BREAKING NEWS: The Biggest Hole in the House January 6 Committee Final Report Has Been Found—and It Could Hold the Key to All Future Investigations of Donald Trump’s Insurrection

In “The January 6 Files #1: Charlie Kirk,” a former federal criminal investigator and criminal defense attorney whose January 6 research Congress often cites unpacks January 6 evidence others missed.

ABOVE: Charlie Kirk.

Introduction

The evidence is quickly mounting—after the public release of over a hundred January 6 witness transcripts by the House January 6 Committee in the final hours of 2022—that the plot to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 had its origin in the Turning Point USA “Student Action Summit” (SAS) that was held just four miles from Mar-a-Lago between December 19 and December 22 of 2020.

Hours before that raucous far-right conference began, then-President of the United States Donald Trump—at the time just 72 hours from flying to Mar-a-Lago himself—infamously announced his endorsement of a “big” and “wild” event (which he termed a “protest”) that was slated to occur a nine-minute walk from the Capitol on January 6.

Documentary evidence now confirms that this December 2020 Mar-a-Lago-adjacent summit, which featured Trump himself as well as Trump family members and leading congressional allies, was used to shape the planning, funding, and logistics of a rally and subsequent march in January 2021—a rally and march that in turn helped set off an armed insurrection of a sort not seen in the United States since the American Civil War.

The 2020 Turning Point USA Student Action Summit

The summit, which brought together far-right radicals from all across the country and even threatened to turn violent—with “angry” and “tense” confrontations between attendees and local officials—was set up by Turning Point USA (TPUSA) founder Charlie Kirk. Speakers at the summit included Donald Trump (by phone), Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Donald Trump Jr.’s soon-to-be-fiancée Kimberly Guilfoyle, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Trump domestic policy adviser Sebastian Gorka, and Trump foreign policy adviser Tucker Carlson. United States senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT), who would play critical roles as Trump allies during the horrifying events of January 6, also attended and spoke. Many less well-known far-right firebrands, like convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza and author/podcaster David J. Harris Jr.—the latter of whom was in D.C. on January 6, 2021—were also speakers at the summit.

Promotional materials for the several-day event, which was attended by thousands, promised that it would offer “first-class activism training” to all attendees while in turn “organizing” them for future political action. It promised to put these angry, tense, newly organized far-right activists in direct contact with many conservative “political leaders and top-tier activist organizations.”

Ninety-six hours before the summit began—on the very day (see below) that Charlie Kirk first learned from the 2020 Trump presidential campaign that the woman who’d ultimately fund much of Trump’s January 6 political programming wanted to speak to him and donate a huge sum of money to his organization—TPUSA posted a meme urging those coming to the soon-to-begin Student Action Summit to remember that their campus-based far-right activism must ultimately “go[ ] to the halls of Congress.”

According to federal judge David Carter, who in March 2022 ruled that Donald Trump and his lawyer John Eastman “more likely than not” commited federal felonies, Trump and Eastman’s plan to use events in Congress scheduled to occur on January 6, 2021 as a flashpoint for Trump’s coup plot was fully formed by December 7, 2020—eight days before the meme above was posted by an organization run by close Trump associate (see below) Charlie Kirk and a full twelve days before the TPUSA Student Action Summit began just minutes away from Mr. Trump’s home in Florida. (Trump himself arrived in Florida less than 24 hours after the conclusion of the event.)

If you want a sense of the tenor of the Student Action Summit, the photo below was published by the TPUSA Instagram account on the four-day event’s penultimate day:

In Trump’s hundred-second call-in to the main stage of the SAS, the sitting president used the word “fight” three times in his 75 seconds of speaking, in addition to urging the assembled far-right activists in his audience to “step up” to fight to preserve an election which he said (multiple times) he had won in a “landslide.” In response, Kirk acknowledged that Trump was “fighting”, and pledged on behalf of his organization and its members—multiple times—that they’d “have [Trump’s] back” in his “fight.”

During his call-in Trump also made a somewhat cryptic reference—which might have been lost on anyone listening to the call besides Kirk—to a recent interview Kirk had given to Fox News weekend host Steve Hilton. In that interview, Kirk said (emphasis supplied),

“The more you tell people to sit down and shut up, the more people are going to challenge whatever suspicion[s] [about the 2020 presidential election] they had previously. I think it is so important that we demand answers [about the election]—and demand answers from our Republican governors and Republican secretary of states, [the people] that talk a good game about representing working people.

Especially [Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger] in the State of Georgia, where there were so many [pre-election] changes and things we deserve an answer to.

And here’s the broader framing: the people in charge [at the state and federal levels] have failed us. They have failed us economically, they have failed us socially, they have failed us politically, they have failed us in every single regard. They live by a different set of rules.

And if [they] continue tell the one hundred or two hundred million people that [they] have contempt for just to sit down and shut up, that’s no way to govern a civilization and try to have the “unity” they always profess [they want].

And so I just want to compliment you, Steve, on your monologue [about the election].

So what was the Hilton monologue Kirk was applauding, and that therefore (in turn) Trump was applauding Kirk for having applauded? Suffice to say that it included the following language (emphasis supplied):

The establishment [politicians] seem to think that they can just bulldoze their way through the [Trumpists’] objections and legitimate questions [about the 2020 election]. Shut up and move on? No!

This is our election system! Not any old policy argument. Tens of millions of Americans think the election was rigged, stolen, illegitimate. They’re not going to move on unless you take their concerns [about the election results[ seriously. By dismissing the concerns, the idiots in the establishment are making people more skeptical of the election outcome, not less!

It’s gone up to 83% of Republicans saying they don’t believe Biden won. Eighty-three percent!

The elites have learned absolutely nothing from the success of Donald Trump. There’s a reason this show [Hilton’s Fox News program] is called “The Next Revolution”. Americans have had enough of being pushed around, patronized, and lied to.

{NB: Hilton here goes on a tangent about Joe Biden’s alleged “career of corruption” that tracks with Kremlin propaganda about the Biden family previously trafficked by Trump.}

So here we are. What a complete mess the establishment has made of things.

And here’s what we do [in response]: we keep up the fight for election integrity. For four years they [Democrats] fought to overturn the 2016 election, and that was top-down nonsense pushed by an elitist establishment. This [Republican attempts to overturn the 2020 election] is a people’s protest against the establish, and it’s only going to get stronger. We need to keep up the fight….

We need to destroy the establishment before the establishment destroys America.

The next revolution is just getting started.

Hilton said all this, of course, just a day after Trump announced his endorsement of a “big” and “wild” event to “protest” the 2020 election in D.C. on January 6, 2021. That Kirk gave his interview with Hilton (watched by Trump) from the venue of the TPUSA SAS, the Palm Beach Convention Center, is yet another indication, beyond Trump’s call-in to the event, that Trump—busy as he was, at the time, with preparations for a coup—was simultaneously attuned to what was going on with Kirk and his “summit.”

Among other attendees of the 2020 TPUSA SAS was one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who, as Proof has previously reported, appeared to preach pro-Trump violence in his speech at the event:

“Our constitutional system reposes power in the people, and the media resents the hell out of it. They no longer want to program the news, they want to program you—controlling what you see, and what you hear, so they can manage how you behave. I guess in their eyes, we’re all behaving a little badly! But maybe more bad behavior is what we need to advance the America First agenda! ‘Cause I don’t know about you, but I’m not going back to yesterday’s Republican Party. I’m not going back to losing politely…

…

If you want to get the job done—if you want to “drain the swamp”—hire a Florida man [referring to both himself and Donald Trump]. We’ve drained swamps in the State of Florida. And we know how to get the job done.

Just like the alligators out in the Everglades, the D.C. swamp creatures [members of Congress] have spent seemingly millennia adjusting to their surroundings. And they can be very dangerous if not properly handled. Now we know that the swamp [Washington] isn’t truly drained until we’ve nailed the hides of the alligators to the wall!”

Another top Trump ally in Congress, then-Rep.-elect Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), who would speak on Trump’s behalf at the White House Ellipse on Insurrection Day—as would five other SAS speakers (Donald Trump Jr., Kimberly Guilfoyle, Rudy Giuliani, Eric Trump, and Lara Trump)—likewise used his SAS speech to counsel what many in the crowd would have construed as violence, advising those in Kirk’s group to have Trump’s back and fight for him specifically by finding situations in which they could “lightly threaten” sitting members of Congress and show them that “everybody is coming after you.”

The Rise of Charlie Kirk

Given that Charlie Kirk was just a teenager when TPUSA was founded in 2012—and given how powerful an entity TPUSA has become in the decade that it’s been extant (despite the fact that it focuses exclusively on high school and university students, who haven’t historically been a powerful demographic within the Republican Party)—perhaps it is little surprise that the TPUSA Board of Directors (five members as of December 2020), Honorary Board (ten members as of December 2020), and Advisory Council (eighty members as of December 2020) have been critical to the growth and guidance of the group. Nearly all the members of the TPUSA executive class are full-grown adults with significant political experience, political influence, a history of sizable political contributions to the GOP, or some combination of all three of these.

Yet the most well-connected member of the Board of Directors may be Kirk himself.

As ProPublica reports, it isn’t just that former president Trump has referred to Kirk as “my good friend”, it’s that Trump has acted in a fashion consistent with that claim.

“Charlie Kirk has developed a unique bond with the first family”, ProPublica writes. “The conservative star dines with the president at Mar-a-Lago and rang in the new year there [in January 2020]. During each of the last two winters, he used the club to hold a formal fundraiser for his nonprofit, Turning Point USA, that featured Donald Trump Jr.” ProPublica even calls Trump’s eldest son “a close friend of Kirk’s.”

But in fact, Kirk is more than just a friend to Don Jr. As ProPublica reports, after the two met for the first time at the 2016 Republican National Convention, Kirk began to “accompany him [Donald Trump Jr.] on the road as an assistant” (emphasis supplied).

By 2018, Kirk was virtually a member of the Trump family:

Over the last year [2019], the president has delivered remarks at [Turning Point USA’s] conferences three separate times. At the group’s December 2018 Mar-a-Lago affair, the president’s eldest son helped it haul in nearly $5 million, tax records show.

Recently, Kirk published a book called The MAGA Doctrine, which Trump and his son promoted on Twitter.

….

Turning Point amplifies White House messaging by regularly tweeting memes and one-liners supportive of Trump administration policies or politics to hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers, and it retweets similar messages sent by Kirk, who is followed by nearly two million people.

Meanwhile, Kirk’s and the group’s tweets are often retweeted by [President Trump], promoting the young leader’s incendiary statements to more than 82 million followers, including his description of COVID-19 as the “China virus.”

Indeed, by April 2018 Politico was running a feature-length article on Kirk—then still just 24—entitled “Trump’s Man on Campus.”

{Note: Proof will not go into detail in this report on the mountain of evidence that TPUSA is at base a Trumpworld grift, though this fact will be important to keep in mind as you consider the revelations below—especially the connections between Donald Trump Jr. and TPUSA.}

During Charlie Kirk’s meteoric rise in far-right politics—including in 2017, while he was working as an “assistant” to the eldest son of then-president Trump—one of his well-connected adult advisors was Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Ginni Thomas was so close to Turning Point USA at the time that when Kirk’s “second-in-command” at TPUSA, Crystal Clanton, left the organization after a cornucopia of racist messages by her were unearthed (one of which actually read, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all. I hate Blacks. End of story”), she immediately landed on her feet, with Ginni Thomas hiring her as her personal assistant.

Thomas and Clanton were inseparable in 2018, as Trump began his preparations for the 2020 presidential election. Thomas brought Clanton to a TPUSA event she spoke at that year, and received Clanton’s aid with a major Trump International Hotel interview of Clanton’s former boss’s boss: Donald Trump Jr.

During her interview of Trump Jr. (later discussed during her testimony before the House January 6 Committee), Thomas and Trump Jr. posed in the “1776 Room” of the Trump Townhouse (Trump’s personal residence in Washington, D.C., as well as the site of his primary January 6 war room on Insurrection Eve):

“1776” is also (a) one of the mottos of TPUSA, and (b) the chief slogan of the domestic-terror organization Stop the Steal, whose leader Ali Alexander was called by regular (paid) TPUSA speaker Kim Guilfoyle from the townhouse pictured above just a few hours before the U.S. Capitol was attacked on January 6.

ABOVE: In this photo from TPUSA’s Instagram feed, posted 72 hours before the 2020 TPUSA Student Action Summit, a woman models the group’s “1776” merch.

It’s unclear when Ginni Thomas ceased to be actively involved with TPUSA. While the far-right student organization may have had nearly 100 people in its executive cadre by the end of the 2020, it started that year with just two listed executives: Kirk and George Hamstra. At the time it had no Honorary Board of Directors at all, and its website said that its “Advisory Council” roster was “Coming Soon”—which would seem to make claims from the organization at the end of 2020 that Ginni Thomas had not been on its Advisory Council for “years” both improbable and impossible to verify.

All we know is that by the time that TPUSA first announced its expanded leadership cadre in the spring of 2020—not yet 100 people strong, but approximately 85—Thomas wasn’t listed on the TPUSA website (though this could just as well have been because of the bad press she’d drawn the year before, due to her voluntary association with the ex-TPUSA second-in-command Clanton).

But we certainly know that Ginni Thomas spent the years leading up to 2020 regularly speaking at TPUSA events, even opening one 2016 address with the words, “I’m searching for troublemakers for liberty.” In view of this ongoing association between Ginni Thomas and TPUSA, we’ll return to Justice Thomas’ wife later on in this report.

Charlie Kirk, Turning Point, and the January 6 Attack

Anyone who knows anything about January 6 knows that Charlie Kirk publicly boasted, just 48 hours before the attack on the Capitol, that he was “sending 80+ buses full of patriots to D.C. [for January 6] to fight for this president”, these last words echoing the language of his equally public conversation with Trump in Florida two weeks earlier.

Most of those who follow January 6 reporting also know that, in the event, (a) TPUSA only sent seven of its claimed “80+” buses, (b) Kirk did not show up in Washington, D.C. himself, and (c) Kirk subsequently deleted his claim of having aided and abetted the events in D.C. on January 6, doing so almost immediately after the day turned (so sadly yet predictably) to violence and mayhem.

This sequence of events raises some obvious questions, among them these three:

1. Why did Charlie Kirk himself stay away from Washington, D.C. on January 6? Did he have some forewarning of what was likely to happen there? (Proof has often noted that virtually every member of Trump’s inner circle somehow knew to avoid Capitol Hill on January 6, including Trump and his entire family, Giuliani, Kirk, Ginni Thomas, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Charles Herbster, the Becks of Idaho, Bubba Saulsbury, Peter Navarro, Patrick Byrne, and dozens of others who summarily ignored their patron Trump’s request that they march to the Capitol. Many of these individuals, such as Herbster, ultimately lied about what they did after the speech at the White House Ellipse—Herbster falsely said he returned to his native Nebraska, but later admitted that he flew to Mar-a-Lago with Trump family members—or gave preposterous excuses for not marching as Trump had requested, such as the U.S. military veteran and retired general Flynn claiming it was “too cold” to stay outside.)

2. Did Kirk have any contact with the Trump family (besides the call with Trump during the TPUSA SAS) in the weeks before January 6, for instance with Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle, or Eric Trump and Lara Trump, at the SAS (which began, quite conveniently, just a few hours after Trump announced on Twitter that he wanted far-right activists like those Kirk had gathered in West Palm Beach to attend a “big” and “wild” activist event in D.C. on January 6)?

3. Was Kirk in contact with Ginni Thomas in November 2020, December 2020, and/or the first week of January 2021?

While, as we will see in a moment, Kirk himself pleaded the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution to avoid answering any questions before the House January 6 Committee—a stunning if implicit admission of some kind of wrongdoing for a young man who wasn’t even in Washington on January 6—what we do know from the questions asked of Kirk by Congress, and from the testimonies of Kimberly Guilfoyle and (even more importantly) Guilfoyle’s fundraising agent Caroline Wren is that the woman who funded the Trump campaign event held in D.C. on January 6, far-right Publix heiress Julie Jenkins Fancelli, initiated her push to fund Trump’s “big” and “wild” event during the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit and quite possibly in conversations with Charlie Kirk himself during the summit.

This may even explain, for the first time, why Donald Trump suddenly announced his endorsement of the January 6 event just hours before a far-right-activist summit was set to begin mere minutes from his home in Florida—a home he was about to return to for over a week to finish his coup planning in private. We continue to have no idea who Trump met with during this critical week, though we do know, as future entries in The January 6 Files series at Proof will detail, that critical January 6 witnesses have lied to hide this very information. Did Kirk meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in late December, as he’d often done in the past, per major-media reporting? We don’t know.

What we do know, in this case from the Wren and Guilfoyle transcripts (which will be exhaustively detailed in late entries in the “January 6 Files” series) that both women were desperate to obscure in their testimonies the fact that these conversations with Julie Jenkins Fancelli began on December 20 or December 21—immediately after Trump sent his now-infamous “wild” tweet, and during Kirk’s far-right conference—and that they originally stemmed from conversations between Fancelli and Kirk about how the former could leverage her massive wealth to aid Trump.

Would it have made any sense for Fancelli to meet with Kirk in Florida but not with Guilfoyle—who she knew personally from prior Trump fundraising appeals—and not with Trump Jr., precisely the sort of Trumpworld celebrity an heiress might want face-time with before opening her purse to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars?

And how much more likely would a Fancelli-Kirk-Trump-Guilfoyle insurrection planning meeting have been if all four were going to be in the same location four miles from Mar-a-Lago sometime between December 19 and December 22, 2020?

It is with the above events and unresolved mysteries in mind that we must consider the questions asked of Charlie Kirk by Congress during his abortive federal testimony.

The Brief But Surprisingly Telling Testimony of Charlie Kirk

So how can a federal witness pleading the Fifth Amendment be telling, besides the obvious fact that it means the witness believes truthful testimony could lead to their criminal prosecution?

Well, though it may seem counterintuitive, it turns out that federal investigators can use non-trial interrogations (such as depositions) that they know won’t produce new substantive evidence to reveal via transcription evidence already in their possession.

And that’s exactly what happened with the January 6 testimony of Charlie Kirk.

Through Mr. Kirk’s congressional testimony—not his answers, which are simply a repetition, ad nauseam, of lawyer-supplied boilerplate about the right to remain silent, but rather via the questions asked of him—we discover that Kirk’s apparent deliberate destruction of incriminating digital evidence related to January 6 wasn’t just a crude, one-off attempt at self-exculpation. It was, instead, part of a pattern of conduct.

{Note: While two of Kirk’s three attorneys, Joshua A. Levy and Juliana Andonian, appear to be left-leaning—with Levy having apparently in the past represented tenants suing Donald Trump in a civil dispute, Hunter Biden, and even Fusion GPS, the firm that paid for the production of a dossier on Trump’s overseas activities—one of Kirk’s lead attorneys, Jeff Neiman, appears to have previously represented Trump adviser, confidant, and ex-campaign manager Paul Manafort, who colluded with Russian intelligence during the 2016 presidential election cycle.}

While the House January 6 Committee notes (pg. 5) that “between October 21 and March 2022, through your counsel, you [Charlie Kirk] voluntarily turned over more than 8,000 pages of documents that were associated with you and Turning Point entities”, the Committee then goes on to observe that “these [disclosures] were largely email communications among Turning Point employees about arranging bus transportation to and from the January 6 Ellipse rally.”

So the prior conduct that Kirk willingly disclosed to Congress not only would not have much involved Kirk himself—but rather, as the Committee clarifies, “Turning Point employees” (a group that may or may not be thought to include Kirk himself, as he is the very definition of an employer at Turning Point)—but also involved activity that was clearly legal: arranging buses to go to a legal political protest in Washington, D.C.

What the Committee would’ve wanted, of course, was very different evidence indeed.

It would have wanted emails from Kirk himself, as Kirk is not just the head of TPUSA but a long-time Trump family agent as the former assistant of Donald Trump Jr.

Kirk is also, as noted above, a good friend of the Trump family generally and of former president Trump specifically.

And Kirk has repeatedly paid a lot of money to both Trump family members and family-adjacent persons (e.g., both Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle) to speak at TPUSA events.

In fact—and this will be critical to remember as the “January 6 Files” series goes on—Caroline Wren revealed in her testimony to Congress that it was Charlie Kirk who paid Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle a massive sum ($60,000) to speak for a matter of seconds at the January 6 rally that helped launch a violent insurrection in the United States.

So we cannot see Paul Manafort’s attorney overseeing Charlie Kirk giving emails from “Turning Point employees” about “arranging bus transportation” to the House January 6 Committee as actually giving the Committee what it was really looking for.

So how did Charlie Kirk deal with all of the evidence the Committee really wanted?

He destroyed it, apparently.

And possibly committed a serious federal felony in doing so.

But before we get to that, we should note the timeframe mentioned by the Committee, above. From October 2021 to March 2022—half a year—Kirk and his counsel gave the Committee the impression that Kirk was willing to cooperate with the U.S. Congress by handing over (as noted above) thousands of documents that seem to have had little to do with Kirk himself. But as soon as that period of document production was over, Neiman informed the House select committee that Kirk would not be providing any testimony voluntarily, and would have to be subpoenaed. (And though the Committee couldn’t have known it, Kirk had no intention of answering questions if subpoenaed.)

ABOVE: A sampling of the January 6 testimony of Trump friend Charlie Kirk.

{Note: It appears that Kirk’s months of document production also earned him the ability to put off his “testimony” until late May 2022, which certainly increased the odds that the House January 6 Committee—which was expected to be forced by House Republicans to wrap up its work seven months hence—would not be able to find a way to compel Kirk to testify as part of some sort of partnership with the Department of Justice, for instance via an immunity deal.}

So what was Kirk doing during the six months that Manafort’s former attorney (as well as Attorney Levy) were, one could argue, effectively stalling Congress with document production that was meaningless?

How did it aid Kirk for his legal team to wait half a year to tell Congress something it may not have yet known in October of 2021, which was that it would have to subpoena Kirk to (even try to) get his testimony?

It certainly now appears as though Charlie Kirk spent that time destroying evidence.

How do we know? Because Kirk turned over precisely zero text messages to Congress, with his attorney representing that Kirk did not have any text messages from any part of the relevant period of time between the 2020 general election and January 6, 2021.

The problem here? Other witnesses produced evidence to Congress confirming that Kirk was sending and receiving text messages related to January 6, 2021—and doing so prodigiously, in fact—during that very period of time.

So there can be little doubt that Kirk destroyed this digital evidence; that his attorney well knows he destroyed this digital evidence; and that it is entirely possible that Kirk destroyed this evidence after receiving his federal subpoena in October 2021—which would make this mass destruction of evidence a federal crime (indeed, under certain esoteric circumstances it could even be a crime if he destroyed all this evidence pre-subpoena).

But it isn’t just Charlie Kirk’s texts that are missing from his document production.

Kirk provided no Telegram, Signal, or WhatsApp messages, either, though Congress has evidence (see below) that Kirk used some or all of these encrypted-messaging apps during the lengthy span of time he was key to the planning of the events of January 6.

So What Evidence Is Trump Friend Charlie Kirk Hiding?

The House January 6 Committee appears to have deliberately questioned Kirk in such a way that it would reveal some of what Congress already knows about Kirk’s conduct.

For instance, Congress knows that longtime Trump friend/former Trump Jr. assistant Kirk was aware of the upcoming January 6 Ellipse event during the December 2020 Turning Point USA Student Action Summit—in fact, he received an invitation (pg. 9) to speak at that event on the very day he spoke with Trump by phone (in public) at the SAS. We also know that he destroyed that invitation, which was sent to him by Amy Kremer—a central January 6 figure believed to have already been in touch with the 2020 Trump presidential campaign about the January 6 event by that point.

We know, too, from pg. 10 of the Kirk testimony, that Kirk first learned that Publix heiress Julie Jenkins Fancelli wanted to give a large amount of money to upcoming TPUSA projects—which as of the Student Action Summit (December 19 to December 22, 2020) had come to include January 6—on December 15, 2020.

That date is not as typo. Yes, Kirk knew Fancelli wanted to (a) give him an enormous amount of money, and (b) meet with him in person, nearly four days before Trump went public with the news that he was endorsing Kremer’s planned January 2021 rally in D.C. (having determined and decreed that it would happen on January 6, instead of its originally scheduled date later in January).

Fancelli, who ultimately funded almost the entirety of the January 6 event at the White House Ellipse that helped spark the attack on the U.S. Capitol, was very much on Kirk’s mind even in the midst of him running a large, highly complex national event just a few miles from Trump’s home (an event that featured not only a call-in by the then-president and live appearances by most of his family but a live keynote address by the then-Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence). Indeed, within hours of the SAS ending, Kirk wrote Kimberly Guilfoyle/Trump campaign agent Caroline Wren to find out if the money Fancelli planned to give to TPUSA (which at the time was $300,000 at a bare minimum) had come through. So why was Kirk so keen to find out if TPUSA now had that money to spend? Why was that information so time-sensitive?

Perhaps because “80+ buses” carrying “patriots” from across the country to D.C. don’t come cheap.

It would appear, then, that it was sometime during his four-day event in December 2020 that Charle Kirk came to understand that his organization needed a massive infusion of cash and quickly.

So at what point did Kirk begin to suspect he needed to be careful about his digital communications related to January 6, including any fundraising for that day? In other words, at what point did he begin to understand that something about January 6 was illicit?

Well, consider this pg. 11 exchange regarding a (thereafter destroyed) text exchange Kirk had with the Trump campaign on December 26, 2020, at a time it appears Wren, Guilfoyle, Trump Jr., and Fancelli were all in Florida (perhaps even at Mar-a-Lago itself, where Trump was as well, by then; certainly, we know Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle were actually living at Mar-a-Lago on this date, per the latter’s House testimony):

ABOVE: Federal investigators question Kirk about a December 26, 2020 exchange with Trump agent Wren, in which Wren mentions that she’s sitting with Fancelli.

At first blush, this might seem like Kirk recanting any desire he might previously have expressed to use money from Fancelli for January 6, and/or to seek additional any “invest[ment]” from Fancelli related to “bring[ing] folks out to D.C. for January 6 protests” (note the plural, here, suggesting that not only the Ellipse rally but Stop the Steal protests at other Capitol-area locations, including the Capitol itself, were likely being discussed). But remember that December 26, 2020 was just nine days before Kirk would go on Twitter to publicly boast that Turning Point USA had spent the preceding days (presumably extending into late December 2020) orchestrating precisely what Kirk was saying by text he had no interest in: paying for insurrectionists to travel to D.C. for events that included ones slated to occur on closed federal lands on Capitol Hill (as the “big” and “wild” event Trump had heralded on Twitter was scheduled, at this time, for the “Capitol steps”, which were not then open to the general public).

Indeed, we know that another text message Kirk apparently destroyed shows him confessing to have called Fancelli directly on the very day (December 26) (a) he was told she wanted to provide him with money for January 6 planning, and (b) he claimed—apparently falsely—to have had no interest in any such investment or planning. If he had no plan to take money from Fancelli as an “invest[ment]” in the events of January 6, why call her with such alacrity following a text message from Wren? Candidly, why call her at all? And why thereafter destroy that text message, potentially in violation of federal law and a federal subpoena?

By December 27, 2020, Wren was texting Kirk a reference to him having just asked for $1.5 million in immediate investments from Fancelli. It is impossible to doubt, given this timeframe—such a large sum does not get rushed out in this way unless it is time-sensitive, which nothing is supposed to be just a few weeks after a major election—that while Kirk may have refused to say so to Wren via text (a strong sign of consciousness of guilt), what he was finding ways to do on December 26 and December 27, likely via encrypted apps and speaking with a cadre of Trump campaign officials then at Mar-a-Lago with Trump himself for New Year’s, was secure a massive investment in January 6.

And yet, we know from recorded statements from Alex Jones—of whom Fancelli was at the time a big fan—that Fancelli paid less than a third of what Kirk was seeking from her to arrange the entirety of the White House Ellipse event.

So besides “80+ buses” and a January 6 event featuring countless far-right celebrities, what was Kirk going to use that $1.5 million for over just a matter of days? We don’t know, though given his contacts with Amy Kremer and Caroline Wren, and given Amy Kremer and Caroline Wren’s many contacts with Ali Alexander, and given Ali Alexander’s subsequent confession that Stop the Steal handled Washington hotel arrangements for some of the Proud Boy and Oath Keeper leaders who planned to violently attack the U.S. Capitol, one has to wonder if Kirk was involved in both bringing to Washington and housing men who later ended up indicted for Seditious Conspiracy. If so, and if he did this in conjunction with a Trump campaign official acting on behalf of the Trump campaign (Wren), it would certainly explain why Kirk might thereafter be willing to risk federal indictment to destroy digital evidence that would prove what he did. (Keep in mind, as you consider all this, that the new January 6 special counsel, Jack Smith, is said to be “following the money” as he considers indictments for Trumpworld figures up to and including Donald Trump himself.)

So what did Charlie Kirk need so much money for so quickly? Fortunately, pg. 12 of his testimony removes a lot of doubt from this equation.

Kirk here confesses, in a message that—on his end—he destroyed, possibly criminally, that he is seeking well over a million dollars to “deploy” individuals to act as leaders on January 6 (almost all those who appeared at January 6 events to incite violence, many of whom Proof has written about at length, are known far-right “social media influencers”); “mobilize” foot-soldiers for the express purpose of “fighting” the election results on January 6; “produce…content” that will convince “millions” more Trumpists to descend on Washington on January 6; and “expand” a Trumpist “army” that Kirk said he was then building on college campuses, which he’d just announced on December 15 needed to be ready to end up in the “halls of Congress” and would presumably would be part of the “80+ buses of patriots” he’d later crow about on Twitter and then try to pretend he’d never mentioned or even contemplated at all.

And lest you think that after December 27 Kirk somehow decided to pull back on this degree of engagement with the planning and logistics of January 6, again the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

On December 28, 2020, while Trump was at Mar-a-Lago with his leading campaign advisers, Wren—who appears to have been at Mar-a-Lago herself (certainly, we know that within 72 hours she was definitely there, in conversation with Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle about January 6)—asks Kirk and TPUSA to “step up” their involvement in January 6 because the rally on that day will now include Donald Trump himself. And all the evidence indicates that Kirk answered this call from Wren and—implicitly—the President of the United States himself, whose agent Wren unambiguously was.

Location, Location, Location

As esoteric as it might sound, one of the most powerful pieces of evidence revealed by the House January 6 Committee in its final report was that the January 6 White House Ellipse rally was only moved to the Ellipse around December 27 or December 28—and then only because the Secret Service said it could not keep President Trump safe at either Freedom Plaza or on Capitol Hill itself. (Freedom Plaza is just 1.4 miles—a nine-minute walk—from the Capitol.) So when Kirk was seeking at least $1.25 million from Fancelli for January 6 “protests” (plural), we should not understand this money as being intended, by Kirk, to be spent on an event held on the White House grounds.

Rather, Kirk apparently wanted to facilitate multiple events that would occur as “far” from the U.S. Capitol as a 540-second walk and as close to the Capitol as the Capitol grounds themselves (much of which were closed to the public at the time due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Capitol steps, which as noted above are where Ali Alexander and Stop the Steal were publicly planning on holding an event during the period Kirk was securing funding to pay for costs associated with multiple unnamed January 6 “protests” in the Capitol Hill area; why Trump’s campaign should have been involved in clandestinely funding these events rather than Stop the Steal or Women for America First or any of the pro-Trump paramilitary groups whose names we now know so well is made clear by Roger Stone’s sad, now-deleted, late December 2020 video seeking to raise funds for body armor and other supplies for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers: these groups did not have nearly the fundraising capabilities to pay the millions required to stage January 6 in the several days’—maximum—advance notice they had that they would need to do so, which is why the Trumps needed TPUSA so badly).

When Kirk learned that Trump would be involved in the January 6 event and that it would be held on White House grounds, he again increased his level of involvement—demanding more money be secured through the fundraising efforts of Trump’s 2020 campaign fundraiser (Wren, who may now claim she was freelancing, but was clearly reporting to Trump presidential adviser Guilfoyle and doing work on behalf of a man still raising money for his “campaign,” suggesting her own work fundraising for that campaign wouldn’t have ended with Trump’s election loss, either).

Here is Kirk declaring, on December 28, 2020, that $1.25 million wasn’t enough money for what he was now, apparently almost single-handedly, planning for January 6, 2021:

This subsequently-destroyed text message again raises the question of location.

What event was “six days” away… on December 28, 2020? At that point, January 6 was nine days away, not six. While perhaps Kirk is referring to “business days”—though if so it wouldn’t be clear why, as we have to assume he was working weekends on his new, urgent, president-involving business—what’s more likely is that he is referring to the first arrival of would-be Trumpist insurrectionists (most notably, the intended leaders of the coup plot, both paramilitary and civilian) on January 4, 2021.

Indeed, we now know, in part from the extensive early 2021 reporting on this topic here at Proof, that several of Trump’s Insurrection Week war rooms indeed opened their doors on Monday, January 4. Just so, there were January 6-related events held on January 5 at Freedom Plaza, and possibly even events held before this on January 4.

So we must ask, again, precisely where Charlie Kirk was planning on “deploying” and “mobilizing” his “army” as he texted a Trump campaign agent on December 28, 2020?

{Note: A document Congress confronts Kirk with on pg. 15 of his testimony shows that Julie Jenkins Fancelli herself—though she ultimately did not travel to Washington on January 6 (an ominous sign that suggests some possible foreknowledge of what was to come)—was initially planning to arrive in D.C. on January 4, which would confirm that Kirk understood the events of Insurrection Week to be kicking off that day, a Monday, rather than Wednesday, January 6.}

Signs of Trouble Appear

On December 29, 2020, Kirk suddenly apprises Caroline Wren of the fact that he will not be speaking on January 6—indeed, likely will not be in Washington on that day at all. What had happened to cause Kirk to have such concerns about an event he was raising something north of $1.25 million (“I can’t live by that budget”) for? Was it the fact that by December 27 Trump had met with Roger Stone at Mar-a-Lago to discuss January 6? Was it information Mr. Kirk received from his former boss Trump Jr., who dined with Trump (and Guilfoyle) at Mar-a-Lago the same night (December 27)? Was Kirk aware that the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers had just, a few hours earlier, began ramping up their online fundraising (with Roger Stone’s help)?

Was Kirk, an “extremely online” social media influencer, seeing the same domestic-terrorist chatter surrounding January 6 that so many federal law enforcement agents were seeing? Did he have direct contact with Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and/or Kimberly Guilfoyle about the events planned for January 6? And if he was concerned enough about what was going to happen on January 6 that he’d make the startling decision to forego speaking alongside the sitting President of the United States and absent himself from D.C. altogether on that day, why did he not also turn off the funding spigot he was then managing? Why, according to Wren, was he actively involved in paying Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle to speak at an event he himself was refusing to attend?

And why did he not cancel any buses he had chartered, or hotel rooms he may have reserved, for January 6?

By January 4 (pg. 14), Kirk was writing Wren via Telegram—confirming he was using that encrypted-messaging service, and deleted all his messages from it for the time-period covered by his federal subpoena—to discuss his desperate attempts to get in touch with Fancelli, presumably (given Fancelli’s role in all of this) to get even more money out of her: a fourth discrete escalation of Kirk’s involvement in January 6, and one that came well after he’d decided he wanted no part of being in D.C. on January 6.

So why did Kirk switch from text messages to an encrypted messaging app at the very moment he seemed to apprehend that things could get dangerous enough on January 6 that he didn’t want to be in the nation’s capital that day? Was it because he knew, by that point, that he was acting as the chief financier of what could ending up being a domestic terror attack? And that he was serving in this role as a “friend” of Donald Trump who had previously worked for Trump’s eldest son and was in regular contact with various Trump family members and one of Trump’s top campaign fundraisers?

Enter… Paul Manafort

In the event you thought Kirk being represented by Paul Manafort’s attorney was a red herring that was simply unceremoniously dropped into the early portion of this article, well… maybe not.

As Proof reported just days after January 6—and it remains one of the only American media outlets to report this—Paul Manafort was, on January 6, an executive of Event Strategies, the Tim Unes-run entity that did the legwork to set up the January 6 event at the White House Ellipse. (Those who’ve read the 2020 bestseller Proof of Corruption will understand that for many years—and possibly still—Manafort was under a signed contract with the Kremlin to tangibly advance Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical interests in America and elsewhere, raising the possibly that he remained in this $10 million-a-year contract at the time his company was helping Trump execute a public political performance that Putin would have known would throw the United States into years of chaos, and perhaps permanent chaos if it led to the end of American democracy, as Trump himself hoped).

Do we have evidence that Manafort was at the foreground of Event Strategies’ efforts related to January 6? No, we do not—though there would have been no reason for him to be, as Tim Unes was serving in this role and, more than this, a man just slightly further down in the Event Strategies hierarchy, Justin Caporale, was acting as the primary agent for Event Strategies in late December of 2020 and early January 2021.

An agent, therefore—at least in the legal sense—of convicted felon Paul Manafort.

It is with all this in mind that we discover, on pg. 15, that on December 31, 2020—the very day Caroline Wren would later testify she began coordinating having TPUSA pay $60,000 for Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle to speak at the Ellipse—Wren launched a chain of messages that put Kirk directly in contact with Manafort agent Caporale to secure all the necessary funds and payments “for the January 6 build-out.” (Keep in mind that Trump once said that Manafort was the one person who could have taken him down in the Trump-Russia scandal—NBC News reported this in January 2018—and that by using Event Strategies, Trump was significantly enriching a Manafort operation and therefore, in turn, Manafort himself.)

The Committee goes on to reveal (pg. 16) that by December 30, 2020—the day Trump suddenly rushed back to D.C. from Mar-a-Lago, at Roger Stone’s urging, to begin his own preparations for January 6—communications were ongoing between Kirk, Wren, Caporale, Unes, and no less a duo of January 6 plotters than Amy Kremer and Kylie Jane Kremer, who were in constant contact with Stop the Steal leaders about January 6, including with respect to Stop the Steal events the Kremers worried were illegal.

Throughout all of this, one might wonder the following: why was Kirk working with a Trump campaign agent, Paul Manafort’s company, a Publix heiress, and Women for America First (the Kremers’ outfit) on December 30 and December 31 of 2020, when by this time it was well understood that this was going to be a joint presidential and Trump campaign event that would involve the United States Secret Service and even significant coordination with the National Park Service? Why was the White House so keen not to seem to be involved in any of this, even though Trump’s taxpayer-paid White House Political Director, Brian Jack, was organizing the speaker list for the event?

Why was Donald Trump so insistent that the Trump campaign not fund or execute any of this, leaving it all to Paul Manafort’s company and his pal Charlie’s political outfit? Is there any phrase for this determined avoidance of accountability besides “consciousness of guilt”?

And the “January 6 Files” series hasn’t even gotten yet to Guilfoyle’s testimony, yet.

When you see the preposterous lies told by Kimberly Guilfoyle under oath—all of them intended to falsely suggest she knew nothing about anything with respect to January 6, despite the fact that Wren, who was helping plan it all, was her agent—you will better understand how Kirk and Event Strategies and the Kremers end up looking like proxy planners for a Trump-orchestrated day that will live in infamy forever and was in fact under the thumb of Trump, his inner circle, and their most trusted agents.

And lest you think that Kirk had backed off his funding of January 6 by the beginning of Insurrection Week, again, no. By pg. 17 of his testimony, we are learning of digital communications from Fancelli—on January 4, the start of Insurrection Week—about giving Kirk a quarter of a million dollars “for busing in more people” for January 6.

So while Kirk may not have made an appearance in D.C. on January 6, his fingerprints are all over what happened that day, and appear to be plausible-deniability-generating “proxy hands” aimed at hiding the culpability of his “good friend” Donald Trump.

So if you’ve long wondered who Trump and his family used as a go-between between themselves and Stop the Steal—with the notable exception of the moments in which (say) Guilfoyle called Stop the Steal leader Ali Alexander directly (and twice) just before January 6—Charlie Kirk appears to be a leading candidate.

No wonder he wouldn’t even tell Congress how old he was.

Jack Smith Is Following the Money—But Where Did It All Go?

Given that Charlie Kirk now seems to admit that TPUSA only sent seven buses to D.C. for January 6, 2021—despite apparently having been paid over half a million dollars for the express purpose of arranging national bus transportation for that historic date—the possibility certainly exists that Kirk stole this money (or else knows who did) and pleaded the Fifth Amendment before Congress to hide the fact that he used January 6 as a money spinner.

{Note: On pg. 19 of Kirk’s testimony the House select committee suddenly reveals to him that it knows—from documents in its possession, which it cites in detail—that Kirk spent well under $250,000 on January 6 buses, leaving missing well over a quarter of a million dollars of Fancelli’s money.}

That Kirk (or someone he knows) stole this money is a charitable reading of events, however.

The alternative is that Kirk is in fact one of the primary coup plotters behind January 6, inasmuch as he knew how dangerous and likely illegal the events of that day would be but nevertheless, as a friend of Donald Trump and former (possibly then-current) employee of Donald Trump Jr., orchestrated all of it while (a) refusing to be present for it himself, (b) destroying all the evidence of his involvement in January 6 that he could get his hands on, (c) pleading the Fifth Amendment to all substantive questions asked of him by Congress, (d) possibly using gestural cooperation with Congress as a stalling technique to destroy federal evidence he was already legally mandated (under penalty of federal indictment) to preserve, and (e) did all of this because he owes his now vast personal wealth, his significant fame, and his expansive sphere of political influence to the Trump family, and it was the Trump family, either directly or through its many agents, that bade him to do all he did before January 6 so that the Trumps could keep their own hands clean.

Certainly, just the evidence we have so far—even after one of the shortest January 6 transcripts in the January 6 case file that Congress has now released to the public—points to Kirk as one of the central figures in January 6, despite media having focused almost not at all on his involvement in it.

Indeed, one of the only times Kirk gets mentioned with respect to January 6 is when some on the left falsely accused Ginni Thomas—a known Kirk associate—of having actually been the one, rather than Kirk, who arranged TPUSA-funded buses to take insurrectionists to Washington for Insurrection Week. This false rumor, which Proof has repeatedly debunked, has actually had the effect of letting Ginni Thomas off the hook for things she did actually do or might still have done with respect to January 6, including the possibility that she was in touch with Kirk in either December 2020 or January 2021 or both, even as the events and communications Proof has detailed in the paragraphs above were in media res.

And this, in fact, may be the most troubling possibility of all.

Kirk may have stolen money; he may have conspired to ensure January 6 went off a certain way; but what if he’s also covering for even more powerful figures that he spent the entirety of the Trump presidency rubbing elbows with, including Ginni Thomas, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Kimberly Guilfoyle, Eric Trump, and Lara Trump? Consider this telling exchange between Kirk and Congress, from pg. 19 of Kirk’s testimony:

While Guilfoyle has claimed she only took money to speak—indeed, only went to the Ellipse event at all—because she wanted to support her father-in-law-to-be emotionally (yes, her entry in the January 6 Files series will be a doozy)—here Kirk seems to admit that both Guilfoyle and Trump’s eldest son Don were involved in both of the following:

1. Participating in the March to Save America (which is not the same thing as the event at the Ellipse, but rather the name for the illegal, unpermitted march that followed it and moved 100,000+ people illegally onto closed federal grounds); and

2. offering strategic advising and promotion for the illegal March to Save America, in other words helping conceive of the illicit plot to move over 100,000 people from the White House grounds to the U.S. Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021.

Kirk makes clear that any work Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle did speaking at the Ellipse was separate from these other two discrete tasks. (And needless to say, given that the above is only what Kirk was willing to put in writing—and we have already seen, repeatedly, how cagey he has been on that score—the possibility that Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle were even more involved in what Wren and Kirk and Event Strategies and Women for America First were doing at the end of December 2020 and the beginning of January 2021 seems quite high).

In all this, we must keep in mind that Kirk was with Trump Jr. and Guilfoyle in West Palm Beach, at the TPUSA Student Action Summit, when everything about January 6 was first conceived and Kirk became intimately involved in the planning of that day.

Just so, we must keep in mind that—for some inexplicable reason—Ginni Thomas was never asked by Congress about whether she had contacts with Charlie Kirk in December of 2020 or January of 2021. And Kirk was never asked about his contacts with Thomas.

This, despite the fact that (a) Thomas was known to be reaching out via text on a daily basis with basically anyone she thought could contribute to the event planning for January 6, and (b) she had literally been an adviser to Kirk in the past (not to mention that both she and Kirk had employed the same woman, Crystal Blanton, as their right-hand agent during the Trump presidency).

As we will see in the upcoming “January 6 Files” entry for Ginni Thomas, Thomas was able to avoid—via some incredibly clever means—ever disclosing whether she was in touch with her former mentee Kirk in the days and weeks leading up to January 6, when Mr. Kirk was (apparently) more or less the lead planner of the events of that day.

All of which brings us to the final big reveal by the House January 6 Committee in its under-oath questioning of Charlie Kirk: the revelation, on pg. 22, that Kirk worked directly with Stop the Steal leadership to transport insurrectionists from around the country to Washington on January 6—despite Stop the Steal’s leaders having used violent rhetoric to discuss their plans for these people once they were positioned on Capitol Hill on Insurrection Day, and despite the canard that TPUSA “only” sent seven buses to Washington during Insurrection Week (a paltry sum often cited by progressives to deride Kirk as incompetent).

In fact, that “seven” figure now appears to be intended to cover for the fact that (a) TPUSA may have paid for most or all of Stop the Steal’s significant January 6-related expenses (possibly extending beyonds its many buses), and (b) there appears to still be money missing from the budget Kirk submitted to GOP donor Julie Jenkins Fancelli.

When you add to this a statement made by Charlie Kirk on January 6 (see pg. 23 of his testimony) implying that he had sources he would not disclose either within the White House or within the Vice President’s Office, and the revelation that Kirk instructed TPUSA and Stop the Steal bus-riders to use encrypted messaging from the moment they entered D.C., it certainly does seem that Kirk had every opportunity to know what was coming on January 6 before it happened—and to know too that it would involve illegal rather than legal forms of political “activism.”

All this certainly explains why the transcript of Mr. Kirk’s testimony looks like this:

Of course, the most deeply troubling reason Charlie Kirk might have had for pleading the Fifth Amendment in this way is that he was in regular contact with the Trumps as January 6 approached. Certainly, it would have been easy enough for Mr. Kirk to be in touch with Trump himself (or any member of his family) at any time in December 2020 or January 2021, not just because of his close personal friendship with the family but because he was in point of fact a Trump political appointee as of December of 2020 and early January of 2021.

Did I not mention that?

That’s right: throughout the entirety of post-election/pre-January 6 period, Charlie Kirk was a Trump appointee doing formal, publicly sanctioned work for the Trump administration.

Specifically, Trump had appointed Kirk to his 1776 Commission.

Conclusion

So how many times is Charlie Kirk mentioned in the final House January 6 Committee report?

Zero.

And how many times is his organization, Turning Point USA, mentioned?

Zero.

This raises an urgent question: why has such a gaping and seemingly inexplicable blindspot been embedded into the final report of the House January 6 Committee, especially as the House knew there might never again be a legitimate congressional investigation of January 6? Why leave Charlie Kirk out of the purportedly definitive account of January 6, when he appears to be at the epicenter of January 6 and refused to answer any questions from Congress on the grounds he might incriminate himself?

Why disappear Kirk’s role in one of the most horrific events in modern American history, when all the available evidence links Kirk to the planning and funding of January 6 and the man is simultaneously connected to the White House, the Trump family, the 2020 Trump presidential campaign, Event Strategies, Women for America First, Stop the Steal, Turning Point USA, and the primary funder of January 6, 2021?

Proof worries—indeed, is terrified at the prospect—that the long-reported attempt by certain members of the House January 6 Committee to ensure that its final report neither mentions Ginni Thomas nor in any way points in her direction persuaded members of the committee and their investigators to also remove from the report the one man who, in the public imagination, has most been conjoined (albeit based on an unfortunate false report that was quickly debunked) with Ginni Thomas: Charlie Kirk.

It almost seems that in excising Ginni Thomas from the story of January 6—Proof will observe, in its upcoming analysis of Thomas’ congressional testimony, erroneously—there has been a “domino effect” that necessitated avoiding any mention of Thomas’ longtime associate Kirk, too. The incredible result (to be discussed more later on in the “January 6 Files” series): Ginni Thomas was never asked about Charlie Kirk at all, let alone under oath; Charlie Kirk was never asked about Ginni Thomas; neither Kirk nor Thomas appear even a single time in the final House January 6 Committee report; and, worst of all, a slew of critical January 6 witnesses, as Proof will detail, have now, as a result of this, been permitted to dramatically alter the timelines of their respective involvements in January 6—and even erase certain portions of it.

Given that Charlie Kirk remains one of the highest-profile far-right activists in the United States, the inexplicable expungement of his central role in January 6 from the formal, narrativized congressional record of that day could present a national security issue for the United States going forward. Donald Trump and his inner circle continue to plot the downfall of American democracy; if America has had artificially shielded from its gaze the wrongdoing of an encompassing ring of American insurrectionists, it increases the odds that the next time these apparent scofflaws attempt to overthrow a democratically elected presidential administration in the United States, they will be successful.

---