Brian Conducts Forensic Audit of Turning Point USA: Reveals Millions Funneled to Insiders Through Shadow Companies

So, what caught my attention? I thought it was only Turning Point USA because that's all we hear about. Y >> but as you start digging into the IRS files, you find out there's three more. That sums it up right there. That's why they do that. Not to help anyone, not to make the world a better place. It's it's that it's strange to me when the establishment says someone is a threat and yet they're being promoted. This is a wild story here. Super Feed Tyler uh lawyer was involved in this. Weirdly, I found the the developers were in the Ukraine. And and then it just gets even more strange because if we go down to the next page, who's the director? Erica Kirk's mother, who is also Turning Point gave almost 500,000 to them for what reason? They're a publisher, right? They publish books. Oddly enough, Charlie Kirk's book was published by them. So, this is the reverse of what happens, right? A publisher usually pays you in advance when you write a book. But instead, Charlie Kirk is paying them that that and then same with Tyler Boyer. he would get maybe 300 on all four. So that really caught my attention as like, wow, this seems like a real shady way to make their salaries appear less egregious. You can give a guy the benefit of the doubt, and I think we should, but I think when numbers get this alarming, it becomes harder to give the benefit of the doubt. You know, >> this seems like pure corruption to me, and I'm just speaking for myself. In an ideal world, do you believe that this sort of activity could in some scenarios land some people in prison? >> And uh the only thing I'll reiterate is I would just urge anyone that may think something's off with anything we're saying, go to IRS.gov and we can provide what are called the EIN numbers. Every nonprofit has a unique number. Look for yourself. You shouldn't trust me. >> Oh yeah, Dei got a podcast. Welcome back to Dee Got a podcast and of course I'm your host Dee. Listen, uh many of us have heard about the audit that has suspiciously disappeared um at Turning Point USA. Well, I have officially interviewed a guy who's done a forensic audit. [music] And you'll learn in this interview the difference between audits and while a forensic audit is completely different and it looks for criminal activity. And I'm just going to tell you now, this interview is about to blow your mind. All I ask is that you hit the like button. That would really, really help um to push this video into the algorithm. I would really appreciate it. Uh if you want access to uncensored and extended videos that you cannot find here on YouTube, a link to the Patreon can be found in the description. Uh without further ado, let's get into it. All righty. Uh welcome back to Dee Got a Podcast and I'm your host Dee and I am sitting here um with my guest. And before I have my guest to introduce himself, let me just say about I believe three or four days ago, um I interviewed this guy by the name of Brian, same name, um guy by the name of Brian Ference, who is actually an investigative reporter uh based out of Arizona. and uh he came on to the show after I saw that he was featured on the um very popular YouTube channel called Redacted where he shared some things about uh Charlie Kirk's audit and a memo that was sent out by Charlie Kirk um shortly before everything happened in Utah where where Charlie Kirk um allegedly and I'm just going to say alleged to be responsible on my end uh was a bit suspicious about the funds where some of the money was coming from where some of the money was going and I had him on to to the show. He shared some things. I got some backlash for it, but a lot of people have been talking about this, but I don't think enough people have been talking about this, but Candace Owens was one of the people to bring this up um as far as you know, anyone with her size of a platform. Um so with that, I'm going to just have my guest to introduce himself as he has conducted um his own audit of Turning Point USA and then we're going to delve into the details. >> Sure. So, thanks for having me, Dee. I have about 20 years experience in finance and that's on the corporate side. So financial planning, financial budgeting, forecasting um and auditing which really led me to this point. You know, I've done these audits before and um so I just started digging into this data. Additionally, I have about 15 years experience as a programmer and software developer. So I really understand how these algorithms work and I think that may come up a little later. >> Okay. Now, before we get into anything because you Brian, you're gonna have people to say this. They're gonna say, "Is he a Democrat?" And I hope you're going to be honest with us. >> I'll be honest. Are you a Democrat? Are you political in any sense? Do you have a bone to pick when it comes to the Charlie Kirks to the conservatives of the world? And to that you will say what? >> So if we pull up my name, I've never registered to vote. I've never voted. I don't believe in voting. [clears throat] So I'm not political. I'm not on any party. I don't support a candidate. I've never gone after a candidate. Meaning I don't like say, "Hey, let me take down Biden or let me take down Trump." I I'm a researcher as well in my spare time, which is kind of what this was. I go after things that catch my interest. So, if something looks a little off, I start researching it. I start looking into it. >> So, why did Charlie Kirk look off to you? >> Uh, so Charlie Kirk fit a pattern that I've seen and I'm not sure if you or your audience have noticed this. It's strange to me when the establishment says someone is a threat and yet they're being promoted. Andrew Tate would fall in this category. I hear, "Hey, no one can listen to Andrew Tate and he's getting millions of views. >> He's everywhere. >> What's that?" >> And he's everywhere. >> And he's everywhere. Right. So, and again, I said earlier, I'm a programmer. I understand how these algorithms work. So, if it were me and I was so scared of Charlie Kirk, that's one line of code. One line of code in the system, I can algorithmically suppress him or I can algorithmically boost him. So, I thought, well, that's weird. Why aren't they doing that? If no one's supposed to listen to him and he's so controversial, one line of code would take care of him. You don't even need to physically kill him. You can just we run on algorithms. So that struck me as odd, you know, and and during the the Trump campaign during COVID, I really noticed Turning Point getting a major boost. YouTube started rolling out those shorts, he would get millions of views. And I thought, that's weird. It's not like he's saying anything provocative. He's saying, you know, transgenders shouldn't be four years old. I feel like that's a standard comment. I don't think that would warrant a million views. So that's what led me into, let me just see what's going on here. And I don't know if you want to stop me there or keep going or >> to the regular schmojo who would say um such as myself despite the fact that I'm a content creator and I understand algorithms a little bit to those that will say to you Brian um before we even get into the details of the audit. Well, what if they had huge donors, which they did, and they have a lot of budget, they have a lot of dollars behind them. So even if if if the the the the quoteunquote establishment or the powers that be is attempting to suppress them, they have the money to push themselves to overcome that. To that you would say what? >> You're right. But the last I checked, they don't run Google, right? Google controls the YouTube algorithm. Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey, those guys control the Twitter algorithm. You know, there's coders and developers in there. So I mean, you're right. Like the big lobbies and the big firms have financial power. I mean, I guess they could always send an email to Google and say, you know, something like, "Hey, make sure you keep our guy up." But then still, that shows he's artificial. That's not organic. You should, in my opinion, I'm not a content creator, but you should have the number of views that warrant your content. >> If your content is, it should be, you know, what's interesting about Charlie Kirk, he's a capitalist. This isn't capitalism. Capitalism is a free market where consumers decide, I click your video, I don't click your video. And that's not what's happening. It's not possible to get these tens of millions of views. Same with the Charlie Kirk show I started looking into quickly after he would upload 500,000 views. Like even if you're well-liked, people work, people are busy during the day. It just struck me as something is going on here. Something's going on. It doesn't feel or that's, you know, it just didn't feel organic to me. >> Okay. Now, with that, we're going to jump into the audit. But but Brian, you had no idea I was going to do this. There's something I want to read to you. So earlier I told you guys that I interviewed a guy by the name of Brian Ference a few days ago who's an investigator um investigative reporter who has been apparently looking into Turnpoint USA for a number of years now based out of Arizona which is where Turneroint USA is headquartered. Well, let me read an email that I received immediately after my interview with him. It says, "Hey, Dee, if you really are interested in telling the truth, you should know it before you make accusations that can destroy people's jobs and dreams. Your recent guest, Brian, brought up rumors of potential wrongdoing at TPUSA in 2015. Did your guest verify any of the rumors were truthful? Was anyone connected to TPUSA fired or prosecuted for financial wrongdoing in 2015?" That's what should be asked and determined before smearing Charlie's charity. Charlie Kirk had an independent audit done on TPUSA every year from 2018 to 2024. An annual audit was standard practice put in place by Charlie. An annual audit is very different from a quote unquote Doge style audit, which is also known as a quote unquote streamlining audit. See table at the end of this email to learn the difference, please. Inflation inflation and rising costs in 2025 caused many services and materials to double in price, creating a need for Charlie to focus continually on finding more donors. Since Charlie didn't want to spend too much more time on fundraising, he looked for a way to cut operating costs. That's why he wanted a streamlining audit done to cut down on cost of ineffective or inefficient methods and services. A streamlining audit's purpose is not to find criminal activity. A forensic audit will be done if Charlie Kirk suspected criminal use of TPUSA funds. Please get familiar with these terms and practices if you're planning to report on businesses, charities, and politics. I wish the best of luck to you in your career, and you can reach out to me anytime if you need an extra set of eyes or hands to do research involving political topics. Thanks. >> That sounds like someone very scared. A few things jump out to me. Number one, notice they harp on 2015. What about 2018? What I'm about to show you, 2019, right? 2020. Like, it's kind of like moving the goalpost because maybe there was nothing going on in 2015. So, they focus on, well, hey, in 2015, you know, everything's good here. Who's the auditors? So, we have to first understand how these nonprofits work. A lot of the auditors are on the payroll, you know, so are you going to bite the hand that feeds you? Are you really going to take down Turning Point when you're on the payroll? These are not independent audits. Now, now what's what's funny about that is that when I had Brian Ference on, he showed we we showed within that live um >> Ableton Group, >> Tyler Ber responded to some guys online and said that this is actually false because they've had independent auditors come in and that nothing suspicious was found. >> Okay, so this video could be like 4 hours with what I've uncovered and they [clears throat] couldn't find one of these things. Again, none of this is speculative. D what we're about to go through. I just want to make clear everything is linked to government websites. This is not like the Alex Jones infowars blog. This is the IRS.gov where you can pull up their 990s which is the tax form and state and federal websites to see who the LLC is registered to. Right? Because that's important to know if TurningPoint is giving $10 million to an LLC who owns the LLC. And so these guys couldn't do that. How can I do that? I just go on Google and look it up. I mean, that's you see this all the time with these sort of responses. They're very they're very weak, you know, that they leave out a lot of the details and they kind of puff up the chest, you know, a lot of gaslighting to make it like, hey, we're the victim. You're a $100 million annual company. You're not the victim here. >> Those numbers. >> Yeah. Also, if you're making a hundred million a year tax-free, remember they're they're tax exempt. We have every right to look into you. We donate to you. You're you're not an incorporation, right? You're not like a Google or some other company. you're a nonprofit. We should be like every line should be scrutinized because we need to know where our donations are going. >> And I'll tell you this, um, right before we jump into this, when I was looking this over, so you sent this to me yesterday and I was reading it over. I got up about maybe 5:00 this morning and started reading it over and my mouth dropped. I raised up in my bed and I was like, "No, this is there's no way that this is true." And there's a couple of reasons because if this is true, Brian, then one, either Candace Owens in particular hasn't really looked at any sort of honest independent audit because it would implicate in my opinion, I'm not a professional like you say you are. I'm just a small Joe looking and I have common sense and I'm saying first and foremost from what I've read through here, I printed out and I went through through all of this and what I'm telling you all watching this right now, it appears to me maybe there are legal loopholes that I'm not familiar with. I'm not privy of, but from what I'm seeing, this would 100% implicate Charlie Kirk as being complicit. There's no way because he's getting like, and we'll get into this, six figure salaries from multiple different avenues. >> Correct. >> And and I'm like, what? Organizations and subsidiaries with no employees, crappy websites. But anyways, Brian, what would you say is the most efficient of how we should jump into this? Uh before >> feel free to speak without looking at the paperwork or looking at it with if you have it physically yourself and I can just do the editing after the fact and just show it on the screen for everybody to see. >> Yeah. >> Or we can go about it a different way. >> That's probably the best, right? Because then there's the visual. I I don't want to sidetrack, but you made a very important uh question about Candace Owens here and and why this went the way she does. Let's not forget Candace Owens has a nonprofit. >> Bless it, >> right? So, does she want to start drawing attention to what we can uncover when we investigate nonprofits? There's a reason why this is bipartisan. Notice how Democrats never go after Republican nonprofits and vice versa. Because once you open that up, then the public goes, "Wow, I didn't know this." Most people have no idea about this. Most people have no idea. You can go to IRS.gov and download all the financials. That's all I did. No, probably nine out of 10 people don't know that. So, right there, they don't want that out there. And you said that um two things I want to say. The first thing is from my understanding from my emails you were saying that you've been doing this for a number of years and you've just been updating it >> meaning turning point this whole thing looking into nine. Yeah. Yes. Because I told somewhere around the co election is when Kirk caught my attention and that was when I started looking into it and then I have to wait a year or two to get the next year's IRS file. You know what I mean? So >> you want to see if there's sort of a pattern that's taking place. >> Right. Exactly. The the second thing I'll say is to be fair to Candace and I'm not here to defend nor attack her. Um if if she if she deserves whatever comes her way, it just comes with it. But let me ask you this. Why do you think she would bring it up? Because she she said herself and she's the one that brought it to our attention that he was suspicious about the funds. He had called for a dosed style audit. And and I also I want to say when I was reading this over, I didn't realize that um Officer Tatum is one of the co-founders of Blexit with Candace Owens. >> According to the IRS filing, >> according to what >> really go by that, right? >> Right. I didn't know that. >> That's right. On the IRS, it's Brandon Tatum, Candace Owens, and a woman named Rebecca Mercer, who's fascinating if you look into this Mercer family. >> Okay. >> She's a very um her father was Robert Mercer. I believe they were behind like Breitbart and some of these other what people would call like Zionist Republican sort of groups. You can't find much else on them. They stay behind the scenes and they do a lot of like covert dark money sort of operations like this. And then Rebecca Mercer was involved in Parlor if you remember. And then like Kanye gets involved and then and Candace's husband George Farmer was the CEO and president of Parlor >> and that was eventually bought. I read >> was eventually bought right by a guy connected to George Bush. >> Yes. >> Named Ryan Coin who I look. So it's it gets a bit incestuous. It gets a bit like interconnected. And I just think and I'm only speculating that's why a Candace type would maybe like one hand into this. You know what I mean? Like she's not going to go all in on this because then what if people start going all in on her own her own stuff? >> Okay. Again, Tim's totally speculating on that. I have no evidence. Just you know. >> Fair enough. So, as for this, I mean, this is so massive. Do you have an idea maybe what you'd like to start on? And then I can >> Yeah, I think I think what would be the most efficient, Brian, if you can do this cuz you guys um this audit is [laughter] I think it's like 20 it's like 25 pages. >> Sorry for that, but that's the only way to do it, you know. Now, I think the most efficient way for us to go about this, Brian, is just start from the beginning and sort of the overarching. You can get as granular as you'd like on set topic, but just start with what catches your eye in chronological order. And let's maybe do um for for sake of time, my audience is going to kill me because a lot of them prefer the longer videos. But so that this is digestible for people, let's do maybe 8 to 10 major takeaways from the audit and you can get as granular with each topic as you'd like. >> Got it. And feel free to interrupt at any time if you know you need further clarification. So >> feel free to ramble as much as you'd like. I'm going to mostly listen unless I need clarification. >> So I like your idea. Let's just start high level. Let's start how this is set up because to me without understanding how it's set up, it doesn't make sense once you get into the detail. So, what caught my attention? I thought it was only Turning Point USA because that's all we hear about. Y >> but as you start digging into the IRS files, you find out there's three more nonprofits. There's Turning Point Action, there's America's Turning Point, and then there's Turning Point Endowment. So, whenever you hear endowment, that's like managing the investments. So, they'll take cash, they'll buy stocks, they'll buy securities, and it'll just sit in this endowment fund. So, I thought, okay, that's interesting. I'm not sure why Turning Point needs four of these. And then what caught my eye, I went, I hope when I go and look at this, I don't see Charlie Kirk giving himself a salary in all four because to me, he should be getting a salary in TPUSA and in the other three, it should be zero because he's not logging any work hours. Turning Point Endowment, like I said, literally by their own words, manage the endowment. Charlie Kirk's not a financial adviser. the last I checked. And what he ended up doing was it seems like he wanted 1.6 million a year. So he divided it by four and then each of the nonprofits he gets >> like 400,000 or something, >> right? That that and then same with Tyler Boyer. He would get maybe 300 on all four. So that really caught my attention as like wow this seems like a real shady way to make their salaries appear less egregious. Let me give you an example, Dee. If on TPUSA Charlie Kirk's salary was 1.6 million, that would catch attention. remember because they were quote audited, an auditor would catch that. But if it's 400,000, that's a little more reasonable. >> But why would people care if you split that up into four but it still shows up? Even if it don't show up as one big lump sum, you're still paying the same amount of taxes. Correct? >> No, they care. I'm saying optically because no one's going to look at these other three nonprofits. >> Okay? >> So, you get what I'm saying? If you're going to look at just Turning Point because no one even knows these other three nonprofits exist. So this hides, like I said, optically it makes it feel like, oh, Charlie's salary isn't that outrageous. It's 400,000. You know, that to me is the only reason why I could think of because why would he need four salaries from three companies that he doesn't do anything for? >> Right. And is there is there any because I know some people may think about this and I thought about this, too. Is there is there not any legal loopholes that you're aware of where they're allowed to do this? Maybe it's suspicious, but it's not illegal. >> Yeah, I would say it's probably not illegal because you have to remember who writes the laws. these guys, the whole nonprofit system was developed by rich people for this reason, to circumvent taxes, to be able to sell stock without paying capital gains through their nonprofit, you know, move dark money, money laundering. So, yeah, if we're basing this on legality in this example, I don't think Charlie Kirk broke any law, you know, but very dishonest because he's putting in 40 hours a week and he's working 120 hours a week. He has a radio show every day. Where are the hours in the day? He allegedly has two kids and a wife. Where, you know, you start to look at it and you go, where are the hours to do all of this >> right now? >> Fair question. >> Yeah, it is a fair question. And um I want to say, would you say that from from because [snorts] this artist is from what years? As early as 2018, >> a little bit of 2017, but yeah, I would say the real meat of it is like 2018 to 2023. >> Okay, got it. >> Yeah. So, >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. I I remember now for I know what it means, but for those that that may not understand what it means, explain to in layman terms, Brian, what is what is it that you mean when you say dark money? >> So So dark money, the way I think of it, and the way I think most people is, it's a way to hide money. So for example, if I'm a donor, maybe I don't want people knowing I gave Turning Point $10 million. So through this nonprofit system, there's ways to circumvent these sort of laws that were put in place where you did need to be transparent about your donations. And one way that can be done, and we may get into that a little bit, is the fundraising. Charlie Kirk and Turning Point used their own insiders to create LLC's to manage these fundraiser payments. And now, if I'm some rich donor, I don't want anyone to know, I can give that LLC the 10 million and it's never going to come up. It's just going to show, you know, the gross total. It's not going to be a line item where we can see who gave that 10 million. So, that's dark money. Dark money is just a way to hide my donation. >> Got it. >> Yeah. I I think uh another really interesting thing that jumped out to me was the relationship between Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump Jr. and a guy named Sergio Gore who's high up in the Trump administration. So to me, again, technically maybe this is illegal, maybe it's not. This is pretty insane if you're someone who's donated to Turning Point and now you see where your money just went. Trump Jr. started a publishing arm called Winning Team Publishing. And just in 2022 alone, Turning Point gave almost 500,000 to them. For what reason? They're a publisher, right? They publish books. Oddly enough, Charlie Kirk's book was published by them. So, this is the reverse of what happens, right? A publisher usually pays you in advance when you write a book, but instead Charlie Kirk is paying them. And and it and it just keeps going. Then the next year, he gives another 164,000, 33,000. These are monster numbers of 640 thou like almost a million dollars goes to Sergio Gore and Donald Trump Jr. A and the reason why, and I'm only speculating, but I heard this from people at events. Trump Jr. couldn't sell his book. So, what I'm guessing happened is Turning Point with the donated bought the book and they were giving it away at events and then he gets to get on the Amazon, you know, top chart or whatever for book sales when they're really not real book sales. It's not like you and I went on Amazon and bought Trump Junior's book. Turning Point buys it. Turning Point gives it away. And it's also a quidd proquo. How does Charlie Kirk get such access to the White House? Well, if I give Donald Trump's son 500,000 through my nonprofit and Sergio Gore, I have access. When I need Trump, I can get Trump. If you remember when they went to Greenland, who went to Greenland? Sergio Gore, Donald Trump Jr., and Charlie Kirk. That's kind of interesting, you know. So, >> yeah. And and and because I did a little bit of research when everything first happened, I did a little bit research on Charlie Kirk and the whole Turner Point USA and how he met William Montgomery, who was 72 at the time. Charlie Kirk was 18. That was awkward to me. It's not like it's it's that's not illegal, but it's like a 72 year old saw an 18-year-old speaking at a community college, saw the potential, convince this person not to go to college and to start Turning Point USA in a garage, and I believe within four years he was on No, it within two years he was on a campaign run with with Donald Trump Jr. to help Donald Trump and his president. I'm like, how did how did that happen so fast? >> Yeah. And another thing is everyone I I urge to go back and watch Charlie Kirk's original interview on Fox News. It's in 2012, I believe. So, right right before he starts Turning Point. He doesn't say anything provocative. He doesn't say anything interesting. And yet, they're just beating us over the head. This is the next genius. This is the future of the Republican party. You know, this is the next big thing. And that struck me as odd >> in 2012, >> whenever he's 18. So, I >> 2012 for sure. >> So, yeah, he's on Fox News. It's like May I think and then Turning Point gets started. So I guess the idea would be like William Montgomery saw this interview but if you watch it objectively again he's not saying anything where you're so blown away by and another thing that's this leads to he never mentions Christ. He never mentions Jesus. He never mentions Christianity. He's an economic guy in the beginning. He he it's it's all about like fiscal independence, fiscal responsibility. And I don't know if they didn't want this to get out, but I found their business plan. It's a 100 pages. It's called a 1023. This is what you release to the IRS when you're going to become a nonprofit. In a 100 pages, he never mentions any of those things. Never mentions Republican, Christian, Jesus. None of that's mentioned. >> No way. >> I'll send it to you when we get off and you could definitely post it, you know, in the I don't know how it works in the details or however YouTube works. >> The part of why that's so difficult to believe is the obvious because that's was a big part of his brand. Um, which is really what made him stand out or stood out over the past four years. But even more so, that's kind of hard for me to believe because Candace Owens just recently said in her episode yesterday, when did Turning Point become so faith-based? It's been faith-based over the past three or four years at a level that she had never seen before. And this is before Turning Point faith. So, that's that's really what it reminded me of. So, now to hear the the inception of of Turning Point USA had nothing to do with Jesus or Christ or Republican, it's like that's that's interesting. It's it's very heavy on economics. Very heavy like that. Like I mean again they just beat you over the head with economics where it's clear like uh for young people essentially fiscal responsibility. Don't take on too much debt. We need to educate people who are getting college loans. We need to help show people how to buy homes and invest. It's like it's all about that. There is no mention and and it's even apolitical. So they make it very clear in the 1023. We're not taking a side politically. No Republican, no Democrat. were literally just about helping educate people on how to manage their finances and how to become financially independent. And that's throughout the 100 pages. >> Wow. >> So, so we can post that here later. I'll email it to you. I'll get the document and that way everyone can just read this stuff for themselves. We should be as transparent as we can. And again, because all this is on the IRS, you know, this is their own words. This isn't ours. And they've signed these documents. So, because I I get this a lot, Dee. Well, Charlie's so busy. He didn't read all of this. That's not my problem. Once you sign something, that's not fair to come back to me and be like, "Come on, be realistic. He can't read all this stuff. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to run a hundred million dollar business, then you have to be, I'm sorry, you have to be accountable when this sort of stuff comes up. You don't get to play each side of, hey, I'm busy doing my radio show all day. I'm traveling. You know, I'm debating transgenders at college campus." Like, you you can't do So, I'm sure he didn't read this, but either way, his name's on it. So, you know, that's uh that's the deal there. You mentioned William Montgomery. That's the guy in his 70s that founded Turning Point with Charlie. What's fascinating about him, he's the original when it comes to insider laundering. And we know this because at the bottom of one of his IRS filings, he had to admit it. So he had his own company called, let me just get the name here, America Consulting and Graphics, and it received 432,000 from Turning Point. And this is exactly what Turning Point does now. And that was William Montgomery back in 2017. in 2018. >> Wait, but are you saying that he admitted in a file that he had been found guilty? >> No, not guilty. He's getting ahead of it because if you admit it, then you can't be guilty. You're saying I have I have this this LLC that receives money from Turning Point. And I guess when you do that, it's legal because it's on IRS filing. you you can start a company or you can co-found a company that would eventually become a hund00 million annual company, but you can also start a subsidiary or LLC. Maybe it's not even the subsidiary and you can donate to that even though you're over both illegal somewhere. >> It would be except instead of donating it gets listed as a vendor. So services >> even you're over both >> because it's services if it's a donation that's different. Well, for example, maybe a easier way to think of it, let's say you and I start a start a nonprofit and on the side I have a company that makes hats. So, in theory, I could get that business to make hats that has our name of the nonprofit and I make hats that say DD has a podcast. They would say, "Well, he did do a service. He did make the hats." So, that's how you how they get around it. But what's funny is in the case of Charlie Kirk's insiders, they didn't even bother doing that. They didn't even bother faking making hats. They just created an LLC at their home address, has one employee, and then it gets it gets all the money for services. >> And it's these absurd numbers, >> absurd numbers, which we'll get into. But I just wanted to make note of the William Montgomery thing because I think it's reasonable to think maybe that's where all this started. Montgomery shows Charlie Kirk and whoever else there, you know, how this works. And that would be why ever since then his crew did that. So, because I read that in the audit, but if that's possible, then why would Charlie Kirk then order a Doge style audit if he already knows what's going on? >> Okay, so now I'm going to have to speculate here, right? Because I'm not inside Turning Point. Number one, what I found most odd about that is is the name he named to run that, Justin Shrife. Justin Shrife himself is involved in this. So, was he going to remove his own company? He has a company that gets money from Turning Point. It was called America. Uh, let me get the exact name. American Philanthropic. 2.5 million they received from TurningPoint and it's even on his own LinkedIn. So, >> doing what though? Or at least what do they have it listed as as the service that they provide? >> Uh, I don't know if I have that right in front of me, but we could pull that up because I have all their financials saved. But, uh, and a lot of their services are vague, you know, like I don't know. It's Oh, in the case of American Philanthropic, it might be managing the fundraisers could be that. So, why I found the Charlie Kirk email odd? It's just you're naming the guy who's involved in this. So again, back to biting the hand that feeds you. He's going to do a Doge style on himself. It's no different than Elon Musk. The biggest government contractor is Elon Musk. So when his own contracts >> Yeah. >> How is this any different? You know, it's a strange email to be sending that on September 2nd and then he allegedly dies on I forgot the date, September 10th. >> Yeah. >> It just seems very odd for that to have happened that quick. I also don't see how Charlie Kirk didn't know because he was benefit I mean how'd he get his four houses you never thought to himself this is weird >> Charlie Kirk had four houses >> I believe if I'm wrong maybe three but yeah he had a nice beachfront in Florida Arizona Erica's living good you know very good yeah and so does Tyler lives very good as well they all do Stacy Sheridan lives very good >> yeah that that never stopped them from sending out emails and asking for donations and they've allegedly made almost hundred million since everything happened in Utah from I believe merchandise and donations alone. >> You're right. Yeah. And that's my prediction. The next financial release, we'll see 100 million in revenue. Yeah. Look, Charlie Kirk's like Kirk Cobain, if you're old enough, right, the CD sales go up after he died, not down. And this is the new Kirk Oane. This is the new martyr. This is the new It's just Tupac, you know, another one. It's a very tried andrude formula they use. They know we're emotional. They know how to how to reel us in after an event like this. And then you donate. You know, it's like the skinny dog on TV. you. Oh man, I feel bad for that dog. Let me give money to the It's the same thing. They're going to break 100 million. No doubt. Plus, more donors are coming in, not less. I also don't believe that less big donors, it's going to be the opposite. It's going to be more. >> I also saw and I learned from your audit, Benny Johnson. I didn't know that Benny Johnson Yeah. >> um co-founded a company called Arsenal Media Group and was paid $613,000. um 66 613 $750,000 um in 2020, but then he conveniently omitted this from his bio on TurningPoint USA, but then he would later just a year later begin working directly for TurnPoint USA, earning an annual salary of $164,000. >> What are the odds? I will say in his defense, and I don't know if he saved the tweet or not, he denied owning Arsenal, but I mean there's old, if you go to the way back machine, there's old tweets from his Twitter, you know, talking about work he's done with them. Uh there's there's like websites that have covered this. So, I mean, best case for him, maybe he didn't own it and he was a partner, but no doubt he was deeply involved. So, he's unable to to get out of this, >> right? >> But that's that's the swamp. That's how all of this all these guys are connected. That's why they always show up the next year. Same with Charlie Kirk, security guy. Like all of that, they all happen to just get on the payroll with someone else, then show up the next year. >> And I also see here in 2024, Turning Point Action quote unquote donated $2.04 million to the Turning Point pack. Now, Brian, I'm gonna need you to explain to me what what is Turning Point pack. What is >> So, we talked earlier about dark money. This would be the best example to use for dark money. So Turning Point USA legally can't be like sponsoring and helping elections, but a super PAC can, right? So you take the money from Turning Point. Now legally you can say, "I didn't help Trump. I didn't help Carrie Lake. I didn't help, you know, fill in the blank politician." So they donate from Turning Point to the Pack. Then the pack pumps all these guys with money. And it's and I and I and I'm I'm almost willing to bet that it came from Turning Point Action in particular on purpose because it's a 501c4. >> 501c4. Exactly. Yep. You got it. Uh and another reason why they do this with the pack. Remember how I said earlier Charlie Kirk isn't going to pay himself 1.6 million a year because that draws too much attention. Same with donating. So this guy Jake Hoffman, they don't want to show they've given him 10 million. So you give two million through the pack, you give two million here, you know what I mean? You give two million there. and it makes it a lot harder to find. That's why this took me time because you got to go through all of these different organizations to figure out how much in total these guys have received. So that's why the pack is very beneficial to them. Just back to dark money, hiding money, also inbound dark money. If some big guys give money to the pack, sometimes we can see it, sometimes we don't. So it it just serves a lot of purposes. Wow. Let me see if anything else before we maybe if you want I can do like a minute just on the endowment because I I think that's interesting. So in 2018 >> there's like two different endowments or something or maybe two or three >> or two. Yeah. So again it's really amazing what Turning Point does. So they have the endowment fund which is specifically for you could argue like protecting your assets, right? So you take a bunch of cash, put it in whatever a bond or a stock and it sits there and it grows interest except it grew up to 100 million between TPU investments and the endowment. So now I got to ask myself, why does a nonprofit need 100 million? And I don't know the answer, but I I think we should get an answer. If Charlie Kirk wanted this Doge thing so bad, can someone find out why they need a h 100red million in investments? That's, you know, and then on top of it, not to just to reiterate, why would he need a salary from the endowment company? is not man. Like there's a precedent for this. Other nonprofits do do this, but they'll pay the guy zero because they know how bad that looks, you know. So you'll see Charlie Kirk, CEO of endowment, and then it'll show zero work hours, zero pay. But in this case, you know, that's not what they did. So it's just a really fair question to ask. Why did they need so much? And how did they grow it so fast? I mean, I think three years prior to the current year, it's 1.7 million. >> They jumped like 50, 60, something like that. >> Yeah. How is this Nancy Pelosi with like the greatest investments ever? I mean, how how does that happen? You know, this feels more like a financial I hate to say Ponzi, but it really does than anything because some of these numbers, they just don't add up. >> It went from it went from 20 million to 65 million, >> right? On the endowment. Yep. >> On the endowment. >> Yeah. >> And TurnPoint endowment nonprofit which holds 38 million in securities making their total 103 million. And that's again I'm combining the the endowment in TPUSA and and that. So I don't know that just feels very significant. 100 million to me is not a small number and I think it's worth asking questions. >> Right. Do you mind if I if I pull up the uh the uh audit? >> No, not at all. >> Okay. Let's pull it up. Yeah. So let's uh All right. >> Okay. Uh specific section you want me to jump through or just kind of keep going? >> No. Yeah. Just just do your thing and I'll just go to that section. >> Okay. I I feel like we really should hit the insiders because actually out of everything I think that's the most egregious, the most problematic and I think it's the hardest for Turning Point to honestly explain. >> Okay. What's what what page is it on? >> Uh I'm I'm looking now to just try and get you there quick. I think it's around page nine. So the title is Turning Point launderers millions to insiders. >> Got it. Are you able to see that on the screen? >> Yep. >> Perfect. So, like I said, I I think this is probably the worst because there's just no reason to explain this. And I believe every case here, the LLC has no business. We can't find a website. Like, what did they do? How many employees do they have? Nothing. And then a lot of times the create date is right before the date that they got started here. So, it's not it's not like a wild speculation to go, "Oh, that's what happened." They create the LLC, Turning Point pumps the business to that LLC, and they cash in. And if we look at the first person here, Stacy Sheridan, she has three LLC's while also being a full-time Turning Point uh executive and they get massive business. You know, each uh sum get what was it? F 5 million her LLC's received. But for what? And it's for only three years. So between 2020 and 2023, she's getting $5 million. What did they do? Where are they now? Why don't they have business from other companies? Right? If she's some genius that created some brilliant, you know, business, you would think maybe other companies would jump in, >> right? No, not that I can find. It's just turning point and it's for things that wouldn't require work like processing these fundraiser payments. That's probably just something in in a system. You know, she's not like sitting there manually doing anything. She's not there's nothing to that. That to me is just easy money uh for her. And I can tell you this and um obviously I can't say who people within Turning Point call her grifter chief. This is known. Now it's not known to the extent I uncovered, but this is known because you can't hide something like this. You know what I mean? Turning point's not that big. Financially, it's big. But in terms of personnel, it's not that big. So, you know, I think they just don't no one would ever like connect the dots like this because, you know, it takes time to hunt and peck through all these different filings. But if anything, she's like proud of this, you know, because just the way she flaunts it. And then next, who is equally as bad is this guy Jake Hoffman. I can't find anything of value Jake Hoffman has added. And yet, he's got two different LLC's. One is called 110, one is called Rally Forge, and they just get millions, literally millions a year in total, 9.8 million. >> So in 2018, he was the communications director for Turning Point. So that's his official or as of 2018, that was his official title >> per their own. >> Being he got over 700,000 went to his company, >> correct? Which is an ad agency. I don't know what they would do to earn 721,000. >> That's a lot of money, man. >> This is how this is how you pay guys off. I mean, Google wouldn't even charge you that, would they, for ads? Would they charge you 720,000 to advertise your YouTube channel? >> No. >> So, how do you justify that, right? How do you justify 700 a year? >> Devil's advocate. What if someone said, "Well, you you don't understand because you don't have a business of this scale. We have to pay major dollars in order to push our company out there to get us in those algorithms so that you can see Charlie Kirk everywhere debating." >> Yeah, that's fair. So then I would expect to see Google, Twitter, Facebook, I don't know, like maybe Fox News, not one. Who's 110? Because I think that's very fair. Then I would expect a heavy hitter. If I started a company, that's the first place I would go. I wouldn't go to Jake Hoffman and hope my 720,000 gets me a return on my investment for ads. Can anyone say he brought back that value to Turning Point? I've heard interviews with him. He sounds low int, and this is not being mean, sounds low intelligent. So I'm not >> No offense. There's and this is no shade. It's truly not because I don't think either of us will say the same about Charlie regardless of our differences that we may feel about him. Charlie was a bright person. I feel what you just said about Jake. I feel that way about a couple of people at TPUSA. A few people I've heard speak from there. I'm like not the brightest, but their salaries don't reflect that. >> It's actually the opposite. The higher the salary, the dumber they are. You know, like Tyler Boyer or I always forget to say his name, but we'll just say he's the best example of that. He has these meltdown childlike meltdowns on Twitter, but never provides any evidence. Just provides emotional meltdown. That's a sign to me at least of low intelligence because if you come at me, I'm going to provide the evidence >> and and disprove everything that you're saying. The same thing with Mikey McCoy right now. Mikey McCoy, I'm sure you've seen the the the questions and people telling him to provide his call log. Mikey McCoy is constantly tweeting about Charlie Curry, pictures and videos of him. It completely getting destroyed in the comment section. people asking him, "Just provide your call log off, man. We want to know who you called. Your behavior was weird that day." Nothing. >> Yeah. Uh, also, I have a piece coming out on Mikey McCoy, similar to what you have here. Very, very interesting. >> Okay. >> His father. >> He's 22, 23 years old. There's something on him, too. >> Oh, yeah. Him, his father, his friend, and I won't say too much because it's coming out soon. I'll send it to you. We can redo this if you want. and a very shady private lender that alleged it's wild. I mean, we'll just I'll send it to you. It's But so, yeah, hard to trust Mikey McCoy when you've uncovered some of the other stuff that I have as well. And I think he'll probably use a Tyler Bower sort of a explanation, you know, just get very childlike and not provide any evidence. But yeah, this Jake Hoffman stuff back to him is really wild to get 9.8 million. We can be fair and play devil's advocate. Why not 100,000 for services, right? Why not 200 9.8 million? And that's like acceptable when you don't have a website, you don't have a business plan. It should not be acceptable. >> I was looking if I was trying to add these numbers up. No, you're right. It's right there. 9.8 total. Oh my gosh. And this is over what a four four year period. Uh six year period. >> Yeah. But the bulk of it is really like three to four years because you know some years it's a little lighter. You got to remember from co on turning point was killing it in terms of revenue. So of course that's when they then helped out their guys you know even more because they had more money to give out. And even here, uh, between just January and August of 2025, he already got 496,000 for what? >> That makes no sense. >> Or he's running Turning Point. Tyler Bower's running turn boy. I I got to get his name. I'm so sorry. Tyler Boy, maybe they're the ones running Turning Point because I don't know how you explain how much money those two particularly, you know, Hoffman are getting. It's really >> and these are coming in the forms of because here's the thing. I'm also trying to play de devil's advocate here. If people are looking at these numbers, is it possible that these numbers that we're seeing, Brian, are not take-home dollars? Maybe it's money that sure their their business may have, but maybe they're not allowed to actually spend that as they so please. >> Okay, so is that possible? >> You It could be possible. But here's why it's hard in this case. If he had five employees, I could say, well, yeah, excuse me. His business got 490,000, but now he's got to pay right his employee 100K. If you have one employee and your business is registered to your home address, where where could the money like how are you divvying out that money? Do you know what I mean? So, you make a great point and again it would be possible. That's why I use the hat example. If we're making hats, that's not as egregious. >> At least, right? At least put the effort in to make it appear more believable, >> right? Because I'm spending the money on material for the hats. I'm spending money on, you know, machines to make hats. I have employees. I give them benefits. Then it's like, all right, that's But this just maybe I'm missing something. It's hard to play devil's advocate when you have one employee, you know? It just I'm sorry. It just is. Like, >> and even if you had five employees, 9.8 million, man. Wow. >> Also, there's only so many hours in the day. I thought he's busy working for Turning Point. See, when you have a day job, shouldn't your day job you work 40? But And yet, you're so amazing. You can generate 9.8 million in your spare time. I need to learn how what he's doing in a so then you and I can maybe start one of these great businesses. What secret sauce does he have? And again, the interviews tell me a different story. They come across, I don't know how else to say it, low information, low intelligent. They don't just don't seem like these sharp, efficient guys that are developing these systems, you know, that would warrant this. But, uh, you know, we can go a little more. This Joshua Typhalt, same thing, right? Starts an LLC called Blue Mountain Strategies. And then, of course, it gets 129,000 here, 400,000 there, and then in total 745,000. while on top of getting a massive annual salary, he's below Jay Kaufman. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, you know, it's not enough that he's getting 441,000 as his base pay. He then has to create an LLC and get, you know, a couple hundred,000 more. You would think the 441 pay would be enough. >> And then then it says here, the website literally doesn't offer any information about the company. >> Nope. Unless they change it since I wrote this report. And outside of Turning Point, this is a very common thing you see with these money laundering things. They start websites just as a front. So, they're not gonna invest 10,000 in a nice website because the company's fake. You know what I mean? So, it's just a front website just to on the surface appear like, okay, we have a website, >> right? >> Um, and then with Justin Shrife, we talked about earlier, he's the executive partner and yet he's going to run the the Doge. About him, he's the only one that admits the company on his LinkedIn. All these other guys conveniently typically don't have it on their LinkedIns. >> And not Turning Point itself, but you mean these other companies. >> Yeah. So, like >> American Philanthropic is >> list actually has that on his LinkedIn but like Stacy Sheridan and these others. They leave it off and that struck me as odd because if you're not doing anything wrong, show us Clover Mountain, whatever that's called, Clover Mountain Ventures, GSM, put it on your LinkedIn, right? It's your business. Put it on your Twitter, put it on your social media. Why do they leave that off? >> To me, you shouldn't leave it off, you know? So, I give this guy credit. He doesn't hide it. It's right there on his LinkedIn. And then then we get to the email. Like I said, he's he's in the email, >> right? It's very strange that he he's the one that was named Justin Olsen. Not as egregious, but he's got a state job for Arizona State conflict of interest because he's the commissioner. And then later, we're going to find because he's the commissioner, he helped Super Feed Technologies get out of something they were caught up in. >> Now, I believe this guy is possibly the one that Brian Fearson Aference mentioned um he's had interactions with um in Arizona. And because I I remember asking him, "How is this not a conflict of interest that you're you're working these two jobs that are sort of overlapping?" And and Brian was telling me to his understanding, he didn't understand how it wasn't a conflict of interest either. >> How can it how can it not be? And we have proof they used it as a conflict of interest because his name is on the letterhead later when we look at Superfeed where they received a letter basically saying, "You're going to get shut down. You can't operate because you didn't meet certain compliance." And then nothing happened to them. So you would think, oh well that's convenient when the turning point guy is running that maybe that you know. So it's a major conflict of interest. It should this to me I don't know how this could be allowed. Also get we got to remember there's only so many hours in the week. How do all these guys have families and kids and and they have 10 different jobs? I know we're in a work from home environment but this is like work from home on steroids. I mean I don't get you know. And then the last one we talked about William Montgomery. Really interesting how you know he did exactly what they do now. So then uh yeah, so we talked about the fundraiser. I just want to recap because it's really mind-boggling. If you were to look at other companies who process fundraiser payments, they're not 22 million, 30 million like Turning Point was doing, which just struck me as then the only reason why they're doing that is to again funnel more money to the insiders because the insiders create the LLC that then processes these fundraiser payments. And I don't know what else would the reason be on top of it then being dark money. Like I said earlier, someone can give $10 million at one of these events and give it to the intermediary, which would be the LLC. The LLC acts as the custodian, then they cut the check to turning point. So, because it's done that way, we don't know who actually is the source of the check. Does that make sense? >> Yes. >> Okay, got it. So, and then more I just talked about, yeah, the different dark money sort of things they're using. Um, well, if you want to scroll down to page 14, it's going to be a little small. Yeah, I want to show. Unfortunately, it's a little small for the video, but uh maybe we can fix it in post. This really is telling, right? This is it right here from their own filing. So, what we're looking at is this is the fundraiser name, and I'm looking at only the insiders. So, anyone who was on Turning Point payroll at the time, I wanted to see how much they made. And this is wild to me. This absolutely crazy. So, the near the end percentage, I'm sorry, amount paid to fundraiser. So, that's how much they made for just like processing these payments. I mean, these are some big amounts. What? So, so GSM Strategies >> which is Stacy Sherry. >> Stacy Sheridan. So, so is is it is this one year? Are these different years? >> Yeah. Year on the far right I have the year. So, 2018 would be the Yes. broken down by year. >> So, Stacy Sheridan by way of two different companies made more than $6 million. More than $6 million was paid to her. >> No, no, no. You want to look at amount paid to fundraiser. fund amount paid to that's how much goes to them and then I'm showing how much turning point because there's a cut they're taking she's taking a cut >> makes sense >> but in some cases why are the cuts massive if you look a little bit down Justin Strife he's getting 36%. So, it's all over the place. You know, there's not even like a standard percentage. You would think, "Hey, turning point, we have a rate. Let's say 5%, right? Anyone who helps us manage these fundraising payments and all that, you get 5%." This to me just seems wild. Some are as low as 2%, some are as high as 35%. How would you justify and come up with these percentages? Are they arbitrary? >> Exactly. Because what I was wanting to say was it seems to me the higher the number, maybe the lower the percentage, but that's actually not the case. It's all over the place. You have 9 million paid to Turning Point and then 6% is paid out to them. That's crazy. That's crazy. >> It made me think the insider is the one who decides, not Charlie Kirk and Turning Point. >> What, and I know this is speculation. What would dictate them fluctuating between numbers? Like, how do you decide if you're going to do 36% and that's not going to raise a red flag as compared to maybe doing just 4%. So, I've thought about that a lot and the only thing conclusion I could come to is another way to try and even though they didn't do a good job, stay off the radar. So, if you're only charging 2%, someone would just be like, "Oh, it doesn't look that bad. 2%, you know, that seems fair. She's only getting 96,000." Someone would use the word only. So, again, back to optically. It doesn't to me it's bad. But we're all about optics and I know these people because I'm in finance. I know exactly how these people think. I've been in meetings with them. Not them specifically, but I'm saying in general I I know all these conversations how they go. And that would be how that conversation would go would be exactly that. Hey, if we just do 2%, we're just skimming. Remember how the mafia would skim? We're just skimming. Just a little off the top for for Stacy. No one's going to notice, you know, but speculating. But I think that would be why. But on the flip side, someone could say, "Hey, she helped bring in 3.9 million. Why not charge more? You got turning point $3.9 million here. 5 percent, 8%, 10%. Why you only asking for 2%. >> Right. >> So either way, it's a lose-lose for her to me. Meaning like I don't know how she can explain it, >> right? There would still be questions regardless. >> Yeah. There's still And it's all these guys. John McGovern. He even tried hiding it. His name is John McGovern. And he was a turning point. I forgot his position. Some kind of director. And then he has his name right on here. I think it's the fourth to the bottom. >> Yeah. >> He like at least these guys create a company. He said, "Oh, I'm not even going to bother. Who cares? Just pay me." And sure enough, you know, he gets, I believe, 26,000. So, if we ask ourselves, is this legal? I'm actually not sure. But to me, leg legality aside, especially from a Christian perspective, >> it's unethical. >> It's totally unethical, immoral. And why don't the donors know about this? Because the way we need to think of this, imagine yourself giving a dollar. Don't you want to know how many cents of that dollar went aligned with the mission? >> Yes. And not only that, it's it's clear to me, and I think it's been clear to to many people um since everything has occurred over the past couple of months, that the donors actually do care as many donors have reportedly pulled um their funds because of the things that have been taking place. They feel like certain questions have not been answered. And so clearly, they care about getting clarity on on on things that are important regarding the organization. So I think that alone tells me that what we're discussing right now they had no clue or they have no clue. >> They have no clue. Yeah. And another reason how I know they have no clue. I don't know if you know this but typically a nonprofit on their website they release an annual report. Some call it like an impact report. Y >> some call it like a company overview and then in a separate section they also release these 990s. Turning point does neither. Someone doesn't believe me go on their website. There is no impact report. There's no annual report. There's no I couldn't find anything. And I think that's crazy because they're a $100 million company. I should see, hey, what are my objectives for 2025, right? These are my objectives. These are my milestones. These are KPIs, key performance indicators. In other words, how do we measure? If you donated a dollar, how do we measure that that dollar went right to the mission? We don't get any of that. So for these guys, remember earlier you said you got that email about the audit and all of that. >> Yeah. >> I would have responded, where's the report? Forget an audit. You guys don't even provide a an annual report. Nothing. What are you hiding? I don't For all these guys that make 400,000, none of them can make a report. These directors, 440,000 can't sit down and make a report. That's crazy to me. I made this report, you know, like it's not So, we should really hammer them on that, too. Again, not illegal to not make a report, but very like what are you hiding? I mean, companies far worse do it. The Gates Foundation provides the report. The Clinton Foundation, the Soros Group, like all these really bad nonprofits still provide that. And and from what I can tell, Turning Point doesn't uh what else? So, we we had their their salary expenses. I mean, when Candace mentioned how Charlie couldn't figure out where all the cash goes, someone should have just sent him this. He doesn't even need an audit. Look, they burn through all the money like insanely. I mean, between conferences, events, and I get it, events are expensive, but when you're spending 21 million just on events right there, man, >> you know, out of your 80 million. So, I don't feel like it's that hard to figure out where the cash goes. I don't know why he would have needed a Doge. You can, you know, pretty quickly understand like, oh no, they're blowing money. 20 million on salaries, like I said, 20 million, that's 40 million right there. So, if they make 80 million, 40 million is just salaries and conferences. >> And then another 7 million on advertisement and and promotion. I don't know, man. 7 million sounds like a lot. >> Well, not if you're giving it to your friends. So remember, uh, Jake Hoffman is, you know, does the not Google receipts and them paying Google for advertising. They pay 110, whoever the heck that is, you know. So yeah, I mean, this is just >> So let me ask you, do do you believe that it's possible that obviously the the unspoken implications here is that they're finding loopholes to to fatten their pockets. But my question would be, so if if if they're pretending as if Jake Hoffman through 110 or whatever it is, is the company that's quote unquote taking care of the the ad promo and things of that sort, who's actually doing it then? And how much is it actually costing them? And where is that showing up? Or maybe it's somewhere in this number, but it's not everything that they're saying that it is. >> I think the only way we could get that is we'd have to audit Jake 110, you know, not Turning Point, right? to see like what are you doing for that money because other than that this is another scam of the nonprofits they don't get that transactional that line that's why it's a great thing for them you know they can just put the amount and move on so you can give a guy the benefit of the doubt and I think we should but I think when numbers get this alarming it becomes harder to give the benefit of the doubt you know >> this seems like pure corruption to me and I'm just speaking for myself to me as a small Joe everything I say is alleged this is just my opinion this appears appears to be corruption to me. Whether it's legal or not, if you're promoting and and and and presenting yourself, positioning yourself as a Christian, as a believer, this is unethical at at best and and corruption at worst. >> Yeah, I don't see how it's not corruption. I mean, just remember what we started with the Donald Trump Jr. section. Him and Sergio Gore have a publishing house and it's getting 7800,000. That right there, that's corruption. Because for what? For what service? For what value toward the mission? Anytime I look at money that a nonprofit spends, all I care about is does it align with the mission, >> right? >> And if it does, then I move on. And when it doesn't and it's this much, it has to be corruption. I mean, because if everyone around you is getting rich, isn't that corrupt? Like, I don't know. That just seems a very easy way to understand if there's corruption. If all my buddies and my family and everyone I'm connected to is all enriching themselves off of my nonprofit, like, is the world really a better place because of Turning Poin