trade flagged. Every report filed. Every committee briefed. Every quarterly meeting attended. Bottled water: sparkling. Minutes: distributed.

Zero prosecutions.

As long as the flags go up and the cases don't, my performance review says I am meeting expectations.

I am meeting expectations. The system is meeting expectations. The $2.1 billion is meeting expectations. The fourteen-year-old law with zero prosecutions is meeting expectations.

The left screen moves. The middle screen moves. The right screen stays perfectly, immaculately still.

In my field, we call this price discovery.

[Kenny Carmody @KennyCarmody]

Something worth understanding about why so many people still do not question the COVID injections.

It is not simply laziness or indifference. The psychology of not-knowing is more active than that. For many people, the effort required to genuinely examine what happened would mean confronting the possibility that they were deceived by institutions they trusted, that decisions they made cannot be unmade, and that people they dismissed or treated poorly were raising legitimate concerns. Some may call it Cognitive Dissonance.

That is a significant psychological cost. And many people are simply not ready to pay it.

But the facts remain regardless.

The definition of vaccine was changed by the CDC in 2021, from a product that produces immunity to one that produces an immune response. The change was not incidental. The mRNA products did not meet the prior definition and the definition was adjusted to accommodate them.

The trials that supported emergency authorisation were of insufficient duration to assess long-term safety. The participants who experienced adverse events were in some cases removed from the efficacy analysis. The placebo group was vaccinated early, eliminating the possibility of genuine long-term comparison.

The transmission protection that was used to justify mandates, the claim that vaccination prevented you from passing the virus to others, was never established by the trial data and was acknowledged by Pfizer’s own representative under European Parliament questioning to not have been studied.

These are not interpretations. They are documented.

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

@conspiracyb0t What app? We didn’t have apps in 2001.

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

@NickJFuentes @CarriePrejean1 Perhaps

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

Maybe it is a matter of national security.

After all, with Hormuz, it seems fertilizer is going to be hard to find. Protecting crops from insects will be even more important.

That said, applying Justice is necessary. Hopefully the courts will find a just solution rather than capitulating to Bayer.

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

@RenzTom It gets weirder…

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

@RenzTom I travel extensively for work. It’s everywhere.

[Lloyd Trushel @LloydTrushel]

@grok if oil hits $200 a barrel what will diesel prices look like in the United States?