don't you think we would have seen them by now? Don't you think somebody would have produced that screenshot if that were true? So I think that's what Natalie is pointing out that if that were true, we would have seen it by now. Now there's always possibility that there's some reason we wouldn't, but I don't know what that would be.

And then Trump apparently got involved with this drama, and he didn't like the accusation that the Erica, the widow of Charlie Kirk, didn't like the idea that she was involved in anything sketchy. So I guess he likes her. Trump likes her. And what did so Candace is actually asking people who donated to Turning Point USA that they asked for a refund for their donations. Now that's a pretty serious allegation. So bad that you should ask for your money back. I don't know about that.

And then what it was that Trump got involved in is that there was some accusation that there were four tax-exempt organizations under TPUSA and that there was some allegation that they were under investigation. So if you were donating to an organization and you found out that there were four entities under their umbrella and that some or all of them were being investigated for criminal behavior, would you donate again? Probably wouldn't.

So it's a pretty big deal whether that's true or false. And I guess Trump debunked it. So now the government has said, "Nope, none of the four tax-exempt organizations are under investigation." So I don't want to, he was beaten to death in his prison cell. This is Whitey. I can never read the last sentence of your comments because they go by too fast and I don't have a way to stop them.

All right. But you can read the comments yourself and you'll see the corrections on the Whitey Bulger story.

So I don't believe that there's necessarily anything bad going on with Turning Point USA. But let me give you this context. When was the last time a large well-funded organization was not corrupt? That's a tough question, isn't it? Because almost every time there's a story in the news and it's about, oh, there's this big well-funded political organization, isn't the story always that it was corrupt? Like every time.

Now when I say every time, there does seem to be maybe an exception. And the exception would be if it's a conservative organization. Now I'm saying that with maybe a little wishful thinking because I don't know that that's true. But it seems to me that in the bubble that I live, the news bubble I'm in, I see left-leaning organizations being corrupt essentially 100% of the time. But what percentage of the time are large, well-funded, established conservative groups also corrupt? It seems like not as much, right?

In fact, I can't even think of one. But if you said, can you name some left-leaning organizations that are corrupt? I mean, I'd be here for a while, right? So you would have to believe that Turning Point USA was somehow an exception to the rule and that it would be an exception that it wasn't corrupt because it seems like everything else has money and funding. Seems like they're all corrupt, but there is no, I don't think there's a specific valid accusation about Turning Point USA. And it could be that it just doesn't happen that much in conservative organizations. I hope that's the case, but I don't know.

Fog of war. Yeah, there's probably a little of that going on.

Well, Tucker Carlson, according to the Vigilant Fox on X, has made the Jeffrey Epstein death impossible to ignore again. So this is what Tucker believes. He was on some podcast. He said they did it on purpose and he was murdered clearly by another inmate.

All right. And Tucker says, "I've been a journalist my whole life. It was not a perfect storm of screw-ups." Because that's the official story. It was just this weird coincidence of screw-ups. They never did the investigation into how this guy died. Is that true? They never investigated it. Maybe they didn't investigate it enough. I don't know that they never investigated it.

Do you investigate things if you think you know exactly what happened? So maybe they didn't. Maybe his standard for how much is enough investigating was not met.

Here's something I didn't know. According to Tucker, they redressed him in clothes that he wasn't wearing when he died for the pictures in the hospital infirmary. Do you believe that they dressed him in clothes for the photographs after he was dead? Maybe. I mean, I don't know. Would that be a mistake? Would that be a crime if they did that? Well, it would certainly change how you felt about it.

Tucker says he asked former attorney general Bill Barr for the names of the inmates on Epstein's block and Barr wouldn't give them to him. And I'm not sure if you're allowed to do that. Do you think that would be legal? Are you allowed to give the names of people and what block they're in? I feel like that would be dangerous. So I'm not so sure that Bill Barr had an option there.

But Tucker says, "They're convicted felons, dude. This is not secret information or national security. Why can't you tell me that?"

All right. Then Tucker says, this is his view, they allowed him, Epstein, to be murdered in federal lockup. How could we continue to live in a country where a high-profile inmate can be murdered in our prison system by someone who is powerful enough to do that?

So that is the big question, isn't it? Who wou