{ "version": "https://jsonfeed.org/version/1.1", "title": "AFNPT News", "home_page_url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news", "feed_url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news-feed.json", "description": "Fact checks, explainers and reports from Americans for Transparency. Every article names its sources.", "language": "en-US", "items": [ { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/who-is-behind-justorium-org", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/who-is-behind-justorium-org", "title": "Who Is Behind Justorium.org? Its Site and FARA Filings Name Clock Tower X and the State of Israel", "summary": "Justorium.org's own footer says its material is distributed by Clock Tower X LLC on behalf of the State of Israel. FARA filings match. Clock Tower X LLC (No. 7649) files Justorium articles and Facebook, TikTok and Instagram posts with the Justice Department as informational materials for the State of Israel via Havas Media Germany GmbH. Piro, Inc. (No. 7732) filed a Justorium article for Havas Media Germany GmbH on behalf of the Israel Government Advertising Agency (LaPam). The sources do not show who owns the site.", "content_text": "## News Article: Who Is Behind Justorium.org? Its Site and FARA Filings Name Clock Tower X and the State of Israel\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/who-is-behind-justorium-org\nType: Explainer. Published: 2026-10-17. Updated: 2026-10-17. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: Justorium.org's own footer says its material is distributed by Clock Tower X LLC on behalf of the State of Israel. FARA filings match. Clock Tower X LLC (No. 7649) files Justorium articles and Facebook, TikTok and Instagram posts with the Justice Department as informational materials for the State of Israel via Havas Media Germany GmbH. Piro, Inc. (No. 7732) filed a Justorium article for Havas Media Germany GmbH on behalf of the Israel Government Advertising Agency (LaPam). The sources do not show who owns the site.\n\nKey points:\n- Justorium's homepage and About page carry a footer saying the material is distributed by Clock Tower X LLC on behalf of the State of Israel.\n- Clock Tower X LLC is FARA registrant No. 7649, and its foreign principals include the State of Israel via Havas Media Germany GmbH.\n- Piro, Inc. is FARA registrant No. 7732, and its foreign principal is Havas Media Germany GmbH on behalf of the Israel Government Advertising Agency (LaPam).\n- The filed material includes Justorium articles on the UN and Iran, plus Justorium posts on Facebook and TikTok.\n- Clock Tower X's Exhibit AB describes media services supporting a nationwide U.S. campaign by the State of Israel, through Havas, to combat anti-Semitism.\n\nJustorium.org looks like a research library. It lists 126 articles across eight topical hubs. The hubs cover Iran, Hamas and Gaza, the UN, international law, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority, Qatar and antisemitism. It calls itself a home for international legal accountability and evidence-based research. [1]\n\n\"This material is distributed by Clock Tower X LLC on behalf of the State of Israel.\" (Justorium site footer, 2026-10-17) [1]\n\n### What Justorium says it is\n\nThe About page describes the site's mission in legal terms. The site describes itself this way: [2]\n\n\"Justorium is dedicated to presenting factual, evidence-based information about justice, law, and moral responsibility\" (Justorium About page, 2026-10-17) [2]\n\nThe same page states the site's aim plainly. It says the site seeks to highlight Israel's legal and ethical conduct and its shared values with the United States. It also says the site explains how Israel's response to Hamas follows international law. The footer calls the site evidence-based, statutory and non-partisan. [2]\n\n\"we aim to highlight Israel’s adherence to legal and ethical norms\" (Justorium About page, 2026-10-17) [2]\n\nA section headed \"Why Justorium Exists\" opens with a mission statement from Friends for Peace about the Israel–U.S. relationship. The About page does not explain how Friends for Peace relates to Justorium. The page text does not mention Clock Tower X or the State of Israel outside the footer. [2]\n\n### The disclosure on its own site\n\nJustorium does carry a FARA disclosure. The footer says the material is distributed by Clock Tower X LLC on behalf of the State of Israel. It says more information is available at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC. It ends with the words \"FARA Disclosures Registered.\" Pages from the site that appear in the FARA filings carry a version of the same notice at the top. [1, 2, 10, 7]\n\n### Who files Justorium's material, and for whom\n\n- Clock Tower X LLC, registrant No. 7649, registered 2025-09-18. Its filings list as foreign principal: State of Israel via Havas Media Germany GmbH (ISRAEL); State of Israel (ISRAEL); HAVAS Media Network (ISRAEL). DOJ's index lists 245 filings from it, the latest stamped 2026-10-13.\n- Piro, Inc., registrant No. 7732, registered 2026-06-02. Its foreign principal is Havas Media Germany GmbH on behalf of the Israel Government Advertising Agency (LaPam) (ISRAEL). DOJ's index lists 78 filings from it, the latest stamped 2026-10-09.\n\nClock Tower X filings that mention Justorium are stamped from 2026-06-28 to 2026-09-28. A Piro filing containing a Justorium article carries a receipt stamp of 07/14/2026. [12, 11, 8, 9, 10, 6, 7]\n\n### What gets filed: articles and posts\n\n- A Justorium article headlined \"THE UN’S PROBLEM WITH ISRAEL IS NO LONGER BIAS. IT IS AN INSTITUTION\". It was published September 27, 2026, under the byline Mark Ginsberg, in a Clock Tower X filing stamped 2026-09-28.\n- A Justorium article headlined \"IRAN'S COMMITMENTS ARE MEANINGLESS IF IT KEEPS ATTACKING COMMERCIAL SHIPS IN THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ\". It was published July 13, 2026, in a Piro, Inc. filing.\n- A Justorium article on UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and UN special rapporteurs, in a Clock Tower X filing stamped 2026-09-04.\n- A Justorium article about a Gaza photographer and October 7 footage, in a Clock Tower X filing stamped 2026-09-22.\n\nThe filings also include \"PUBLISHED SOCIALS REPORT\" pages that log Justorium's social-media posts. On Sep 2, 2026, the Justorium Facebook account posted an engagement question, with a matching TikTok link from @justoriumorg. [8]\n\n\"What should Israel do when Hamas fighters operate near hospitals and schools?\" (Justorium Facebook post, as logged in a Clock Tower X filing, 2026-09-02) [8]\n\nOn Sep 11, 2026, a post titled \"The threat still remains 25 years later\" went out on TikTok from justoriumorg and allyviiiaa. It also went out on Facebook from Justorium Org and Allyvia, and on Instagram from Allyvia and Justorium. The Facebook copy read: \"25 years later, the threat remains and silence is not an option\". The filing records these posts under \"Allyvia, Justorium\". [9]\n\n### What Exhibit AB says the campaign is\n\nClock Tower X filed an Exhibit AB stamped 10/05/2026. It names HAVAS Media Network as foreign principal and gives an agreement date of 09/24/2026. It describes the arrangement as \"Monthly fee for services\". It does not state an amount. [5]\n\nUnder political activities, the exhibit says the firm will provide \"strategic communications, planning, and media services in support of Havas' engagement\" by the State of Israel. That engagement is to develop and run a nationwide campaign in the United States to combat anti-Semitism. The Exhibit AB text in our sources does not mention Justorium by name. [5]\n\n### Why this matters\n\nJustorium is not alone. A Factsignal page filed by Clock Tower X, stamped 2026-06-28, lists sites under a \"Friends for Peace\" heading. They are Justorium, Allyvia, Paxpoint, Econora, Innovascope, Culturavia, CompassionPulse and Cognitura. That page carries the same Clock Tower X disclosure. A Clock Tower X filing stamped 2026-07-06 links to Justorium's overview of proportionality in Gaza and to Cognitura. In the social-media logs, Justorium and Allyvia accounts publish the same posts. [12, 11, 9]\n\nThe record is unclear on some points. The sources do not show who owns the Justorium domain or what legal entity runs it. A FARA registration is a legal disclosure. The sources contain no court or DOJ finding against either registrant. [1, 2, 3, 4]\n\n### People named in the filings\n\n- Clock Tower X LLC short-form registrants: Barbour, Charles; Bussey, Katelyn; Cullen, Michael; Eibling, Jill; Evdokimo, Ashley; Ginsberg, Mark; Hart, Remy; Husbands, Elliott; Jarrett III, Edward Bernard; Mann, Brandy M; Mautino, Sarah; Milhoan, Aaron; Miller, Alexander; Myers, Sean; Ogunpolu, Joy; Parscale, Bradley; Rittenberg, Alexandra; Ronson, Abigail; Sesock, Lexi; Shields, Michael; Sili, Karl; Stavro, Sterling; Stokes, Jesse; Werner, David; Williams, Tanner.\n- Piro, Inc. short-form registrants: Cruz, Carlos; Fried, Aron; Piper, Timothy; Rosenberg, Daniel; Solomon, Ashira; Staiman, Eli Noah; Storfer, Doron; Tran, Hai; Wigle, Carlos Eduardo.\n\nThe UN article filed on 2026-09-28 carries the byline Mark Ginsberg. Clock Tower X's filings name a short-form registrant \"Ginsberg, Mark\". The sources do not state whether they are the same person. Inconclusive. [6, 3]\n\n### The paperwork\n\n- Clock Tower X LLC, Informational Materials, received 06/28/2026 6:55:31 PM: Factsignal page footer listing Justorium.\n- Clock Tower X LLC, Informational Materials, stamped 2026-07-06: page linking to Justorium articles.\n- Clock Tower X LLC, Informational Materials, received 09/04/2026: Justorium Facebook and TikTok post log and UN article.\n- Clock Tower X LLC, Informational Materials, received 09/16/2026 9:31:22 PM: published socials report with Justorium and Allyvia posts.\n- Clock Tower X LLC, Informational Materials, received 09/22/2026 10:02:15 PM: Justorium article on a Gaza photographer.\n- Clock Tower X LLC, Informational Materials, received 09/28/2026 9:04:01 PM: Justorium UN article.\n- Piro, Inc., Informational Materials, received 07/14/2026 10:06:36 PM: Justorium Strait of Hormuz article.\n- Clock Tower X LLC, Exhibit AB, received 10/05/2026 1:53:04 PM. The form itself is headed \"Exhibit B to Registration Statement\", OMB No. 1124-0004.\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Who is behind Justorium.org?\nA: Justorium's own footer says its material is distributed by Clock Tower X LLC on behalf of the State of Israel. FARA filings from Clock Tower X LLC and Piro, Inc. include Justorium articles and posts. They are filed as informational materials for foreign principals tied to Israel's government. The sources do not show who owns the site.\nQ: Does Justorium disclose its connection to Israel's government?\nA: Yes. The footer on its homepage and About page says the material is distributed by Clock Tower X LLC on behalf of the State of Israel. It also says more information is at the Department of Justice. The About page's main text describes the site's mission without naming Clock Tower X.\nQ: What is Clock Tower X LLC?\nA: It is FARA registrant No. 7649, registered 2025-09-18. Its filings list as foreign principals the State of Israel via Havas Media Germany GmbH, the State of Israel, and HAVAS Media Network. DOJ's index lists 245 filings from it.\nQ: What is Piro, Inc.?\nA: It is FARA registrant No. 7732, registered 2026-06-02. Its foreign principal is Havas Media Germany GmbH on behalf of the Israel Government Advertising Agency (LaPam). It has filed a Justorium article on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz as informational materials.\nQ: What Justorium material is filed with the Justice Department?\nA: Full Justorium articles, including pieces on the UN and on Iran. The filings also include social-media logs of Justorium posts on Facebook, TikTok and Instagram, some shared with Allyvia accounts.\nQ: What campaign does Clock Tower X describe in its Exhibit AB?\nA: The exhibit says the firm will provide strategic communications, planning and media services supporting Havas' engagement by the State of Israel. That engagement is a nationwide U.S. campaign to combat anti-Semitism. It lists a monthly fee but no amount, and the text in our sources does not name Justorium.\n\nSources:\n[1] Justorium, \"Justorium: Justice and Law in Defense of Freedom (homepage)\", 2026-10-17. https://justorium.org/\n[2] Justorium, \"About Justorium\", 2026-10-17. https://justorium.org/about/\n[3] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"FARA filing index for Clock Tower X LLC (No. 7649)\", 2026-10-13. https://efile.fara.gov/api/v1/RegDocs/json/7649\n[4] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"FARA filing index for Piro, Inc. (No. 7732)\", 2026-10-09. https://efile.fara.gov/api/v1/RegDocs/json/7732\n[5] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Exhibit AB, stamped 2026-10-05\", 2026-10-05. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Exhibit-AB-20261005-1.pdf\n[6] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-09-28 (126 mentions of Justorium)\", 2026-09-28. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260928-26.pdf\n[7] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Piro, Inc.: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-07-15 (14 mentions of Justorium)\", 2026-07-15. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7732-Informational-Materials-20260715-1.pdf\n[8] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-09-04 (67 mentions of Justorium)\", 2026-09-04. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260904-19.pdf\n[9] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-09-16 (120 mentions of Justorium)\", 2026-09-16. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260916-23.pdf\n[10] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-09-22 (140 mentions of Justorium)\", 2026-09-22. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260922-24.pdf\n[11] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-07-06 (89 mentions of Justorium)\", 2026-07-06. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260706-161.pdf\n[12] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-06-28 (2 mentions of Justorium)\", 2026-06-28. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260628-158.pdf\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-17T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-17T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Explainer", "justorium", "clock-tower-x", "foreign-agents", "piro" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/clock-tower-x-havas-israel-campaign-fee-schedule-filing-watch", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/clock-tower-x-havas-israel-campaign-fee-schedule-filing-watch", "title": "Israel's U.S. Anti-Semitism Campaign: Clock Tower X Updates Havas Fee Schedule, FARA Filing Shows", "summary": "Clock Tower X LLC, whose filings list the State of Israel via Havas Media Germany GmbH as foreign principal, amended its agreement with HAVAS Media Network on 2026-10-05. The amendment, signed by Brad Parscale, reflects an \"updated fee schedule.\" Exhibit B lists a \"Monthly fee for services\" under an agreement dated 09/24/2026. No dollar figure appears. Three informational materials followed, stamped 2026-10-07, 2026-10-09 and 2026-10-13, each an article under Mark Ginsberg's byline.", "content_text": "## News Article: Israel's U.S. Anti-Semitism Campaign: Clock Tower X Updates Havas Fee Schedule, FARA Filing Shows\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/clock-tower-x-havas-israel-campaign-fee-schedule-filing-watch\nType: Report. Published: 2026-10-17. Updated: 2026-10-17. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: Clock Tower X LLC, whose filings list the State of Israel via Havas Media Germany GmbH as foreign principal, amended its agreement with HAVAS Media Network on 2026-10-05. The amendment, signed by Brad Parscale, reflects an \"updated fee schedule.\" Exhibit B lists a \"Monthly fee for services\" under an agreement dated 09/24/2026. No dollar figure appears. Three informational materials followed, stamped 2026-10-07, 2026-10-09 and 2026-10-13, each an article under Mark Ginsberg's byline.\n\nKey points:\n- Clock Tower X LLC, FARA registrant No. 7649, filed an amended Exhibit B on 2026-10-05 for foreign principal HAVAS Media Network, with a contract date of 09/24/2026.\n- The Exhibit B says the registrant provides strategic communications, planning and media services in support of Havas' engagement by the State of Israel for a nationwide campaign in the United States to combat anti-Semitism.\n- The amendment, signed by Brad Parscale, says it updates the work order to reflect an updated fee schedule; the filing text gives no fee amount.\n- Informational materials stamped from 2026-09-12 to 2026-10-13 include articles bylined Mark Ginsberg on paxpoint.org, innovascope.org, allyvia.org, justorium.org and factsignal.org.\n- Two socials reports list posts on Allyvia, Stand Together for Truth and Culturavia accounts on TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.\n\n### What Americans are being shown\n\nDOJ's index lists the foreign principal for these informational materials as State of Israel via Havas Media Germany GmbH (ISRAEL). [3]\n\n### The newest agreement: a monthly fee and an updated fee schedule\n\nOn 2026-10-05, Clock Tower X filed an updated Exhibit B. That is the form that describes a registrant's agreement with its foreign principal. The foreign principal named is HAVAS Media Network. The form gives 09/24/2026 as the date of the contract or agreement. It describes the arrangement as \"Monthly fee for services\". [1]\n\nIn the section on political activities, the form says the registrant provides strategic communications, planning and media services. It says this work supports Havas' engagement by the State of Israel to develop and execute a nationwide campaign in the United States to combat anti-Semitism. [1]\n\n\"develop and execute a nationwide campaign in the United States\" (Clock Tower X LLC, Exhibit B, 2026-10-05) [1]\n\nAn amendment filed the same day explains the change in one line: \"Amended work order to reflect updated fee schedule.\" It also says the foreign principal agreement for 'HAVAS Media Network (Germany)' was updated. Brad Parscale signed it on 10/05/2026. Bradley Parscale is also listed among the firm's short-form registrants. [2, 3]\n\n### What the newest informational materials say\n\n- Stamped 2026-10-13: a paxpoint.org article bylined Mark Ginsberg, dated October 12, 2026, on Zionism and Palestinian land. It notes that the 1897 Basel Program did not specify final borders.\n- Stamped 2026-10-09: an innovascope.org article bylined Mark Ginsberg on Israeli wearable counter-drone technology from SkyLock. It cites The Jerusalem Post on use by Ukrainian troops, IDF testing in Gaza and U.S. Army evaluation in Europe.\n- Stamped 2026-10-07: an allyvia.org article bylined Mark Ginsberg, published October 7, 2026. It argues that the hostility behind the October 7 attack extends to America and the wider West.\n- Stamped 2026-10-04: a socials report listing 19 published posts between Oct 1, 2026 and Oct 2, 2026. The posts include an image post about antisemitic abuse of a Jewish fighter at an Orlando MMA event, sourced to The Guardian.\n- Stamped 2026-09-30: a culturavia.org article on Christians visiting Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria during the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem's Feast of Tabernacles.\n- Stamped 2026-09-28: a justorium.org article bylined Mark Ginsberg on a report by Dr. Adi Schwartz and Asher Fredman about UN bodies and Israel.\n- Stamped 2026-09-25: pages from standtogetherfortruth.com, including an antisemitism incident tracker and a toolkit offering talking points, graphics and videos.\n- Stamped 2026-09-22 and 2026-09-16: factsignal.org articles bylined Mark Ginsberg, one on Soviet anti-Zionist campaigns and one on Muslim Brotherhood operations in Europe.\n- Stamped 2026-09-19: a cognitura.org article on a West Bank poll of 400 Palestinian respondents.\n- Stamped 2026-09-12: a socials report listing 22 published posts between Sep 9, 2026 and Sep 10, 2026, citing ADL figures on antisemitic incidents at U.S. K-12 schools.\n\nSome of the material includes caveats. The factsignal.org article says that not every critic of Israel is repeating Soviet propaganda, and that contemporary objections to Israeli policy can arise from different perspectives. The paxpoint.org article tells readers to separate documented positions from slogans. The culturavia.org article reports that the ICEJ says Israeli authorities should do more against settler violence. [11, 4, 8]\n\n### Why this matters\n\nThese filings link everyday content to a foreign government. The articles, website pages and social posts come from outlets with their own brand names: Allyvia, Stand Together for Truth, Culturavia, FactSignal, Justorium, Paxpoint, Innovascope and Cognitura. Clock Tower X filed all of them as informational materials distributed on behalf of the State of Israel. Its Exhibit B describes the work as support for a nationwide U.S. campaign that Havas was engaged by Israel to run. [1, 7, 14, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12]\n\nThe filings also name the people involved. Mark Ginsberg, whose byline appears on several articles, is listed as a short-form registrant. Brad Parscale signed the amendment. The FARA form itself says every filing is a public record open to public examination. [3, 2, 1]\n\n### What is not known\n\n- The size of the monthly fee and the details of the updated fee schedule. The filing text in these sources gives no amount.\n- Whether the live websites and posts show readers the same disclosure label that appears on the copies filed with DOJ. The sources are filed copies only.\n- What the updated work order says. It is not among these sources.\n\n### Filing details\n\n- Registrant: Clock Tower X LLC, No. 7649, registered 2025-09-18. DOJ's index lists 245 filings, the latest stamped 2026-10-13.\n- Foreign principals listed: State of Israel via Havas Media Germany GmbH (ISRAEL); State of Israel (ISRAEL); HAVAS Media Network (ISRAEL).\n- Exhibit B (Form NSD-4), received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 10/05/2026 1:53:04 PM. Foreign principal: HAVAS Media Network. Contract date: 09/24/2026. Item 9 reads: \"Activities consistent with the registration.\"\n- Amendment (Form NSD-5), received 10/05/2026 1:53:06 PM. It lists Exhibit B to Registration Statement as the document filed.\n- The latest informational materials were received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 10/13/2026 4:52:58 PM.\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Who is the foreign principal for this work?\nA: The Exhibit B filed 2026-10-05 names HAVAS Media Network. It describes the work as support for Havas' engagement by the State of Israel. DOJ's index lists the informational materials under State of Israel via Havas Media Germany GmbH.\nQ: How much is Clock Tower X paid?\nA: The Exhibit B says \"Monthly fee for services\". The amendment says the fee schedule was updated. Neither filing text gives an amount.\nQ: Who signed the amendment?\nA: Brad Parscale signed it on 10/05/2026.\n\nSources:\n[1] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Exhibit AB, stamped 2026-10-05\", 2026-10-05. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Exhibit-AB-20261005-1.pdf\n[2] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Amendment, stamped 2026-10-05\", 2026-10-05. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Amendment-20261005-1.pdf\n[3] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"FARA filing index for Clock Tower X LLC (No. 7649)\", 2026-10-13. https://efile.fara.gov/api/v1/RegDocs/json/7649\n[4] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-10-13\", 2026-10-13. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20261013-32.pdf\n[5] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-10-09\", 2026-10-09. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20261009-31.pdf\n[6] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-10-07\", 2026-10-07. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20261007-30.pdf\n[7] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-10-04\", 2026-10-04. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20261004-29.pdf\n[8] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-09-30\", 2026-09-30. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260930-27.pdf\n[9] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-09-28\", 2026-09-28. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260928-26.pdf\n[10] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-09-25\", 2026-09-25. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260925-25.pdf\n[11] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-09-22\", 2026-09-22. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260922-24.pdf\n[12] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-09-19\", 2026-09-19. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260919-180.pdf\n[13] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-09-16\", 2026-09-16. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260916-23.pdf\n[14] U.S. Department of Justice, FARA Unit, \"Clock Tower X LLC: Informational Materials, stamped 2026-09-12\", 2026-09-12. https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7649-Informational-Materials-20260912-22.pdf\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-17T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-17T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Report", "clock-tower-x", "foreign-agents" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/why-the-judges-recused-in-harpole-v-owens", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/why-the-judges-recused-in-harpole-v-owens", "title": "Why did every judge in the district recuse from Harpole v. Owens?", "summary": "On July 8, 2026, every district and magistrate judge of the Middle District of Tennessee recused from Harpole v. Owens. The Order of Recusal says a judge from outside the district will be designated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. It gives no reason. As of the docket's October 12, 2026 update, no order naming a replacement judge appears, which is why the case has stalled before any ruling on the facts.", "content_text": "## News Article: Why did every judge in the district recuse from Harpole v. Owens?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/why-the-judges-recused-in-harpole-v-owens\nType: Report. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: On July 8, 2026, every district and magistrate judge of the Middle District of Tennessee recused from Harpole v. Owens. The Order of Recusal says a judge from outside the district will be designated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. It gives no reason. As of the docket's October 12, 2026 update, no order naming a replacement judge appears, which is why the case has stalled before any ruling on the facts.\n\nKey points:\n- All district and magistrate judges in the Middle District of Tennessee recused on July 8, 2026.\n- The order does not state a reason for the recusals.\n- The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is to designate a judge from outside the district.\n- As of October 12, 2026, no replacement judge appears on the public docket.\n\n### What the order says\n\nOn July 8, 2026, Chief Judge William L. Campbell Jr. entered an Order of Recusal stating that every district and magistrate judge of the Middle District of Tennessee had recused in the matter, and that a judge from outside the district would be designated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. [1]\n\n\"As all District Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Middle District of Tennessee have recused in this matter, a District Judge from outside the District will be designated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.\" (Chief Judge William L. Campbell Jr., Order of Recusal, July 8, 2026) [1]\n\n### What the order does not say\n\nIt gives no reason for the recusals. A full-district recusal is unusual but not unknown; it can follow a connection between the parties or counsel and the court. The order itself states only the fact of the recusals and the referral to the Sixth Circuit. AFNPT does not know the reason, and the public record does not supply one. [1]\n\n### What it means for the case\n\nUntil the Sixth Circuit designates a judge, the pending motions cannot be decided. As of the docket's October 12, 2026 update, no order naming a replacement judge appears. That is the main reason the case has not reached any ruling on the merits. [2, 1]\n\nNone of this bears on whether the underlying Fort Huachuca account is true or false. A recusal is a procedural step about which judge hears the case, not a finding about the facts. AFNPT's running account is here (https://americansfortransparency.org/news/harpole-v-owens-mitch-snow-case-status). [3]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Does a mass recusal mean something is wrong with the case?\nA: Not necessarily. It means the local judges have a reason to step aside, often a connection to a party or lawyer. The order here states no reason, so any explanation would be speculation.\nQ: Who will hear the case now?\nA: A judge from outside the district, to be designated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. As of October 12, 2026 no such judge had been named on the public docket.\n\nSources:\n[1] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Order of Recusal, Doc. 27\", 2026-07-08. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.27.0.pdf\n[2] CourtListener / RECAP, \"Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet\", 2026-10-12. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73271589/harpole-v-owens/\n[3] Americans for Transparency, \"Mitch Snow: The Sworn Record vs. the Public Record\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/mitchsnow\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Report", "mitch-snow", "harpole-v-owens" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/why-made-up-names-spike-in-google-trends", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/why-made-up-names-spike-in-google-trends", "title": "Why do made-up names produce spikes in Google Trends?", "summary": "Because the index is relative and sampled. On a term with essentially no real searches, there is no genuine signal, so the sample plus Google's added noise is the entire chart. That produces a flat line with occasional lone spikes to 100. AFNPT tested this with about 1,600 control searches, including invented and cartoon names, and found roughly one rare phrase in three spiking somewhere in the window.", "content_text": "## News Article: Why do made-up names produce spikes in Google Trends?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/why-made-up-names-spike-in-google-trends\nType: Explainer. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: Because the index is relative and sampled. On a term with essentially no real searches, there is no genuine signal, so the sample plus Google's added noise is the entire chart. That produces a flat line with occasional lone spikes to 100. AFNPT tested this with about 1,600 control searches, including invented and cartoon names, and found roughly one rare phrase in three spiking somewhere in the window.\n\nKey points:\n- On a term with no real search volume, the chart is built almost entirely from sampling and noise.\n- AFNPT ran about 1,600 control searches to test this, including names no one would search.\n- About one rare phrase in three showed a spike somewhere in the window.\n- A spike on a made-up name cannot mean someone searched it, so a spike alone proves nothing about real names either.\n\n### The logic of the control test\n\nIf a method flags real searches, it should stay flat on terms that no one searches. A made-up name is the cleanest possible control: there is no real interest to detect. If the method spikes on it anyway, the spike is coming from the tool, not from the world. [1]\n\nThat is exactly what AFNPT set out to check. Using the same settings as the Fort Huachuca searches, it ran about 1,600 control searches, including invented names and cartoon characters, and recorded how often they spiked. [1]\n\n### What the controls did\n\nThey spiked. About one rare phrase in three showed a spike somewhere in the window, and the dates shifted when the same search was run again. Names that could not possibly have been searched behaved just like the names the posts treated as suspicious. [1]\n\n### Why this happens\n\nOn a term with no real volume, Google's sample has almost nothing to draw from, and the privacy noise it adds is no longer small by comparison. The 0-to-100 scaling then stretches whatever is there, so a single sampled point or a burst of noise becomes a spike to 100. There is no real signal underneath to anchor the line at zero. [2]\n\nThis is why researchers insist on aggregating many samples: averaging many pulls cancels the noise and reveals whether any real interest exists. One chart of one rare term cannot do that. [3]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: If made-up names spike, does that disprove every spike on a real name?\nA: It shows a spike alone proves nothing. A real name might have genuine interest behind it, but you cannot tell from a single rare-term chart, because noise and sampling produce the same picture.\nQ: How many control searches were run?\nA: About 1,600, using the same settings as the original Fort Huachuca searches. Roughly one rare phrase in three spiked somewhere in the window.\nQ: Why use cartoon characters as controls?\nA: Because no one is plausibly searching them in that region, so any spike must come from the tool. They are a clean test of whether the method flags real activity or just artefacts.\nQ: Does this mean Google Trends is useless?\nA: No. It is useful for popular terms and for broad trends measured over many samples. It is unreliable for single charts of rare terms, which is exactly the case the Kirk posts relied on.\n\nSources:\n[1] Americans for Transparency, \"The Fort Huachuca guest list, checked\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/\n[2] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[3] The Conversation, \"How misreading Google Trends is fuelling Bondi attack conspiracy theories\", 2025-12-17. https://theconversation.com/how-misreading-google-trends-is-fuelling-bondi-attack-conspiracy-theories-272251\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Explainer", "google-trends-claims", "ana-escobar", "fort-huachuca" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/who-tried-to-reproduce-the-kirk-google-trends-searches", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/who-tried-to-reproduce-the-kirk-google-trends-searches", "title": "Who tried to reproduce the Charlie Kirk Google Trends searches, and what they found", "summary": "Several people tried to reproduce the viral Fort Huachuca and Charlie Kirk searches independently. Gary Melton and James Li each walked through the method on video and could not make it produce a stable, reliable result. AFNPT re-ran the searches with the original settings and about 1,600 controls, and found the spikes moved between runs. The shared conclusion is that the charts cannot be reproduced on demand, which is what a reliable record would require.", "content_text": "## News Article: Who tried to reproduce the Charlie Kirk Google Trends searches, and what they found\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/who-tried-to-reproduce-the-kirk-google-trends-searches\nType: Report. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: Several people tried to reproduce the viral Fort Huachuca and Charlie Kirk searches independently. Gary Melton and James Li each walked through the method on video and could not make it produce a stable, reliable result. AFNPT re-ran the searches with the original settings and about 1,600 controls, and found the spikes moved between runs. The shared conclusion is that the charts cannot be reproduced on demand, which is what a reliable record would require.\n\nKey points:\n- Independent researchers Gary Melton and James Li examined the method on video.\n- Neither could turn it into a stable, reproducible result.\n- AFNPT re-ran the original searches plus about 1,600 controls and found the spikes shifting between runs.\n- A biostatistician's conclusion matches: reliable readings need many aggregated samples, not one chart.\n\n### Why reproduction is the test\n\nIf a chart is evidence of a real event, independent people using the same settings should be able to get the same chart. That is the ordinary test applied to any empirical claim. Several people applied it to the viral searches. [3]\n\n### The independent attempts\n\nGary Melton, posting as Paramount Tactical, worked through the method and argued that Google Trends is not a historic record of who searched what and when. James Li, on his channel, walked through the Kirk searches and could not make them hold up as proof of foreknowledge. Both are recorded attempts by people outside AFNPT. [1, 2]\n\nThese are self-published video analyses, not peer-reviewed work, and are listed here as that. What they have in common is that neither could reproduce a stable result from the method. [1, 2]\n\n### AFNPT's attempt\n\nAFNPT re-ran the Fort Huachuca searches with the original settings and added about 1,600 control searches. The spikes landed on different dates when the same query was run hours apart, and invented names spiked too. The method did not reproduce a fixed chart, which is consistent with Google's own account of how the tool behaves on rare terms. The full record is here (https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/). [3, 5]\n\n### Where the expert view lands\n\nA University of Sydney biostatistician who studies Google Trends reached the same place from theory: accurate results require aggregating many samples, because any single pull carries noise. That is consistent with every reproduction attempt above. [4]\n\n\"To get accurate results, one has to aggregate many samples of Google Trends data\" (Jacques Raubenheimer, University of Sydney, in The Conversation) [4]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Were these attempts by Kirk's critics?\nA: Not uniformly. They are independent analysts examining a method. The relevant point is procedural: people applying the same settings could not reproduce a stable chart, whatever their views on the broader case.\nQ: Does a failed reproduction prove nothing happened?\nA: No. It shows the charts cannot carry the weight placed on them. A method that will not reproduce cannot establish foreknowledge; it also cannot rule it out. It is simply the wrong instrument.\n\nSources:\n[1] Paramount Tactical (YouTube), \"Google Trends is not a Historic Record.\", 2025-11-13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ2IFkq5lIg\n[2] 51-49 with James Li (YouTube), \"Charlie Kirk Shooting — They Knew BEFORE It Happened?!\", 2025-10-14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX1mn3ijgOc\n[3] Americans for Transparency, \"The Fort Huachuca guest list, checked\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/\n[4] The Conversation, \"How misreading Google Trends is fuelling Bondi attack conspiracy theories\", 2025-12-17. https://theconversation.com/how-misreading-google-trends-is-fuelling-bondi-attack-conspiracy-theories-272251\n[5] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Report", "google-trends-claims", "ana-escobar", "charlie-kirk" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/who-is-mitch-snow", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/who-is-mitch-snow", "title": "Who is Mitch Snow, and how did he become a defendant in Harpole v. Owens?", "summary": "Mitchell H. Snow is a retired U.S. Army sergeant and a Washington State resident. He appeared on Candace Owens's podcast and described himself as an eyewitness who was at Fort Huachuca around September 9, 2025. Brian Harpole, who led Charlie Kirk's security, then sued Owens, her companies and Snow for defamation, saying the account falsely placed Harpole there. Snow represents himself and has filed sworn declarations standing by his account.", "content_text": "## News Article: Who is Mitch Snow, and how did he become a defendant in Harpole v. Owens?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/who-is-mitch-snow\nType: Explainer. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: Mitchell H. Snow is a retired U.S. Army sergeant and a Washington State resident. He appeared on Candace Owens's podcast and described himself as an eyewitness who was at Fort Huachuca around September 9, 2025. Brian Harpole, who led Charlie Kirk's security, then sued Owens, her companies and Snow for defamation, saying the account falsely placed Harpole there. Snow represents himself and has filed sworn declarations standing by his account.\n\nKey points:\n- Snow is a retired U.S. Army sergeant and a Washington State resident.\n- He spoke on Candace Owens's podcast and said he was an eyewitness at Fort Huachuca.\n- He is a defendant in Harpole v. Owens, not a plaintiff.\n- He represents himself and has filed three sworn declarations.\n\n### His background\n\nMitchell Snow is a retired U.S. Army sergeant. The New York Times described him that way in its report on the lawsuit. In his court filings he identifies as a resident of Washington State, which is the basis for part of his motion to dismiss. [1, 3]\n\n### How he entered the story\n\nSnow appeared on Candace Owens's podcast and described himself as an eyewitness, saying he was at Fort Huachuca around September 9, 2025, the day before Charlie Kirk was shot. That account is what the lawsuit is about. [1, 3]\n\nBrian Harpole, who led Kirk's security team, says the account falsely placed him at that meeting, and he sued Owens, two of her companies and Snow for defamation on April 30, 2026. [3, 2]\n\n\"Snow did not immediately respond to a request for comment.\" (The New York Times, on the day the suit was reported) [1]\n\n### Where he stands now\n\nSnow represents himself. He has moved to dismiss on two grounds, that a Tennessee court lacks jurisdiction over a Washington resident and under Tennessee's anti-SLAPP law, and has filed three sworn declarations. AFNPT's review found the record supports his sworn statements that he received none of the fundraiser money and that Owens contacted him first, while one statement about whether he had watched Owens's program is contradicted by his own recorded words. The eight findings are here (https://americansfortransparency.org/mitchsnow). [4]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Is Mitch Snow a lawyer?\nA: No. He represents himself in the case, which is known as appearing pro se. He has filed his own motions and sworn declarations.\nQ: What did Snow claim on the podcast?\nA: He described himself as an eyewitness and said he was at Fort Huachuca around September 9, 2025. The lawsuit alleges that account falsely placed the plaintiff at a meeting there.\nQ: Has Snow retracted his account?\nA: No. He has filed sworn declarations standing by it. No court has ruled on whether it is true, and AFNPT found no independent confirmation of it.\nQ: Why is he sued in Tennessee if he lives in Washington?\nA: That is one of his objections. Part of his motion to dismiss argues a Tennessee federal court lacks personal jurisdiction over a Washington State resident. The court has not ruled on it.\n\nSources:\n[1] The New York Times, republished by The Salt Lake Tribune, \"Charlie Kirk's former security chief sues Candace Owens for defamation\", 2026-05-01. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/05/01/charlie-kirks-former-security/\n[2] Newsweek, \"Ex-Charlie Kirk Security Chief Sues Candace Owens, Alleging Defamation\", 2026-04-30. https://www.newsweek.com/ex-charlie-kirk-security-chief-sues-candace-owens-for-defamation-11900630\n[3] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Complaint, Harpole v. Owens, Doc. 1\", 2026-04-30. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.1.0.pdf\n[4] Americans for Transparency, \"Mitch Snow: The Sworn Record vs. the Public Record\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/mitchsnow\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Explainer", "mitch-snow", "harpole-v-owens", "fort-huachuca" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/when-google-added-its-trends-spike-warning", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/when-google-added-its-trends-spike-warning", "title": "When did Google add its warning about one-off Trends spikes? What the archives show", "summary": "Google's written warning about one-off spikes appeared on its Trends help page between April and May 2026. Internet Archive copies from August 13, 2025 and April 20, 2026 do not contain the passage; a copy from May 16, 2026 does. This means the warning postdates the September 2025 shooting, a point that favours those who read the early charts. The older page still described Trends as a sample and showed low-volume terms as zero.", "content_text": "## News Article: When did Google add its warning about one-off Trends spikes? What the archives show\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/when-google-added-its-trends-spike-warning\nType: Report. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: Google's written warning about one-off spikes appeared on its Trends help page between April and May 2026. Internet Archive copies from August 13, 2025 and April 20, 2026 do not contain the passage; a copy from May 16, 2026 does. This means the warning postdates the September 2025 shooting, a point that favours those who read the early charts. The older page still described Trends as a sample and showed low-volume terms as zero.\n\nKey points:\n- An August 13, 2025 archived copy of Google's Trends FAQ does not contain the noise-and-spikes passage.\n- An April 20, 2026 copy still does not contain it.\n- A May 16, 2026 copy does contain it, placing the addition in spring 2026.\n- The earlier page already explained that Trends is a sample and that low-volume terms appear as zero.\n\n### Why the timing matters\n\nA common response to the Charlie Kirk Trends charts is that Google itself warns the spikes are meaningless. That warning is real and is quoted across AFNPT's coverage. But the people who first read the charts in September 2025 could not have seen it, because it was not on the page yet. Honesty about the evidence means saying so. [4]\n\n### What the archived pages show\n\nThe Internet Archive keeps dated snapshots of Google's Trends FAQ. Reading them in order shows when the passage about one-off spikes and statistical noise appeared. [1, 2, 3]\n\nSnapshot date | Contains the one-off-spike warning?\nAugust 13, 2025 | No\nApril 20, 2026 | No\nMay 16, 2026 | Yes\n\nSo the specific sentence now cited to dismiss the charts was added to the help page roughly eight months after the shooting. On the public record, the addition falls between the April and May 2026 snapshots. [2, 3]\n\n### What the older page did say\n\nThe earlier version was not silent about the tool's limits. It already described Trends as a sample of searches, scaled from 0 to 100, and said that terms with very low volume are shown as zero. The underlying behaviour, that rare terms are unreliable, was documented before the warning sentence was added; the plain-language warning about lone spikes was not. [1, 4]\n\n\"These apparent one-off spikes should not be interpreted as real search activity or evidence of individual searches.\" (Google, FAQ about Google Trends data, present on the page by May 16, 2026) [4]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Does the late warning mean the charts were valid in 2025?\nA: No. The tool behaved the same way in 2025; rare-term spikes were already unreliable. Only the plain-language warning sentence is new. Independent tests reach the same conclusion without relying on it.\nQ: Who added the warning, and why?\nA: Google updated its own help page. It has not published a reason on the record AFNPT reviewed. The archives show only when the passage appeared, not why.\n\nSources:\n[1] Internet Archive, \"Google's Trends FAQ as archived on August 13, 2025\", 2025-08-13. https://web.archive.org/web/20250813060034/https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[2] Internet Archive, \"Google's Trends FAQ as archived on April 20, 2026\", 2026-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20260420131240/https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[3] Internet Archive, \"Google's Trends FAQ as archived on May 16, 2026\", 2026-05-16. https://web.archive.org/web/20260516130345/https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[4] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Report", "google-trends-claims", "ana-escobar", "charlie-kirk" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/what-is-the-tppa-tennessee-anti-slapp", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/what-is-the-tppa-tennessee-anti-slapp", "title": "What is the TPPA, and why do both sides invoke it in Harpole v. Owens?", "summary": "The Tennessee Public Participation Act, or TPPA, is the state's anti-SLAPP law. It gives a defendant sued over speech on a matter of public concern a way to ask the court to dismiss the suit early and shift fees, before the expense of full discovery. In Harpole v. Owens, both the Owens defendants and Mitchell Snow filed TPPA petitions, arguing the lawsuit targets protected speech. No court has ruled on them.", "content_text": "## News Article: What is the TPPA, and why do both sides invoke it in Harpole v. Owens?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/what-is-the-tppa-tennessee-anti-slapp\nType: Explainer. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: The Tennessee Public Participation Act, or TPPA, is the state's anti-SLAPP law. It gives a defendant sued over speech on a matter of public concern a way to ask the court to dismiss the suit early and shift fees, before the expense of full discovery. In Harpole v. Owens, both the Owens defendants and Mitchell Snow filed TPPA petitions, arguing the lawsuit targets protected speech. No court has ruled on them.\n\nKey points:\n- TPPA stands for the Tennessee Public Participation Act, the state's anti-SLAPP statute.\n- Anti-SLAPP laws let defendants ask a court to screen out suits that target protected speech early.\n- A successful petition can lead to early dismissal and an award of legal fees.\n- In this case both the Owens defendants and Snow filed TPPA petitions; neither has been decided.\n\n### What \"anti-SLAPP\" means\n\nA SLAPP is a lawsuit that critics say is brought less to win than to burden someone for speaking out. Anti-SLAPP laws give a defendant a fast route to ask a court to test such a suit early. If the speech is on a matter of public concern and the claim cannot meet a heightened showing, the court can dismiss it before the parties spend heavily on discovery, and can order the losing side to pay fees. [2]\n\n### The Tennessee version\n\nThe Tennessee Public Participation Act is Tennessee's anti-SLAPP statute. A defendant files a petition under it; the court then decides whether the suit relates to protected speech and, if so, whether the plaintiff has shown enough to proceed. It is a procedural screen, not a ruling on who is telling the truth. [1]\n\n### How it appears in this case\n\nBoth sides of the defense invoked it. The Owens defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss together with a TPPA petition on August 6, 2026. Snow filed his own TPPA motion on September 7, 2026. Each argues the lawsuit targets speech on a matter of public concern. [1, 3]\n\nLos Angeles Magazine, reporting on the motions, noted the court had not ruled on them. The full-district recusal has left the petitions pending. [2, 3]\n\n\"The court has yet to make a ruling on either of these issues.\" (Los Angeles Magazine, September 15, 2026) [2]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Does a TPPA petition decide whether the Fort Huachuca account is true?\nA: No. It is a procedural screen about whether a speech-related suit can proceed. It does not resolve the underlying factual dispute, which the Owens motion says is for a later stage.\nQ: What happens if a TPPA petition succeeds?\nA: The targeted claims can be dismissed early, and the court may order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's legal fees. If it fails, the case continues.\nQ: Why did both Owens and Snow file one?\nA: Each is a defendant sued over speech, so each can seek the statute's early screen and fee protection. They filed separate petitions, in August and September 2026.\n\nSources:\n[1] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Owens defendants' partial motion to dismiss and TPPA petition, Doc. 31\", 2026-08-06. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.31.0.pdf\n[2] Los Angeles Magazine, \"Candace Owens Moves to Toss Bombshell Lawsuit Accusing Her of Linking Kirk Security Chief to Assassination Plot\", 2026-09-15. https://lamag.com/lawsuits/candace-owens-moves-to-toss-bombshell-lawsuit-accusing-her-of-linking-kirk-security-chief-to-assassination-plot/\n[3] CourtListener / RECAP, \"Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet\", 2026-10-12. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73271589/harpole-v-owens/\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Explainer", "mitch-snow", "harpole-v-owens" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/what-is-harpole-v-owens", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/what-is-harpole-v-owens", "title": "What is Harpole v. Owens, the defamation lawsuit that names Mitch Snow?", "summary": "Harpole v. Owens is a federal defamation lawsuit filed in Nashville on April 30, 2026. Brian Harpole, who led Charlie Kirk's security team, sued Candace Owens, two of her companies and Mitchell Snow. The complaint says they falsely placed Harpole at a Fort Huachuca meeting on September 9, 2025, the day before Kirk was shot. The defendants have moved to dismiss, and no court has ruled on the facts.", "content_text": "## News Article: What is Harpole v. Owens, the defamation lawsuit that names Mitch Snow?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/what-is-harpole-v-owens\nType: Explainer. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: Harpole v. Owens is a federal defamation lawsuit filed in Nashville on April 30, 2026. Brian Harpole, who led Charlie Kirk's security team, sued Candace Owens, two of her companies and Mitchell Snow. The complaint says they falsely placed Harpole at a Fort Huachuca meeting on September 9, 2025, the day before Kirk was shot. The defendants have moved to dismiss, and no court has ruled on the facts.\n\nKey points:\n- Filed April 30, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.\n- Plaintiff: Brian Harpole, who led Charlie Kirk's security team.\n- Defendants: Candace Owens, two of her companies, and Mitchell Snow.\n- The core allegation is that Harpole was falsely placed at Fort Huachuca on September 9, 2025.\n- A complaint is one side's account; no court has ruled on whether it is true.\n\n### Who is suing whom\n\nBrian Harpole, who led Charlie Kirk's security team, filed suit in federal court in Nashville on April 30, 2026. The defendants are Candace Owens, two of her companies, and Mitchell Snow, a retired Army sergeant who spoke on Owens's podcast. [1, 3]\n\n### What the complaint alleges\n\nThe complaint says Owens and Snow falsely placed Harpole at a meeting at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, on September 9, 2025, the day before Kirk was shot. It says Harpole's own travel records put him in Dallas, Texas that day. Those records are not attached to the public filing AFNPT read, and no court has examined them. [1]\n\nIt brings six counts, including defamation, false light, a separate defamation count against Snow, and civil conspiracy to defame. These are allegations by one side. [1]\n\n\"these are all just accusations, not court findings\" (Eugene Volokh, Reason / The Volokh Conspiracy, April 30, 2026) [4]\n\n### Where it stands\n\nThe defendants have moved to dismiss, and the case has not reached any ruling on the facts. As of the docket's October 12, 2026 update, every judge in the district had recused and motions to dismiss were pending. AFNPT's running account of the case is here (https://americansfortransparency.org/news/harpole-v-owens-mitch-snow-case-status). [2]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Is Mitch Snow suing Candace Owens, or is he a defendant?\nA: He is a defendant. The plaintiff is Brian Harpole. Both Owens and Snow are named as defendants, along with two of Owens's companies.\nQ: What is the case number?\nA: Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The docket is public on CourtListener.\nQ: Has a court decided whether the Fort Huachuca claim is true?\nA: No. As of October 2026 no court has ruled on the facts. The pending motions concern jurisdiction and whether the complaint states a legal claim, not whether the account is true.\nQ: What does the plaintiff want?\nA: The complaint seeks damages for defamation and related claims. It argues the Fort Huachuca allegation was false and harmed Harpole's reputation. The defendants dispute the claims and have moved to dismiss.\n\nSources:\n[1] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Complaint, Harpole v. Owens, Doc. 1\", 2026-04-30. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.1.0.pdf\n[2] CourtListener / RECAP, \"Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet\", 2026-10-12. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73271589/harpole-v-owens/\n[3] The New York Times, republished by The Salt Lake Tribune, \"Charlie Kirk's former security chief sues Candace Owens for defamation\", 2026-05-01. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/05/01/charlie-kirks-former-security/\n[4] Reason, The Volokh Conspiracy, \"Candace Owens Sued for Defamation Over Claims of Conspiracy to Assassinate Charlie Kirk\", 2026-04-30. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/30/candace-owens-sued-for-defamation-over-claims-of-conspiracy-to-assassinate-charlie-kirk/\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Explainer", "mitch-snow", "harpole-v-owens", "fort-huachuca" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/what-google-trends-statistical-noise-means", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/what-google-trends-statistical-noise-means", "title": "What does it mean that Google Trends \"adds statistical noise\"?", "summary": "Google adds a small amount of randomness to Google Trends so that individual searches cannot be reconstructed. On high-volume terms this noise is invisible against millions of real searches. On low-volume terms, where the true signal is near zero, the noise can be the largest thing on the chart. That is why a rare term can show a lone spike that does not reflect any real search activity.", "content_text": "## News Article: What does it mean that Google Trends \"adds statistical noise\"?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/what-google-trends-statistical-noise-means\nType: Explainer. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: Google adds a small amount of randomness to Google Trends so that individual searches cannot be reconstructed. On high-volume terms this noise is invisible against millions of real searches. On low-volume terms, where the true signal is near zero, the noise can be the largest thing on the chart. That is why a rare term can show a lone spike that does not reflect any real search activity.\n\nKey points:\n- Noise is added on purpose, as a privacy measure, not a bug in the tool.\n- On high-volume terms the noise is swamped by real searches and does not change the picture.\n- On low-volume terms the noise can dominate, producing spikes that look like real interest.\n- Google says data on these low-volume terms will sometimes reflect noise rather than real search interest.\n\n### Why Google adds randomness at all\n\nSearch data is sensitive. If Trends reported exact figures for very rare terms, it could expose that a specific, unusual query was made in a small place at a particular time. To prevent that, Google mixes in a small, random adjustment. This is a standard privacy technique: it blurs the smallest signals so that no single search can be read back out of the chart. [1]\n\nOn a term that millions search, the random adjustment is tiny next to the real total and changes nothing you would notice. The problem is only at the other end of the scale. [1]\n\n### What happens on rare terms\n\nWhen the real signal is at or near zero, the random part is no longer tiny by comparison. It can be the biggest thing on the line. That is how a flat chart for an obscure phrase can show a single sharp spike that corresponds to no real surge in searching. [1, 2]\n\n\"These apparent one-off spikes should not be interpreted as real search activity or evidence of individual searches.\" (Google, FAQ about Google Trends data) [1]\n\nA Google spokesperson made the same point to ABC News in Australia: for very uncommon terms, Trends may appear to show some search interest even when there were no actual searches. [2]\n\n### How researchers work around it\n\nBecause any one chart carries this noise, people who study Trends do not trust a single pull. A University of Sydney biostatistician has written that accurate results require aggregating many samples, averaging out the randomness to find whatever real signal is underneath. [3]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Is the noise a flaw in Google Trends?\nA: No. It is added on purpose to protect privacy, so that a single rare search cannot be reconstructed from the public chart. It only becomes visible on terms with very little real search volume.\nQ: Does the noise affect popular search terms?\nA: Not in any way you would see. On high-volume terms the real searches vastly outweigh the small random adjustment, so the chart reflects genuine interest.\nQ: How can you tell noise from a real spike on a rare term?\nA: From one chart, you often cannot. Google says low-volume data will sometimes reflect noise. Researchers combine many samples, or look for corroboration, rather than trusting a single spike.\nQ: Did Google always warn about this?\nA: The explicit written warning about one-off spikes was added to Google's Trends FAQ in spring 2026. Archived copies from before then describe the sampling but do not contain that passage.\n\nSources:\n[1] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[2] ABC News (Australia), ABC NEWS Verify, \"Racist and antisemitic false information spreads online following Bondi Beach terrorism attack\", 2025-12-17. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-17/abc-news-verify-misinformation-bondi-terrorist-attack/106150286\n[3] The Conversation, \"How misreading Google Trends is fuelling Bondi attack conspiracy theories\", 2025-12-17. https://theconversation.com/how-misreading-google-trends-is-fuelling-bondi-attack-conspiracy-theories-272251\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Explainer", "google-trends-claims", "ana-escobar", "charlie-kirk" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/was-the-one-in-a-billion-google-trends-claim-correct", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/was-the-one-in-a-billion-google-trends-claim-correct", "title": "Was the claim that the Google Trends spikes had odds of less than one in a billion correct?", "summary": "No. A University of Sydney biostatistician who researches Google Trends addressed the claim directly and said it is incorrect. An odds figure like one in a billion assumes each data point is independent and random in a simple way. Trends data is neither: it is sampled, scaled and carries added noise, and points are correlated. Treating it as a string of fair coin flips produces a dramatic number that the underlying data does not support.", "content_text": "## News Article: Was the claim that the Google Trends spikes had odds of less than one in a billion correct?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/was-the-one-in-a-billion-google-trends-claim-correct\nType: Fact Check. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: No. A University of Sydney biostatistician who researches Google Trends addressed the claim directly and said it is incorrect. An odds figure like one in a billion assumes each data point is independent and random in a simple way. Trends data is neither: it is sampled, scaled and carries added noise, and points are correlated. Treating it as a string of fair coin flips produces a dramatic number that the underlying data does not support.\n\nKey points:\n- The one-in-a-billion figure comes from treating Trends points as independent random events.\n- A biostatistician who studies Trends said that specific claim is incorrect.\n- Trends data is sampled, scaled and noisy, so the independence assumption does not hold.\n- Correct analysis requires aggregating many samples, not a probability built on one chart.\n\nClaims checked:\n1. Claim (A widely shared post about the Charlie Kirk case): The odds of the Google Trends spikes appearing by chance are less than one in a billion, so they must reflect real foreknowledge.\n Finding: Not supported. A University of Sydney biostatistician who researches Google Trends addressed this post and said its claim is incorrect. The calculation assumes each point is an independent random event, but Trends data is sampled, scaled and noisy, with correlated points. The independence assumption fails, so the probability figure does not mean what the post says. [1, 2, 3]\n\n### Where the number comes from\n\nThe one-in-a-billion style figure is produced by treating each spike as an independent coin flip: if the chance of a spike on any given day is small, then several spikes landing on meaningful days multiplies into a tiny probability. That reasoning is only valid if the events really are independent and the per-event odds are known. [1]\n\n### Why it does not hold for Trends\n\nTrends data breaks the assumption. It is a sample, not a full count. It is scaled so the peak is always 100. Google adds noise. And neighbouring points are correlated, not independent. On rare terms, as AFNPT's controls showed, spikes appear routinely with no real interest behind them, so the real per-event probability is nothing like the figure the calculation assumes. [2, 3]\n\nThe biostatistician Jacques Raubenheimer, who studies Google Trends at the University of Sydney, examined a post making this kind of claim about the Kirk case and said its odds figure is incorrect. He added that getting accurate results requires aggregating many samples rather than reading one chart. [1]\n\n\"To get accurate results, one has to aggregate many samples of Google Trends data\" (Jacques Raubenheimer, University of Sydney, in The Conversation) [1]\n\n### What a correct analysis looks like\n\nInstead of one chart and a probability, the sound approach pulls the same query many times and averages the samples, which cancels the noise and reveals whatever real signal exists. AFNPT's control test, running about 1,600 searches, is an example: it showed that spikes on rare terms are common and tell you little on their own. [3]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Does this mean the spikes definitely had no meaning?\nA: No. It means the probability argument offered as proof does not work. The spikes might have mundane causes or none; the one-in-a-billion figure simply cannot establish foreknowledge.\nQ: Who is the biostatistician?\nA: Jacques Raubenheimer of the University of Sydney, who researches Google Trends and wrote about these claims in The Conversation. He said the one-in-a-billion type claim is incorrect.\n\nSources:\n[1] The Conversation, \"How misreading Google Trends is fuelling Bondi attack conspiracy theories\", 2025-12-17. https://theconversation.com/how-misreading-google-trends-is-fuelling-bondi-attack-conspiracy-theories-272251\n[2] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[3] Americans for Transparency, \"The Fort Huachuca guest list, checked\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Fact Check", "google-trends-claims", "charlie-kirk", "ana-escobar" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/the-six-defamation-counts-in-harpole-v-owens", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/the-six-defamation-counts-in-harpole-v-owens", "title": "The six counts in Harpole v. Owens, and which ones name Mitch Snow", "summary": "The complaint in Harpole v. Owens brings six counts: defamation, defamation regarding professional unfitness, false light, a separate defamation count against Mitchell Snow, civil conspiracy to defame, and aiding and abetting defamation. One defamation count is directed at Snow alone, and the conspiracy count names all defendants. Every count is an allegation by the plaintiff; no court has found any of them proven.", "content_text": "## News Article: The six counts in Harpole v. Owens, and which ones name Mitch Snow\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/the-six-defamation-counts-in-harpole-v-owens\nType: Report. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: The complaint in Harpole v. Owens brings six counts: defamation, defamation regarding professional unfitness, false light, a separate defamation count against Mitchell Snow, civil conspiracy to defame, and aiding and abetting defamation. One defamation count is directed at Snow alone, and the conspiracy count names all defendants. Every count is an allegation by the plaintiff; no court has found any of them proven.\n\nKey points:\n- The complaint lists six counts in total.\n- One defamation count is against Snow alone.\n- A civil conspiracy count names all defendants together.\n- All counts are allegations; none has been ruled on.\n\n### The counts, as filed\n\nThe complaint, filed April 30, 2026, sets out six counts. They are the plaintiff's claims; a complaint states one side's case and proves nothing on its own. [1, 3]\n\nCount | Claim | Against\n1 | Defamation | Defendants as pleaded\n2 | Defamation regarding professional unfitness | Defendants as pleaded\n3 | False light | Defendants as pleaded\n4 | Defamation | Mitchell Snow alone\n5 | Civil conspiracy to defame | All defendants\n6 | Aiding and abetting defamation | Defendants as pleaded\n\n### What this means for Snow\n\nSnow is named directly in a standalone defamation count and in the civil conspiracy count that names all defendants. The complaint's theory is that his account falsely placed Harpole at Fort Huachuca and that the defendants acted together to spread it. [1]\n\nThese remain allegations. Snow has moved to dismiss and filed sworn declarations; no count has been adjudicated. [1, 2]\n\n\"these are all just accusations, not court findings\" (Eugene Volokh, Reason / The Volokh Conspiracy, April 30, 2026) [3]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Is Snow named in every count?\nA: No. He is named directly in a standalone defamation count and in the civil conspiracy count that names all defendants. The complaint pleads the other counts against the defendants as a group.\nQ: Have any of the counts been proven?\nA: No. They are allegations in a complaint. As of October 2026 no court has ruled on the merits of any count in Harpole v. Owens.\n\nSources:\n[1] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Complaint, Harpole v. Owens, Doc. 1\", 2026-04-30. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.1.0.pdf\n[2] CourtListener / RECAP, \"Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet\", 2026-10-12. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73271589/harpole-v-owens/\n[3] Reason, The Volokh Conspiracy, \"Candace Owens Sued for Defamation Over Claims of Conspiracy to Assassinate Charlie Kirk\", 2026-04-30. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/30/candace-owens-sued-for-defamation-over-claims-of-conspiracy-to-assassinate-charlie-kirk/\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Report", "mitch-snow", "harpole-v-owens" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/has-any-fact-checker-examined-the-kirk-google-trends-charts", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/has-any-fact-checker-examined-the-kirk-google-trends-charts", "title": "Has any major fact-checking organization examined the Charlie Kirk Google Trends charts?", "summary": "As of October 2026, AFNPT found no established fact-check desk that examined the Charlie Kirk Google Trends charts directly. The closest work is on an identical method used after the December 2025 Bondi Beach attack: AAP FactCheck, ABC News in Australia and The Conversation all tested it and found it unreliable, and AAP noted the same kind of claim was made after Kirk's death. AFNPT's own review fills the direct gap.", "content_text": "## News Article: Has any major fact-checking organization examined the Charlie Kirk Google Trends charts?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/has-any-fact-checker-examined-the-kirk-google-trends-charts\nType: Explainer. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: As of October 2026, AFNPT found no established fact-check desk that examined the Charlie Kirk Google Trends charts directly. The closest work is on an identical method used after the December 2025 Bondi Beach attack: AAP FactCheck, ABC News in Australia and The Conversation all tested it and found it unreliable, and AAP noted the same kind of claim was made after Kirk's death. AFNPT's own review fills the direct gap.\n\nKey points:\n- No AP, Reuters, AFP, PolitiFact or Snopes piece on the Kirk charts was found as of October 13, 2026.\n- AAP FactCheck, ABC News Australia and The Conversation examined the same method after the Bondi attack.\n- AAP explicitly noted similar claims were made after Charlie Kirk's assassination.\n- AFNPT's own review re-ran the Kirk searches directly, which fact-check desks had not done.\n\n### The direct answer\n\nAFNPT searched for coverage of the Charlie Kirk Google Trends charts by the large fact-checking desks and wire services and found none that examined them directly as of October 13, 2026. An absence of coverage is not evidence either way; it simply means the specific charts had not been through that process. [4]\n\n### What was examined: the same method, a later case\n\nAfter the Bondi Beach attack in December 2025, the same kind of Google Trends claim spread, and this time it was checked. AAP FactCheck concluded the search data was static and not a conspiracy, and noted the method had been used after Kirk's death too. [1]\n\nABC News in Australia could not reproduce the spike the posts described, and got pre-attack spikes when it ran the attacker's name in Mongolia, Japan and Kenya, which it said showed the method is unreliable. Its findings line up with Google's own documentation of how the tool behaves on rare terms. [2, 5]\n\n\"Trends data may appear to show some search interest even if there were no actual searches.\" (Google spokesperson, to ABC News (Australia)) [2]\n\nThe Conversation published an analysis by a University of Sydney biostatistician explaining why the method misleads and addressing a Kirk-related post directly. [3]\n\n### Who checked the Kirk charts directly\n\nAFNPT did. It re-ran the Fort Huachuca searches with the original settings, ran about 1,600 control searches, and documented the results. That is the direct examination the large desks had not published. The review is here (https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/). [4]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Did PolitiFact or Snopes cover the Kirk charts?\nA: AFNPT found no piece from PolitiFact, Snopes, the Associated Press, Reuters or AFP on the Kirk charts as of October 13, 2026. That may change; it reflects what could be found at that date.\nQ: If no desk covered it, how do we know the method is unreliable?\nA: Because the identical method was tested on a later case by AAP, ABC News Australia and The Conversation, and because AFNPT re-ran the Kirk searches directly. The conclusions agree.\nQ: Why did fact-checkers cover Bondi but not Kirk?\nA: AFNPT does not know. One likely factor is timing: the method drew mainstream fact-check attention when it resurfaced after Bondi, months after the Kirk posts first spread.\n\nSources:\n[1] AAP FactCheck, \"Bondi attacker search data is static, not a conspiracy\", 2025-12-24. https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/bondi-attacker-search-data-is-static-not-a-conspiracy/\n[2] ABC News (Australia), ABC NEWS Verify, \"Racist and antisemitic false information spreads online following Bondi Beach terrorism attack\", 2025-12-17. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-17/abc-news-verify-misinformation-bondi-terrorist-attack/106150286\n[3] The Conversation, \"How misreading Google Trends is fuelling Bondi attack conspiracy theories\", 2025-12-17. https://theconversation.com/how-misreading-google-trends-is-fuelling-bondi-attack-conspiracy-theories-272251\n[4] Americans for Transparency, \"The Fort Huachuca guest list, checked\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/\n[5] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Explainer", "google-trends-claims", "charlie-kirk", "ana-escobar" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/has-a-court-ruled-on-mitch-snow-identification", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/has-a-court-ruled-on-mitch-snow-identification", "title": "Has a court ruled on whether Mitch Snow's Fort Huachuca account is true or false?", "summary": "No. As of October 2026 no court has ruled on whether Mitchell Snow's account of Fort Huachuca is true or false. The motions pending in Harpole v. Owens concern personal jurisdiction, whether the complaint states a legal claim, and Tennessee's anti-SLAPP statute. Owens's own motion says the Fort Huachuca allegations are reserved for a later stage. AFNPT also found no independent confirmation of the account in filings or news reporting.", "content_text": "## News Article: Has a court ruled on whether Mitch Snow's Fort Huachuca account is true or false?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/has-a-court-ruled-on-mitch-snow-identification\nType: Fact Check. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: No. As of October 2026 no court has ruled on whether Mitchell Snow's account of Fort Huachuca is true or false. The motions pending in Harpole v. Owens concern personal jurisdiction, whether the complaint states a legal claim, and Tennessee's anti-SLAPP statute. Owens's own motion says the Fort Huachuca allegations are reserved for a later stage. AFNPT also found no independent confirmation of the account in filings or news reporting.\n\nKey points:\n- No court has ruled on the merits of the case as of October 2026.\n- The pending motions concern jurisdiction, legal sufficiency and the anti-SLAPP statute.\n- Owens's motion says the Fort Huachuca allegations are for a later summary-judgment stage.\n- AFNPT found no independent confirmation of Snow's account in filings or reporting.\n\nClaims checked:\n1. Claim (Competing posts about the case): A court has ruled that Mitch Snow's Fort Huachuca account is false (or, in other versions, has confirmed it is true).\n Finding: Not supported. As of October 2026 no court has ruled on the merits either way. The pending motions concern jurisdiction, legal sufficiency and the anti-SLAPP statute. Owens's motion says the Fort Huachuca allegations are for a later stage. AFNPT found no independent confirmation of the account and no court finding on it. [1, 2, 3]\n\n### What the court has and has not decided\n\nThe public docket shows procedural rulings only: an order authorizing service by the U.S. Marshals, a scheduling order, the denial of a preservation motion, and the full-district recusal. None of these touches whether Snow's account is accurate. [1]\n\nThe motions now pending are about where the case can be heard and whether the complaint states a claim, not about the truth of the Fort Huachuca allegation. Owens's own motion is explicit that the factual dispute is reserved for later. [2]\n\n\"Plaintiff’s allegations concerning Fort Huachuca will be dealt with in a later motion for summary judgment.\" (Owens defendants' partial motion to dismiss and TPPA petition, August 6, 2026) [2]\n\n### What is known about the account itself\n\nSnow swears he was at the base. Brian Harpole disputes that in full and says his travel records place him in Dallas. Neither side's records have been tested by a court. AFNPT searched for independent confirmation of Snow's account, from the Army, Fort Huachuca or a wire service, and found none as of October 13, 2026. An absence of confirmation is not disproof. [3, 1]\n\n### Why the question stays open\n\nWith every district judge recused and no replacement yet named, the motions cannot be decided, and the factual dispute is formally reserved for a later stage even on the defendants' own filing. The honest answer is that the account is unproven either way. AFNPT's running account is here (https://americansfortransparency.org/news/harpole-v-owens-mitch-snow-case-status). [1, 2]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Has Snow been found to have made a false statement?\nA: No. No court has made any finding about his account. AFNPT's own review found parts of his sworn record supported and one statement contradicted by his own recorded words, but that is a review, not a court ruling.\nQ: Has Snow been vindicated by a court?\nA: No. No court has confirmed his account either. The factual question has not been decided and, on the defendants' own filing, is reserved for a later stage.\nQ: When might a court rule on the facts?\nA: Not until a judge is designated and the case reaches summary judgment or trial. As of October 12, 2026 no replacement judge appeared on the docket, so no timeline is set.\n\nSources:\n[1] CourtListener / RECAP, \"Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet\", 2026-10-12. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73271589/harpole-v-owens/\n[2] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Owens defendants' partial motion to dismiss and TPPA petition, Doc. 31\", 2026-08-06. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.31.0.pdf\n[3] Americans for Transparency, \"Mitch Snow: The Sworn Record vs. the Public Record\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/mitchsnow\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Fact Check", "mitch-snow", "harpole-v-owens", "fort-huachuca" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/does-rerunning-a-google-trends-search-give-the-same-chart", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/does-rerunning-a-google-trends-search-give-the-same-chart", "title": "Does running the same Google Trends search twice give you the same chart?", "summary": "Not reliably. Google Trends draws a new random sample each time a query runs, so the same search with the same settings can return a noticeably different chart from one request to the next. On popular terms the differences are small. On rare terms the spikes can move to different dates or vanish. A chart that cannot be reproduced on demand is not a fixed record of what happened.", "content_text": "## News Article: Does running the same Google Trends search twice give you the same chart?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/does-rerunning-a-google-trends-search-give-the-same-chart\nType: Fact Check. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: Not reliably. Google Trends draws a new random sample each time a query runs, so the same search with the same settings can return a noticeably different chart from one request to the next. On popular terms the differences are small. On rare terms the spikes can move to different dates or vanish. A chart that cannot be reproduced on demand is not a fixed record of what happened.\n\nKey points:\n- Google Trends samples the data anew for each request rather than serving a fixed record.\n- AAP FactCheck documented the same query producing noticeably different charts on different days.\n- AFNPT ran the Fort Huachuca searches hours apart and got different dates for the spikes.\n- Reproducibility is a basic test of evidence; these rare-term charts fail it.\n\nClaims checked:\n1. Claim (Implied by posts presenting the charts as proof): A Google Trends screenshot is a fixed record, so the spike it shows will be there whenever anyone checks.\n Finding: Not supported. Google draws a new sample for each request. AAP FactCheck and AFNPT both found the same rare-term query returning different charts on different runs, with spikes moving dates or disappearing. A reading that changes between runs cannot serve as a fixed record of a past event. [1, 2, 3]\n\n### Why the chart moves\n\nGoogle Trends does not store a single, canonical chart for each query. When you ask for a term, it samples the underlying search logs and builds the chart from that sample. Ask again and it samples again. On terms with lots of volume the samples look almost identical. On rare terms, where a handful of sampled searches drives the whole line, the samples can differ a lot. [1]\n\n### What the checks found\n\nAAP FactCheck tested this directly and reported that running the same search on a different day can produce a noticeably different result, which is why a single screenshot proves little on an uncommon term. [2]\n\nAFNPT ran the Fort Huachuca searches at different times on the same day with identical settings. The spikes landed on different dates between runs. That instability is the expected behaviour of a resampled index, and it is fatal to the idea that any one screenshot pins down a real event. The test record is here (https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/). [3]\n\n### Why reproducibility is the point\n\nEvidence that cannot be reproduced on demand is weak evidence. If the same query, run twice, gives you two different answers, neither answer can be treated as a measurement of what happened. The way to extract a real signal, researchers say, is to average many samples, not to trust the one that was screenshotted. [2]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Does this happen with popular search terms too?\nA: Technically yes, but invisibly. With high volume the samples are nearly identical, so the chart looks stable. The instability only becomes obvious on rare terms with little real search volume.\nQ: Could I reproduce the Kirk spikes myself?\nA: You might see a spike, but not necessarily on the same date, and not every time. AFNPT and AAP both found the results shifting between runs, which is the opposite of a reliable record.\n\nSources:\n[1] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[2] AAP FactCheck, \"Bondi attacker search data is static, not a conspiracy\", 2025-12-24. https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/bondi-attacker-search-data-is-static-not-a-conspiracy/\n[3] Americans for Transparency, \"The Fort Huachuca guest list, checked\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Fact Check", "google-trends-claims", "ana-escobar", "charlie-kirk" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/does-a-spike-to-100-on-google-trends-mean-thousands-searched", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/does-a-spike-to-100-on-google-trends-mean-thousands-searched", "title": "Does a spike to 100 on Google Trends mean a large number of people searched?", "summary": "No. Google Trends never shows how many searches happened. It takes a sample, divides each point by all searches in that place and time, and scales the result so the highest point in your chosen window is always 100. On a term almost no one searches, one sampled search, or added noise, can be that highest point. A 100 proves ranking, not volume.", "content_text": "## News Article: Does a spike to 100 on Google Trends mean a large number of people searched?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/does-a-spike-to-100-on-google-trends-mean-thousands-searched\nType: Fact Check. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: No. Google Trends never shows how many searches happened. It takes a sample, divides each point by all searches in that place and time, and scales the result so the highest point in your chosen window is always 100. On a term almost no one searches, one sampled search, or added noise, can be that highest point. A 100 proves ranking, not volume.\n\nKey points:\n- Google Trends reports relative interest on a 0 to 100 scale, not the number of searches.\n- The 100 is always the highest point in the exact window and region you pick; change the window and it moves.\n- On low-volume terms, Google says the data can reflect statistical noise rather than real search interest.\n- AFNPT re-ran the Fort Huachuca searches and found made-up names also produced spikes to 100.\n\nClaims checked:\n1. Claim (Widely shared posts on TikTok, X and YouTube): A spike to 100 on a Google Trends chart proves that a large number of people searched that term.\n Finding: Not supported. The 100 is only the highest point in the chosen window, scaled from a sample. On a rarely searched term it can rest on one sampled search or on the random noise Google adds. The chart cannot show how many searches were made or whether any were real. [1, 2, 3]\n\n### What the number actually measures\n\nGoogle Trends does not publish search counts. It draws a sample of searches, divides each point by all searches in that place and time to get a share, and then scales those shares so the largest one in your chosen window is 100. Every other point is a fraction of that peak. Pick a different window and a different point becomes 100. [1]\n\nBecause the scale is relative, a flat line that jumps to 100 once tells you only that this was the busiest moment for that term in that window. It says nothing about whether that moment involved thousands of searches or a handful. [1]\n\n\"These apparent one-off spikes should not be interpreted as real search activity or evidence of individual searches.\" (Google, FAQ about Google Trends data) [1]\n\n### Why this matters on rare terms\n\nThe Charlie Kirk charts used very uncommon terms: a tail number, a building name, a person's name, in metro areas far from Utah. On terms like these the sampled share is tiny, so a single sampled search, or the noise Google adds for privacy, can be the tallest bar and read as 100. [1, 4]\n\nAFNPT re-ran the Fort Huachuca searches with the same settings and ran about 1,600 control searches, including invented and cartoon names. Those too produced spikes to 100 on the relevant dates, which is what a relative, sampled index does on rare terms. The full test record is here (https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/). [2]\n\nA biostatistician who studies Google Trends has written that reliable readings require combining many samples, not reading a single chart. [3]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: If 100 is not a count, what is it?\nA: It is a ranking. Google sets the busiest point in your chosen window and region to 100 and scales everything else against it. The same term can read 100 in one window and 12 in another.\nQ: Can two terms both at 100 be compared?\nA: Not directly. Each chart is scaled to its own peak unless you compare the terms in a single query. A 100 for one term and a 100 for another can represent very different numbers of searches.\nQ: Does a higher spike mean the event was more important?\nA: No. It means that term had its relative peak at that moment within the window you set. Importance, volume and intent cannot be read from the height of a Trends line.\n\nSources:\n[1] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[2] Americans for Transparency, \"The Fort Huachuca guest list, checked\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/\n[3] The Conversation, \"How misreading Google Trends is fuelling Bondi attack conspiracy theories\", 2025-12-17. https://theconversation.com/how-misreading-google-trends-is-fuelling-bondi-attack-conspiracy-theories-272251\n[4] Distractify, \"Wild Charlie Kirk Google Trends Conspiracy Theory Raises Major Red Flags\", 2025-10-16. https://www.distractify.com/p/charlie-kirk-google-trends-conspiracy-theory\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Fact Check", "google-trends-claims", "ana-escobar", "charlie-kirk" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/did-the-court-order-evidence-preserved-in-harpole-v-owens", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/did-the-court-order-evidence-preserved-in-harpole-v-owens", "title": "Did the court order phones and devices preserved in Harpole v. Owens?", "summary": "No. On July 6, 2026 a magistrate judge denied Brian Harpole's motion for an order requiring the defendants to preserve phones and devices. The judge wrote that the general duty to preserve evidence already applies once litigation is reasonably anticipated, and that the issue could be raised at the case management conference. An earlier AFNPT page wrongly said the motion had never been decided; that has been corrected.", "content_text": "## News Article: Did the court order phones and devices preserved in Harpole v. Owens?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/did-the-court-order-evidence-preserved-in-harpole-v-owens\nType: Fact Check. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: No. On July 6, 2026 a magistrate judge denied Brian Harpole's motion for an order requiring the defendants to preserve phones and devices. The judge wrote that the general duty to preserve evidence already applies once litigation is reasonably anticipated, and that the issue could be raised at the case management conference. An earlier AFNPT page wrongly said the motion had never been decided; that has been corrected.\n\nKey points:\n- The plaintiff moved for an order to preserve phones and devices.\n- On July 6, 2026 a magistrate judge denied that motion (Doc. 26).\n- The judge said the ordinary duty to preserve evidence already applies without a special order.\n- AFNPT corrected an earlier statement that the motion had not been decided.\n\nClaims checked:\n1. Claim (Online commentary about the case): The court in Harpole v. Owens ordered the defendants to preserve their phones and electronic devices.\n Finding: Not supported. The court did not issue such an order. On July 6, 2026 a magistrate judge denied the plaintiff's motion for a preservation order, writing that the general duty to preserve evidence already applies once litigation is anticipated and that the matter could be raised at the case management conference. [1, 2]\n\n### What was asked, and what was decided\n\nBrian Harpole asked the court for an order directing the defendants to preserve phones and electronic devices. On July 6, 2026, a magistrate judge denied that motion. The ruling is Doc. 26 on the public docket. [1, 2]\n\nThe judge's reason was that a special order was not needed: the general legal duty to preserve relevant evidence already attaches once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, and the preservation question could be taken up at the case management conference. [1]\n\n### What denial does and does not mean\n\nDenying the motion does not mean the defendants are free to destroy anything. The ordinary duty to preserve still applies. It means only that the court declined to issue a separate, formal preservation order at that stage. No finding about the facts of the case was made. [1]\n\n### The correction\n\nAn earlier AFNPT review page stated that this motion had never been decided. That was wrong: it was denied on July 6, 2026. AFNPT corrected the page and logged the change. The corrections log is here (https://americansfortransparency.org/corrections). [3]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Does the denial let the defendants delete evidence?\nA: No. The duty to preserve relevant evidence applies by law once litigation is anticipated. The court simply declined to issue a separate order on top of that duty at this stage.\nQ: Who decided the motion?\nA: A magistrate judge of the Middle District of Tennessee, in an order dated July 6, 2026 (Doc. 26), two days before the full-district recusal.\n\nSources:\n[1] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Order denying motion for preservation order, Doc. 26\", 2026-07-06. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.26.0.pdf\n[2] CourtListener / RECAP, \"Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet\", 2026-10-12. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73271589/harpole-v-owens/\n[3] Americans for Transparency, \"Mitch Snow: The Sworn Record vs. the Public Record\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/mitchsnow\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Fact Check", "mitch-snow", "harpole-v-owens" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/did-mitch-snow-receive-the-fundraiser-money", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/did-mitch-snow-receive-the-fundraiser-money", "title": "Did Mitch Snow receive the money from the \"For Mitch\" fundraiser?", "summary": "On the record available, no. Mitchell Snow has sworn in federal court that he received none of the money raised in the \"For Mitch\" GiveSendGo fundraiser, and the platform records AFNPT reviewed are consistent with that. The page was created by Candace Owens, showed about $151,942 raised when AFNPT read it on October 13, 2026, says it is not accepting donations, and does not state where the money went.", "content_text": "## News Article: Did Mitch Snow receive the money from the \"For Mitch\" fundraiser?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/did-mitch-snow-receive-the-fundraiser-money\nType: Fact Check. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: On the record available, no. Mitchell Snow has sworn in federal court that he received none of the money raised in the \"For Mitch\" GiveSendGo fundraiser, and the platform records AFNPT reviewed are consistent with that. The page was created by Candace Owens, showed about $151,942 raised when AFNPT read it on October 13, 2026, says it is not accepting donations, and does not state where the money went.\n\nKey points:\n- Snow swore in a court declaration that he received none of the fundraiser money.\n- The GiveSendGo records AFNPT reviewed are consistent with that sworn statement.\n- The page was created by Candace Owens, not by Snow.\n- It showed about $151,942 raised on October 13, 2026 and does not say where the money went.\n\nClaims checked:\n1. Claim (Online commentary about the case): Mitch Snow personally received or kept the money raised in the fundraiser set up in his name.\n Finding: Not supported. Snow swore in a court declaration that he received none of the fundraiser money, and the GiveSendGo records AFNPT reviewed support him. The page was created by Candace Owens, not Snow, and does not state where the money went. Nothing on the public record shows Snow receiving it. [1, 2]\n\n### What Snow swore\n\nIn a sworn declaration filed in Harpole v. Owens, Snow states that he received none of the money raised through the fundraiser set up in his name. AFNPT's review of his declarations and the platform records found that the record supports him on this point. [1]\n\n### What the fundraiser page shows\n\nThe GiveSendGo page is titled \"For Mitch\" and was created by Candace Owens, not by Snow. When AFNPT read it on October 13, 2026 it showed about $151,942 raised. The page says it is not accepting further donations and does not say where the money went. [2, 1]\n\n\"This fundraiser is not accepting donations at this time.\" (GiveSendGo page, \"For Mitch\") [2]\n\n### What is not established\n\nThe public record shows that Snow swears he did not receive the funds and that the platform records are consistent with that. It does not show a full accounting of where the money went, because no such accounting has been published or ordered by the court on the docket. That remains unknown. [2, 1, 3]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Who created the fundraiser?\nA: Candace Owens created the GiveSendGo page titled \"For Mitch.\" Snow did not create it. He has sworn he received none of the money it raised.\nQ: How much did it raise?\nA: About $151,942, as shown on the page when AFNPT read it on October 13, 2026. The page is no longer accepting donations and does not state where the funds went.\nQ: Has a court examined where the money went?\nA: No. As of October 2026 no court has ordered or reviewed an accounting of the fundraiser. The available record is Snow's sworn statement and the platform's own records.\n\nSources:\n[1] Americans for Transparency, \"Mitch Snow: The Sworn Record vs. the Public Record\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/mitchsnow\n[2] GiveSendGo, \"For Mitch\". https://www.givesendgo.com/candacepodcast\n[3] CourtListener / RECAP, \"Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet\", 2026-10-12. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73271589/harpole-v-owens/\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Fact Check", "mitch-snow", "harpole-v-owens" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/did-mitch-snow-contact-candace-owens-first", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/did-mitch-snow-contact-candace-owens-first", "title": "Did Mitch Snow seek out Candace Owens, or did she contact him first?", "summary": "The record indicates Owens's side contacted Snow first. In a sworn declaration, Snow states that he did not seek out Candace Owens and that her side reached out to him. AFNPT reviewed his declarations against the available record and found it supports him on this point. No court has ruled on it, and the finding concerns who made contact, not whether Snow's wider account of Fort Huachuca is true.", "content_text": "## News Article: Did Mitch Snow seek out Candace Owens, or did she contact him first?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/did-mitch-snow-contact-candace-owens-first\nType: Fact Check. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: The record indicates Owens's side contacted Snow first. In a sworn declaration, Snow states that he did not seek out Candace Owens and that her side reached out to him. AFNPT reviewed his declarations against the available record and found it supports him on this point. No court has ruled on it, and the finding concerns who made contact, not whether Snow's wider account of Fort Huachuca is true.\n\nKey points:\n- Snow swore that Owens's side contacted him, not the reverse.\n- AFNPT's review found the record supports him on who reached out first.\n- This concerns the sequence of contact, not the truth of the Fort Huachuca account.\n- No court has ruled on the point.\n\nClaims checked:\n1. Claim (Online commentary about the case): Mitch Snow sought out Candace Owens to get himself on her program.\n Finding: Not supported. Snow swore that Owens's side contacted him first, and AFNPT found the available record supports that. Nothing AFNPT reviewed shows Snow initiating the contact. The finding is limited to who reached out first and does not establish whether his Fort Huachuca account is true. [1, 2]\n\n### What Snow swore\n\nIn his sworn declarations in Harpole v. Owens, Snow states that he did not approach Candace Owens, and that her side contacted him. This is one of several sworn statements he has filed in the case docketed as No. 3:26-cv-00556. [1, 2, 3]\n\n### What the record shows\n\nAFNPT compared his sworn statements with the available record. On the question of who made first contact, it found the record consistent with Snow's account: the available evidence points to Owens's side reaching out to him. AFNPT found no material showing Snow initiating the contact. The eight findings are here (https://americansfortransparency.org/mitchsnow). [1]\n\n### What this does not settle\n\nWho contacted whom is a narrow factual point. It does not establish whether Snow's account of being at Fort Huachuca is true, which no court has ruled on and AFNPT could not independently confirm. On other points, AFNPT's review found Snow's sworn record mixed: it supports him on the fundraiser money and on first contact, but one statement about whether he had watched Owens's program is contradicted by his own recorded words. [1]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Does this mean Snow's whole account is accurate?\nA: No. This finding is only about who made first contact. AFNPT could not independently confirm his wider account of Fort Huachuca, and no court has ruled on it.\nQ: Where does the evidence on first contact come from?\nA: From Snow's sworn declarations and AFNPT's review of the available record. AFNPT found the record consistent with his statement that Owens's side reached out to him.\n\nSources:\n[1] Americans for Transparency, \"Mitch Snow: The Sworn Record vs. the Public Record\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/mitchsnow\n[2] CourtListener / RECAP, \"Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet\", 2026-10-12. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73271589/harpole-v-owens/\n[3] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Complaint, Harpole v. Owens, Doc. 1\", 2026-04-30. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.1.0.pdf\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Fact Check", "mitch-snow", "harpole-v-owens" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/candace-owens-motion-to-dismiss-harpole-v-owens", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/candace-owens-motion-to-dismiss-harpole-v-owens", "title": "What does Candace Owens's motion to dismiss argue in Harpole v. Owens?", "summary": "On August 6, 2026, Candace Owens and two of her companies filed a partial motion to dismiss and a petition under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, the state's anti-SLAPP law. The motion argues the complaint fails to state some claims and that the suit targets protected speech. It states that the Fort Huachuca allegations will be dealt with in a later motion for summary judgment. No court has ruled on it.", "content_text": "## News Article: What does Candace Owens's motion to dismiss argue in Harpole v. Owens?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/candace-owens-motion-to-dismiss-harpole-v-owens\nType: Report. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: On August 6, 2026, Candace Owens and two of her companies filed a partial motion to dismiss and a petition under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, the state's anti-SLAPP law. The motion argues the complaint fails to state some claims and that the suit targets protected speech. It states that the Fort Huachuca allegations will be dealt with in a later motion for summary judgment. No court has ruled on it.\n\nKey points:\n- Filed August 6, 2026 by Owens and two of her companies (Doc. 31).\n- It is a partial motion to dismiss plus a petition under Tennessee's anti-SLAPP law.\n- It says the Fort Huachuca allegations are reserved for a later summary-judgment motion.\n- As of October 2026 the court has not ruled on it.\n\n### What was filed\n\nOn August 6, 2026, Candace Owens and two of her companies filed a partial motion to dismiss together with a petition under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, the state's anti-SLAPP statute. The filing is Doc. 31 on the public docket. [1, 3]\n\n### What it argues\n\nThe motion argues that the complaint does not state some of its claims as a matter of law and that the lawsuit targets protected speech on a matter of public concern, which the anti-SLAPP statute is designed to screen. It is a \"partial\" motion because it does not seek to dismiss every count at this stage. [1]\n\nOn the central factual dispute, the motion says the Fort Huachuca allegations are not for this stage. [1]\n\n\"Plaintiff’s allegations concerning Fort Huachuca will be dealt with in a later motion for summary judgment.\" (Owens defendants' partial motion to dismiss and TPPA petition, August 6, 2026) [1]\n\n### What a court has decided\n\nNothing yet. Los Angeles Magazine, reporting on the motions in September 2026, noted the court had not ruled. The full-district recusal eight days before the motion was filed left no judge in place to decide it. [2, 3]\n\n\"The court has yet to make a ruling on either of these issues.\" (Los Angeles Magazine, September 15, 2026) [2]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Does the motion say the Fort Huachuca claim is false?\nA: It disputes the claim, but it asks the court to defer that factual question to a later summary-judgment stage. The motion itself turns on legal sufficiency and the anti-SLAPP statute, not on a factual finding.\nQ: What is a partial motion to dismiss?\nA: One that seeks to dismiss some but not all of the claims in a complaint. The remaining claims would continue if the motion succeeds only in part.\n\nSources:\n[1] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Owens defendants' partial motion to dismiss and TPPA petition, Doc. 31\", 2026-08-06. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.31.0.pdf\n[2] Los Angeles Magazine, \"Candace Owens Moves to Toss Bombshell Lawsuit Accusing Her of Linking Kirk Security Chief to Assassination Plot\", 2026-09-15. https://lamag.com/lawsuits/candace-owens-moves-to-toss-bombshell-lawsuit-accusing-her-of-linking-kirk-security-chief-to-assassination-plot/\n[3] CourtListener / RECAP, \"Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet\", 2026-10-12. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73271589/harpole-v-owens/\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Report", "mitch-snow", "harpole-v-owens" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/can-time-zones-explain-the-google-trends-dates", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/can-time-zones-explain-the-google-trends-dates", "title": "Could time zones explain the dates in the Charlie Kirk Google Trends screenshots?", "summary": "Yes, in part. Google says charts covering seven days or less use the viewer's local time zone, while charts of 30 days or more use Coordinated Universal Time. A screenshot taken in one zone, about an event in another, can place a point hours away from where a reader assumes it falls. That does not explain away every spike, but it does mean a date read off a chart is not exact enough to prove what happened the day before.", "content_text": "## News Article: Could time zones explain the dates in the Charlie Kirk Google Trends screenshots?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/can-time-zones-explain-the-google-trends-dates\nType: Fact Check. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: Yes, in part. Google says charts covering seven days or less use the viewer's local time zone, while charts of 30 days or more use Coordinated Universal Time. A screenshot taken in one zone, about an event in another, can place a point hours away from where a reader assumes it falls. That does not explain away every spike, but it does mean a date read off a chart is not exact enough to prove what happened the day before.\n\nKey points:\n- Short ranges (seven days or less) use the viewer's local time zone; long ranges (30 days or more) use UTC.\n- A point can therefore shift by hours depending on the range and the viewer's location.\n- When a claim depends on something happening exactly one day earlier, an hours-level ambiguity matters.\n- Time zones are one factor; sampling and noise are the larger reasons these charts are unreliable.\n\nClaims checked:\n1. Claim (Widely shared posts on X and YouTube): The Google Trends spikes fall exactly on the day before the shooting, which proves foreknowledge of the timing.\n Finding: Inconclusive. The date a point appears to fall on depends on the chart's time base. Google uses local time for short ranges and UTC for long ones, so a point can sit hours from where a reader assumes. Combined with resampling that moves spikes between runs, a date read off one chart is not precise enough to establish timing. [1, 2]\n\n### What Google says about time\n\nGoogle documents that the time base changes with the length of the date range. Charts covering seven days or less are shown in the viewer's own time zone. Charts covering 30 days or more are shown in Coordinated Universal Time. A long-range chart viewed in the United States is therefore plotted on UTC, which can be several hours ahead of local time. [1]\n\nThat gap matters here. The whole claim rests on points falling the day before September 10, 2025. If a point is plotted in UTC but read as local time, it can appear to sit on a different calendar day than the searches behind it. [1]\n\n### Why time zones are not the whole story\n\nTime-zone handling explains why a date can be off by hours. It does not, by itself, explain why the spikes appear at all. The larger reasons are that the index is a relative sample and that Google adds noise, so rare terms show lone spikes regardless of real interest. Early write-ups of the Kirk charts flagged these red flags too. [1, 3]\n\nAFNPT also found the spike dates moving when the same search was re-run hours later. A reading that shifts between runs, on top of a time base that can be hours off, cannot fix an event to a particular day. The test record is here (https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/). [2]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Does the time-zone issue mean the spikes are fake?\nA: No. It means a date read off a chart is imprecise. The spikes themselves are mostly explained by sampling and noise on rare terms, not by time zones alone.\nQ: How large can the time-zone shift be?\nA: Up to several hours, enough to move a point across midnight into a neighbouring day. The exact amount depends on the date range and the viewer's location relative to UTC.\n\nSources:\n[1] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[2] Americans for Transparency, \"The Fort Huachuca guest list, checked\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/\n[3] Distractify, \"Wild Charlie Kirk Google Trends Conspiracy Theory Raises Major Red Flags\", 2025-10-16. https://www.distractify.com/p/charlie-kirk-google-trends-conspiracy-theory\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Fact Check", "google-trends-claims", "ana-escobar", "charlie-kirk" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/can-google-trends-show-who-searched-from-fort-huachuca", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/can-google-trends-show-who-searched-from-fort-huachuca", "title": "Can Google Trends show who searched a term from inside Fort Huachuca?", "summary": "No. Google Trends reports interest at the level of a country, state or metro area, and nothing finer. It cannot locate a search inside a specific building or base, and it does not record the identity of anyone who searched. A spike attributed to the Sierra Vista area covers a whole region of homes and businesses, not Fort Huachuca, and cannot show that a named person searched anything.", "content_text": "## News Article: Can Google Trends show who searched a term from inside Fort Huachuca?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/can-google-trends-show-who-searched-from-fort-huachuca\nType: Fact Check. Published: 2026-10-14. Updated: 2026-10-14. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: No. Google Trends reports interest at the level of a country, state or metro area, and nothing finer. It cannot locate a search inside a specific building or base, and it does not record the identity of anyone who searched. A spike attributed to the Sierra Vista area covers a whole region of homes and businesses, not Fort Huachuca, and cannot show that a named person searched anything.\n\nKey points:\n- Trends geography stops at the metro-area level; it has no building-level or person-level resolution.\n- The tool records no identities. There is no field for who searched.\n- A metro area around a base includes thousands of residents and businesses unconnected to it.\n- Google says these rare-term spikes are not evidence of individual searches.\n\nClaims checked:\n1. Claim (Ana Escobar): Google Trends spikes for officials' names are a record of who searched those names from inside Fort Huachuca.\n Finding: Not supported. Trends reports interest by metro area, not by building or base, and keeps no record of who searched. The Sierra Vista metro area it would report covers a whole region, not the installation. AFNPT re-ran the searches and found invented names produced the same kind of spikes, which a metro-level, sampled index does on rare terms. [2, 1, 3]\n\n### How precise Trends geography is\n\nGoogle Trends breaks interest down by country, by region or state, and at its finest by designated metro area. It stops there. There is no setting that narrows a result to a street, a workplace or a base, because the underlying data is aggregated well above that level before it is ever shown. [1]\n\nA metro area near a military installation takes in the surrounding towns, homes and businesses. Interest attributed to that area cannot be pinned to the installation, let alone to anyone working there. [1]\n\n### The tool does not store who searched\n\nTrends is built from aggregated, anonymised query data. It has no column for identity. Even Google's own public interface cannot tell you that a particular person ran a particular query; the product is designed so that it cannot. [1]\n\n\"These apparent one-off spikes should not be interpreted as real search activity or evidence of individual searches.\" (Google, FAQ about Google Trends data) [1]\n\n### What happened when the searches were re-run\n\nAFNPT reproduced the Fort Huachuca searches with the same settings and ran roughly 1,600 control searches. Invented and cartoon names produced spikes of the same shape on the same kind of dates. That is the expected behaviour of a relative, sampled index on rare terms, not a sign that anyone searched those names. The test record is here (https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/). [2]\n\nIn a separate case, Newsweek looked for search activity that posters had shared and could not find it, underlining how unstable these rare-term readings are. [3]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Can Google Trends ever show a single building?\nA: No. Its finest geographic unit is the designated metro area, which covers a wide region. It has no building-level or address-level resolution.\nQ: Could a subpoena to Google reveal who searched?\nA: That is a separate question about Google's internal logs, not about Trends. The public Trends tool holds no identities. Nothing on it can name a searcher.\nQ: Why did the same search spike on a made-up name?\nA: Because on rare terms a sampled, noise-adjusted index will often show a lone spike regardless of real interest. AFNPT recorded this on about one rare phrase in three.\n\nSources:\n[1] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[2] Americans for Transparency, \"The Fort Huachuca guest list, checked\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/\n[3] Newsweek, \"National Guard Shooting Suspect's CIA Ties Spark Conspiracy Theories\", 2025-11-27. https://www.newsweek.com/national-guard-shooting-suspect-cia-ties-conspiracy-theories-11120763\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-14T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Fact Check", "google-trends-claims", "ana-escobar", "fort-huachuca" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/harpole-v-owens-mitch-snow-case-status", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/harpole-v-owens-mitch-snow-case-status", "title": "Harpole v. Owens: where the lawsuit naming Mitch Snow stands in October 2026", "summary": "The case is stalled before any ruling on the facts. Brian Harpole sued Candace Owens, her companies and Mitch Snow for defamation on April 30, 2026. On July 8, every judge in the Middle District of Tennessee recused. Three motions to dismiss are pending. No court has decided whether Snow's account of Fort Huachuca is true or false, and AFNPT found no independent confirmation of it.", "content_text": "## News Article: Harpole v. Owens: where the lawsuit naming Mitch Snow stands in October 2026\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/harpole-v-owens-mitch-snow-case-status\nType: Report. Published: 2026-10-13. Updated: 2026-10-13. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: The case is stalled before any ruling on the facts. Brian Harpole sued Candace Owens, her companies and Mitch Snow for defamation on April 30, 2026. On July 8, every judge in the Middle District of Tennessee recused. Three motions to dismiss are pending. No court has decided whether Snow's account of Fort Huachuca is true or false, and AFNPT found no independent confirmation of it.\n\nKey points:\n- The complaint has six counts. One, for defamation, is against Snow alone. A conspiracy count names all defendants.\n- Snow was served on July 20, 2026, after a U.S. Marshals attempt was returned unexecuted.\n- On July 6, 2026 a magistrate judge denied Harpole's motion for an order to preserve phones and devices, saying the ordinary duty to preserve evidence already applies.\n- Snow has filed three sworn declarations. He has not conceded that his identification was wrong.\n- AFNPT found no statement from the Army or Fort Huachuca, and no report by a wire service or fact-check desk, on Snow's account.\n\n### What the lawsuit says\n\nBrian Harpole, who led Charlie Kirk's security team, filed suit in federal court in Nashville on April 30, 2026. The defendants are Candace Owens, two of her companies, and Mitchell Snow. The complaint says Owens and Snow falsely placed Harpole at a meeting at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, on September 9, 2025, the day before Kirk was shot. [2, 1]\n\nThe complaint has six counts: defamation, defamation regarding professional unfitness, false light, a separate defamation count against Snow, civil conspiracy to defame, and aiding and abetting defamation. It says Harpole's travel records place him in Dallas, Texas that day. Those records are not attached to the public filing AFNPT read, and no court has examined them. [2]\n\nA complaint is one side's account. As law professor Eugene Volokh wrote the day it was filed, its contents are accusations, not court findings. [11]\n\n### What Snow has told the court\n\nSnow represents himself. He has moved to dismiss on two grounds: that a Tennessee court has no jurisdiction over a Washington State resident, and under Tennessee's law protecting public speech. He has filed three sworn declarations in support. [1]\n\nAFNPT's review of those declarations found that he swears he was at the base, that he received none of the fundraiser money, and that Owens contacted him first. The record supports him on the last two points. The review also found one sworn statement, about whether he had watched Owens's program, that his own recorded words contradict. All eight findings are here (https://americansfortransparency.org/mitchsnow). [6]\n\nThe Los Angeles Magazine report on the motions noted that Snow's request to be dismissed does not rest on any finding that his claims are true. It turns on where he can be sued. [10]\n\n### What the court has decided so far\n\nVery little, and nothing about the facts. The public docket shows these rulings: [1, 3, 4]\n\nDate | Ruling | Docket entry\nMay 20, 2026 | U.S. Marshals authorized to serve Snow after the plaintiff reported that attempts by a private process server had failed. | 14\nJune 30, 2026 | Owens and her companies given until August 6 to respond. | 23\nJuly 6, 2026 | Harpole's motion for an order to preserve phones and devices is denied. The magistrate judge wrote that the general duty to preserve evidence already applies and the issue could be raised at the case management conference. | 26\nJuly 8, 2026 | All district and magistrate judges recuse. The Sixth Circuit is to designate a judge from outside the district. | 27\n\n\"As all District Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Middle District of Tennessee have recused in this matter, a District Judge from outside the District will be designated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.\" (Chief Judge William L. Campbell Jr., Order of Recusal, July 8, 2026) [5]\n\nThe order gives no reason for the recusals. As of the docket's October 12, 2026 update, no order naming a new judge appears on it. [5, 1]\n\n### What is pending\n\n- Owens and her companies' partial motion to dismiss and petition under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, filed August 6, 2026.\n- Snow's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, filed August 10, 2026. Harpole opposed it on August 24; Snow replied on August 31.\n- Snow's separate motion under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, filed September 7, 2026. Harpole opposed it on September 19; Snow replied on September 28.\n\n### The fundraiser\n\nA GiveSendGo page titled \"For Mitch,\" created by Candace Owens, showed $151,942 raised when AFNPT read it on October 13, 2026. The page says it is not accepting donations. It does not say where the money went. Snow has sworn that he received none of it, and the platform records AFNPT reviewed support that. [12, 6]\n\n### What independent reporting exists\n\nThe New York Times, Newsweek and NewsNation reported the lawsuit when it was filed. The Times described Snow as a retired Army sergeant who said on Owens's podcast that he was an eyewitness, and said he did not immediately respond to a request for comment. None of the three reported independent confirmation of his account. [7, 8, 9]\n\nAFNPT searched for a statement from the Army, Fort Huachuca or the Defense Department responding to the account and found none. It also found no article on Snow's account from the Associated Press, Reuters, AFP, PolitiFact, Snopes or Lead Stories as of October 13, 2026. An absence of coverage is not evidence either way.\n\n### What is not known\n\n- Whether Snow's identification was correct. No court has considered it. Owens's own motion says the Fort Huachuca allegations will be dealt with at a later stage.\n- Which judge will hear the case, and when.\n- Whether any base access records, travel records or photographs will be produced. No court has ordered anyone to produce anything.\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Has a court ruled that Mitch Snow's Fort Huachuca account is false?\nA: No. As of October 13, 2026 no court has ruled on the merits of Harpole v. Owens. The motions pending are about jurisdiction and whether the complaint states a claim.\nQ: Has Mitch Snow's account been independently confirmed?\nA: AFNPT found no independent confirmation in court filings or in news reporting. Brian Harpole disputes the account in full. Snow has not withdrawn it.\nQ: Why did all the judges recuse?\nA: The order does not say. It states only that every district and magistrate judge in the Middle District of Tennessee has recused and that the Sixth Circuit will designate a judge from outside the district.\nQ: Did Mitch Snow receive the fundraiser money?\nA: He has sworn that he did not, and the platform records AFNPT reviewed support him. The fundraiser page was created by Candace Owens and showed $151,942 raised on October 13, 2026.\n\nSources:\n[1] CourtListener / RECAP, \"Harpole v. Owens, No. 3:26-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn.), docket sheet\", 2026-10-12. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73271589/harpole-v-owens/\n[2] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Complaint, Harpole v. Owens, Doc. 1\", 2026-04-30. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.1.0.pdf\n[3] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Memorandum Order authorizing service by the U.S. Marshals, Doc. 14\", 2026-05-20. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.14.0.pdf\n[4] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Order denying motion for preservation order, Doc. 26\", 2026-07-06. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.26.0.pdf\n[5] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Order of Recusal, Doc. 27\", 2026-07-08. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.27.0.pdf\n[6] Americans for Transparency, \"Mitch Snow: The Sworn Record vs. the Public Record\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/mitchsnow\n[7] The New York Times, republished by The Salt Lake Tribune, \"Charlie Kirk's former security chief sues Candace Owens for defamation\", 2026-05-01. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2026/05/01/charlie-kirks-former-security/\n[8] Newsweek, \"Ex-Charlie Kirk Security Chief Sues Candace Owens, Alleging Defamation\", 2026-04-30. https://www.newsweek.com/ex-charlie-kirk-security-chief-sues-candace-owens-for-defamation-11900630\n[9] NewsNation, \"Charlie Kirk's security head sues Candace Owens for defamation\", 2026-05-01. https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/charlies-kirk-security-head-sues-candance-owens-defamation/\n[10] Los Angeles Magazine, \"Candace Owens Moves to Toss Bombshell Lawsuit Accusing Her of Linking Kirk Security Chief to Assassination Plot\", 2026-09-15. https://lamag.com/lawsuits/candace-owens-moves-to-toss-bombshell-lawsuit-accusing-her-of-linking-kirk-security-chief-to-assassination-plot/\n[11] Reason, The Volokh Conspiracy, \"Candace Owens Sued for Defamation Over Claims of Conspiracy to Assassinate Charlie Kirk\", 2026-04-30. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/30/candace-owens-sued-for-defamation-over-claims-of-conspiracy-to-assassinate-charlie-kirk/\n[12] GiveSendGo, \"For Mitch\". https://www.givesendgo.com/candacepodcast\n[13] U.S. District Court, M.D. Tenn., \"Owens defendants' partial motion to dismiss and TPPA petition, Doc. 31\", 2026-08-06. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994/gov.uscourts.tnmd.108994.31.0.pdf\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-13T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-13T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Report", "mitch-snow", "harpole-v-owens", "fort-huachuca" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/google-trends-spikes-before-charlie-kirk-shooting", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/google-trends-spikes-before-charlie-kirk-shooting", "title": "Do Google Trends spikes before September 10, 2025 show someone knew about the Charlie Kirk shooting?", "summary": "No. A Google Trends chart cannot show that. Google says spikes on rarely searched terms \"should not be interpreted as real search activity or evidence of individual searches.\" Fact-checkers and a University of Sydney biostatistician reached the same conclusion about this kind of claim. The charts do not prove that nobody searched, either. They are the wrong tool for the question.", "content_text": "## News Article: Do Google Trends spikes before September 10, 2025 show someone knew about the Charlie Kirk shooting?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/google-trends-spikes-before-charlie-kirk-shooting\nType: Fact Check. Published: 2026-10-13. Updated: 2026-10-13. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: No. A Google Trends chart cannot show that. Google says spikes on rarely searched terms \"should not be interpreted as real search activity or evidence of individual searches.\" Fact-checkers and a University of Sydney biostatistician reached the same conclusion about this kind of claim. The charts do not prove that nobody searched, either. They are the wrong tool for the question.\n\nKey points:\n- Google Trends shows a sample of searches, scaled from 0 to 100 within the window you pick. It does not show how many searches were made or who made them.\n- Google says it adds statistical noise, and that the noise is most visible on terms with little or no search interest.\n- AAP FactCheck and ABC News in Australia tested the same kind of claim after the Bondi attack. ABC got pre-attack spikes for Mongolia, Japan and Kenya.\n- The FBI director said the private plane named in these posts did not turn off its transponder.\n- One point favours the people making the claim: Google added its written warning about noise in spring 2026, after the shooting.\n\nClaims checked:\n1. Claim (Widely shared posts on TikTok, X and YouTube): Google Trends shows that people in the Washington, D.C. and Huntsville, Alabama areas searched for the accused man's name, the building and a plane's tail number before the September 10, 2025 shooting, which means someone knew it was coming.\n Finding: Not supported. The charts are real screenshots of a real tool. What they cannot do is show that a search happened. Google's own help page says one-off spikes on low-volume terms can be statistical noise. Trends also draws a new sample each time, so the same search can return a different chart. A single point at 100 means it was the highest point in that window, not that it was large. [1, 2, 3, 4]\n2. Claim (Ana Escobar): Spikes on officials' names in Google Trends are a log of who visited Fort Huachuca.\n Finding: Not supported. Google Trends reports interest by metro area, not by building or base, and does not record visitors. AFNPT re-ran her searches with her settings and ran about 1,600 control searches. Invented and cartoon names produced spikes on her dates. About one rare phrase in three showed a spike somewhere in the window. [5, 1]\n3. Claim (Widely shared posts on X and Facebook): A private plane, tail number N888KG, turned off its transponder after leaving Provo on the day of the shooting.\n Finding: Not supported. FBI Director Kash Patel said on September 21, 2025 that investigators interviewed the pilot, consulted the FAA and found the transponder was not turned off. He said incomplete flight data in rural areas caused the apparent gap. Lead Stories reported that the plane's owner described a prescheduled flight to Page, Arizona, with two pilots and no passengers. [6, 7]\n\n### What the posts show\n\nIn the weeks after Charlie Kirk was shot at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, posts began to circulate showing Google Trends charts. Each chart had a flat line with one or two sharp spikes dated before the shooting. The search terms were the name of the man later charged, a campus building named in coverage of the shooting, and the tail number of a private plane. The regions were far from Utah, usually the Washington, D.C. or Huntsville, Alabama metro areas. [8]\n\nThe charts are not faked. Anyone can make them. The question is what a spike on one of them means.\n\n[Image: Google Trends chart for the search term \"losee center\" in the Huntsville-Decatur area, August 14, 2023 to September 6, 2025. The line is flat at zero except for one spike to 100 in spring 2025. A chart of the kind being shared: one term, one metro area, a custom date range, and a single spike to 100. The 100 means only that it is the highest point in this window. Screenshot from Baron Coleman's broadcast, September 2025. Shown for the purpose of review.]\n\n### What Google says a spike is\n\nGoogle Trends does not show search counts. It takes a sample of searches, divides each point by all searches in that place and time, and scales the result from 0 to 100. The highest point in whatever window you choose is always 100. Terms with very low volume are shown as zero. [1]\n\nGoogle also adds random noise to protect privacy. Its help page says the noise is always present and is most noticeable on searches with little or no interest. [1]\n\n\"These apparent one-off spikes should not be interpreted as real search activity or evidence of individual searches.\" (Google, FAQ about Google Trends data) [1]\n\nA Google spokesperson told ABC News in Australia in December 2025 that for very uncommon terms, Trends may appear to show some search interest even if there were no actual searches. [3]\n\n### What independent checks found\n\nThe same kind of claim spread after the Bondi Beach attack in December 2025, and it was tested. ABC News could not reproduce the spike the posts described. It did get pre-attack spikes when it ran the attacker's name in Mongolia, Japan and Kenya, which it said showed the method is unreliable. [3]\n\nAAP FactCheck found that Trends draws a different random sample each time a query is run, so the same search on a different day can produce a noticeably different chart. It noted that similar claims were made after Kirk's death. [2]\n\nJacques Raubenheimer, a biostatistician at the University of Sydney who studies Google Trends, wrote that noise can produce strange results on unusual search terms, and that accurate results require combining many samples. He addressed one post about the Kirk case directly, saying its claim of odds of less than one in a billion is incorrect. [4]\n\nAFNPT's own tests point the same way. Using Ana Escobar's settings, about one made-up or rare phrase in three showed a spike somewhere in the window. The same searches run hours apart returned different dates. The full test record is here (https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/tests/). [5]\n\n### What cuts the other way\n\n- Google's written warning is new. Archived copies of its help page from August 13, 2025 and April 20, 2026 do not contain the passage about statistical noise and one-off spikes. A copy from May 16, 2026 does. The warning was added after the shooting. The earlier page did already say that Trends is a sample and that low-volume terms appear as zero.\n- Trends is built from real searches. Google describes it as a largely unfiltered sample of actual search requests. A spike can reflect a real search. The chart alone cannot tell you whether it does.\n- In a later case, Newsweek could not find the spikes that posters shared, but did find a low volume of searches for a suspect's name on two earlier dates. It asked Google whether those could be an error or searches for other people with the same name, and did not report an answer.\n- No one outside Google has the raw counts. Until Google publishes them or a court obtains them, nobody can say how many searches lie behind any one point.\n\n### The dates can be off by hours\n\nGoogle says charts covering seven days or less use the viewer's own time zone, and charts covering 30 days or more use Coordinated Universal Time. A screenshot taken in one time zone, about an event in another, can place a point hours away from where a reader assumes it sits. That matters when the claim is about what happened the day before. [1]\n\n### The plane\n\nMany of these posts tie the search charts to a private plane that left Provo about an hour after the shooting. The FBI director addressed it eleven days later. [6, 7]\n\n\"After interviews with the pilot and consultation with the FAA, we determined the transponder was not turned off. Incomplete flight data in rural areas caused the apparent gap.\" (FBI Director Kash Patel, September 21, 2025) [7]\n\n### What this means for the court case\n\nTyler James Robinson is charged with aggravated murder and six other counts. He has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent. A judge sent the case to trial on September 1, 2026. Nothing in this article is evidence for or against him. The charges and court dates are here (https://americansfortransparency.org/charlie-kirk/court-case). [13]\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Does a spike to 100 on Google Trends mean a lot of people searched?\nA: No. Google scales the highest point in the chosen window to 100. On a rarely searched term, one sampled search, or noise, can be the highest point.\nQ: Can Google Trends show where a search came from?\nA: Only to the level of a country, state or metro area. It cannot show a building, a base or a person.\nQ: Why did a spike disappear when someone ran the search again?\nA: Google Trends draws a new sample for each request. On low-volume terms the result can change between runs. AAP FactCheck and AFNPT's own tests both recorded this.\nQ: Has any major fact-check desk examined the Kirk search charts directly?\nA: AFNPT found none as of October 13, 2026. AAP FactCheck and The Conversation examined the same method after the Bondi attack and said the Kirk claims followed the same pattern.\n\nSources:\n[1] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[2] AAP FactCheck, \"Bondi attacker search data is static, not a conspiracy\", 2025-12-24. https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/bondi-attacker-search-data-is-static-not-a-conspiracy/\n[3] ABC News (Australia), ABC NEWS Verify, \"Racist and antisemitic false information spreads online following Bondi Beach terrorism attack\", 2025-12-17. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-17/abc-news-verify-misinformation-bondi-terrorist-attack/106150286\n[4] The Conversation, \"How misreading Google Trends is fuelling Bondi attack conspiracy theories\", 2025-12-17. https://theconversation.com/how-misreading-google-trends-is-fuelling-bondi-attack-conspiracy-theories-272251\n[5] Americans for Transparency, \"The Fort Huachuca guest list, checked\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/\n[6] Lead Stories, \"Fact Check: Private Jet N888KG Is NOT Part Of Investigation Into Utah Assassination Of Charlie Kirk, As Of September 21, 2025\", 2025-09-22. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2025/09/fact-check-private-jet-n888kg-is-not-part-of-investigative-inquiry-into-assassination-of-charlie-kirk.html\n[7] Fox News, \"FBI Director Kash Patel says agency investigating 'theories and questions' surrounding Charlie Kirk's murder\", 2025-09-21. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-director-kash-patel-says-agency-investigating-theories-questions-surrounding-charlie-kirks-murder\n[8] Distractify, \"Wild Charlie Kirk Google Trends Conspiracy Theory Raises Major Red Flags\", 2025-10-16. https://www.distractify.com/p/charlie-kirk-google-trends-conspiracy-theory\n[9] Internet Archive, \"Google's Trends FAQ as archived on August 13, 2025\", 2025-08-13. https://web.archive.org/web/20250813060034/https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[10] Internet Archive, \"Google's Trends FAQ as archived on April 20, 2026\", 2026-04-20. https://web.archive.org/web/20260420131240/https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[11] Internet Archive, \"Google's Trends FAQ as archived on May 16, 2026\", 2026-05-16. https://web.archive.org/web/20260516130345/https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[12] Newsweek, \"National Guard Shooting Suspect's CIA Ties Spark Conspiracy Theories\", 2025-11-27. https://www.newsweek.com/national-guard-shooting-suspect-cia-ties-conspiracy-theories-11120763\n[13] Americans for Transparency, \"State of Utah v. Tyler Robinson: the seven charges and where the case stands\", 2026-10-13. https://americansfortransparency.org/charlie-kirk/court-case\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-13T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-13T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Fact Check", "google-trends-claims", "charlie-kirk", "ana-escobar" ] }, { "id": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/baron-coleman-ana-escobar-google-trends-methods", "url": "https://americansfortransparency.org/news/baron-coleman-ana-escobar-google-trends-methods", "title": "How did Baron Coleman use Google Trends, and how is that different from Ana Escobar?", "summary": "They used the same tool to reach different kinds of claim. Baron Coleman compared regions, checked a 13-month baseline, and said repeatedly that he did not know who searched or what it meant. Ana Escobar reads spikes on names in one metro area as a record of who visited Fort Huachuca. Coleman's approach is the more careful one. It still cannot show that a search happened, because of how Google builds the charts.", "content_text": "## News Article: How did Baron Coleman use Google Trends, and how is that different from Ana Escobar?\n\nURL: https://americansfortransparency.org/news/baron-coleman-ana-escobar-google-trends-methods\nType: Explainer. Published: 2026-10-13. Updated: 2026-10-13. Publisher: Americans for Transparency.\n\nShort answer: They used the same tool to reach different kinds of claim. Baron Coleman compared regions, checked a 13-month baseline, and said repeatedly that he did not know who searched or what it meant. Ana Escobar reads spikes on names in one metro area as a record of who visited Fort Huachuca. Coleman's approach is the more careful one. It still cannot show that a search happened, because of how Google builds the charts.\n\nKey points:\n- Coleman showed his searches live in a September 2025 stream and told viewers he was making \"no allegation of fact other than what I can show right here.\"\n- He ran the same terms in several regions, checked a 13-month baseline and gave the innocent explanations himself. Escobar searches one metro area and names who she believes the spikes show.\n- One thing they share: both set date ranges that end before the shooting, and both searched many terms without saying how many showed nothing.\n- Those checks narrow the room for coincidence. They do not remove it. Google says one-off spikes on low-volume terms can be noise.\n- When one of his results vanished on air, he asked whether it was being cleaned up. Google's sampling explains a changing chart without anyone deleting anything.\n- Two people who re-ran his searches, one a critic and one who promoted his work, say they could not reproduce them. Coleman concluded the results had been wiped.\n\n### Who they are and what each did\n\nBaron Coleman is a Montgomery, Alabama attorney and broadcaster. On a stream published September 15, 2025, five days after Charlie Kirk was shot, he ran Google Trends searches on air for terms tied to the case. A 16-minute cut of that stream was republished on September 24, 2026. [4, 1, 2]\n\nAna Escobar's work is different in subject and in claim. She searches the names of officials in the television market around Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and reads the spikes as a list of people who visited the base. AFNPT reviewed that claim in full (https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/). [5]\n\n### What Coleman showed\n\nSearch term | Region | Date range | What he pointed to\nUtah Valley University | Washington, D.C. metro | Aug 14 to Sep 9, 2025 | Flat for about three weeks, then a rise in early September and a peak of 100 on September 7.\n\"losee center\" | Huntsville-Decatur, Alabama | Aug 14, 2023 to Sep 6, 2025 | One spike to 100 in spring 2025. Nothing else in two years.\nn888kg | Utah | Seven days around the shooting | A point of 29 at 2:00 p.m. on September 9, then large spikes after the plane was in the news.\n\"tyler james robinson\" | Huntsville-Decatur, Alabama | Seven days around the shooting | A single spike to 100 before the shooting.\nThe name of a man publicly linked to the company that owns the plane | Utah; Washington, D.C. metro; Huntsville | Seven days around the shooting | Single points between September 7 and the morning of September 10, before the plane was in the news.\nThe name of the defendant's roommate, who is not charged with anything | Washington, D.C. metro | Aug 2021 to Sep 2025 | Two spikes in 2023.\n\n[Image: Google Trends chart for the topic Utah Valley University in the Washington, D.C. (Hagerstown) metro area, August 14 to September 9, 2025. The line is flat until early September, rises to about 58, falls, then peaks at 100 around September 7. The university, searched from the Washington, D.C. metro area, with the day of the shooting left out of the range. Coleman offered his own innocent reading on air: \"maybe someone's going to college.\" Screenshot from Baron Coleman's broadcast, September 2025. Shown for the purpose of review.]\n\n[Image: Google Trends chart for the term n888kg in Utah over seven days. A tooltip reads September 9, 2025 at 2:00 PM, value 29. Larger spikes follow from the evening of September 10. The plane's tail number, searched in Utah. The plane is based in Utah. The FBI later said its transponder was not turned off. Screenshot from Baron Coleman's broadcast, September 2025. Shown for the purpose of review.]\n\n### How the two methods differ\n\n | Baron Coleman | Ana Escobar\nWhat is concluded | Nothing, by his own account. He says he does not know who searched or what it means. | That the people named visited Fort Huachuca, and that an Army AI system made the searches.\nRegions | Several, compared with each other: Utah, Arizona, Huntsville, the Washington metro area, the District of Columbia. | One: the Tucson (Sierra Vista) television market, which covers most of southern Arizona.\nSearch type and terms | Web Search, on plain names and a tail number. | Image Search, on long constructed phrases.\nDate range | Ends before the shooting. For the tail number, 13 months of baseline. | January 1 to September 9, 2025. Also ends before the shooting.\nAlternative explanations | Stated on air, each time. | Sometimes qualified with \"allegedly\" or \"in my opinion.\"\nHow many searches were tried | Not stated. He says he \"looked a lot of places.\" | She says \"hundreds and hundreds,\" and kept 43.\n\nThe first row is the one that matters most. Coleman presents the charts as leads to be checked. Escobar presents them as a guest list. A chart of sampled, scaled search interest can support the first use far better than the second. [2, 5]\n\nColeman also explained why he cut the days after the shooting out of his date ranges. Every term tied to the case shot up after September 10, and he wanted to know whether he was looking at statistical noise around the event. For the tail number he went back 13 months in the Washington, D.C. area and reported no interest until about a week and a half before the shooting. [2]\n\n\"No allegation of fact other than what I can show right here.\" (Baron Coleman, stream published September 15, 2025) [2]\n\nThe record is not one-sided on Escobar. AFNPT's review notes that she described Trends as a sampling method herself, that she warned a plain common name proves nothing, and that her date range also leaves out the post-shooting surge. Where the two part ways is in what they say the spikes show. Where she has a point (https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/fair/). [5]\n\nWhen AFNPT ran control terms with her settings, invented and cartoon names produced spikes on her dates. When her own searches were re-run, none of the 31 terms with a known date came back within a day of it. [5]\n\n### Why his results are still inconclusive\n\nColeman's checks answer one objection: that the spikes are just the echo of the news. They do not answer the larger one. On a term that almost nobody searches, Google says a spike can appear with no real search behind it. [6]\n\n\"These apparent one-off spikes should not be interpreted as real search activity or evidence of individual searches.\" (Google, FAQ about Google Trends data) [6]\n\nSeveral of his findings are exactly that shape: one point, on a rare term, in one metro area. A long flat baseline does not make such a point more reliable. Rare terms are where the noise shows most. [6, 8]\n\nLooking in many places also matters. Coleman told viewers he \"looked a lot of places.\" The more terms and regions anyone tries, the more isolated points they will find. In AFNPT's tests with Escobar's settings, about one rare or made-up phrase in three showed a spike somewhere. That rate was measured with her settings, not his, so it is a guide and not a measurement of his searches. [2, 5]\n\nThe seven-day charts add a further limit. Google says charts of seven days or less use the viewer's own time zone. Coleman broadcasts from Alabama and the shooting was in Utah, so the hours on his screen would be Central time unless his device was set otherwise. [6]\n\n### The moment a result disappeared\n\nNear the end of the segment Coleman re-ran a search and the result he had shown was no longer there. [2]\n\n\"It has changed. Are they cleaning it up on the fly?\" (Baron Coleman, stream published September 15, 2025) [2]\n\nHe returned to it in a follow-up stream. A friend had called to say the searches could not be reproduced. Coleman said he tried again with the same dates and regions and found that most of them no longer appeared. [3]\n\n\"They're wiped. The only conclusion I could draw is they were wiped.\" (Baron Coleman, follow-up stream, September 2025) [3]\n\nThere is a documented explanation that does not involve anyone removing data. AAP FactCheck reported that Google draws a different random sample each time a query is run, and that for uncommon terms the same search on a different day can give a noticeably different chart. AFNPT saw the same thing in its own tests: searches run hours apart returned different dates. [9, 5]\n\nThis is the point where a careful method and Google's design collide. A result that cannot be reproduced can be read as proof of tampering or as proof that the first result was noise. The chart cannot tell you which.\n\n### What critics have said about Coleman's work\n\nGary Melton, who publishes as Paramount Tactical, said in a November 2025 video that he entered every one of Coleman's searches with the same settings and never reproduced a result. [10]\n\n\"Google Trends data changes because it's continually recalculated, renormalized and sampled, not because Google is changing history.\" (Gary Melton, Paramount Tactical, November 13, 2025) [10]\n\nJames Li, whose October 2025 video carried Coleman's charts to a wider audience and praised his research, told his own viewers: \"Full disclosure, I did try to replicate these search trends, but I could not.\" Li then relayed claims that the results had been scrubbed, and also read out an explanation that sampling and normalization are overwhelmingly the likely cause. [14]\n\nA write-up that was otherwise sympathetic to Coleman's segment conceded two points: that nothing ties the searches to government offices or media insiders, and that Google's regional scaling can make a small number of searches look large. Distractify, covering the same charts as shared on TikTok, said it checked Google Trends and did not find the searches, and called the theory unproven. [11, 12]\n\nJacques Raubenheimer, a University of Sydney biostatistician who studies Google Trends, used the accused man's full name as a worked example of how rare terms produce isolated spikes. He did not name Coleman. [8]\n\nAFNPT found no report by a wire service or fact-check desk that examines Coleman's charts directly, and no independent reproduction of them, as of October 13, 2026.\n\n### Where Coleman's own framing goes further than his caveats\n\nColeman's caveats are real and frequent. So is a second thread in the same segment. He told viewers he was about to show \"the fact I think that could put it all together for people who want to draw a conclusion,\" and asked what else he would need to search \"if I'm plotting an assassination.\" At one point he referred to \"the roommate of the assassin\" without the word alleged. Tyler Robinson is charged, has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent. [2, 13]\n\nThat does not undo the method. It is a reason to separate what he did, which was careful, from where the segment points, which the data cannot support.\n\n### The fair summary\n\nColeman treated the charts as leads and said so. Escobar treats them as a record. On method, that is a large difference, and it is to Coleman's credit. On what the charts can prove, there is no difference. Without the search counts that only Google holds, a pre-event spike on a rare term is consistent with one real search, with several, or with none.\n\nQuestions:\nQ: Did Baron Coleman claim Google Trends proves foreknowledge of the Charlie Kirk shooting?\nA: Not in the segment AFNPT reviewed. He said he was making no accusation, that the results might be coincidence, and that he did not want to draw a conclusion. He also framed some results as what could \"put it all together\" for viewers who did.\nQ: Is Baron Coleman's Google Trends method better than Ana Escobar's?\nA: It is more careful. He compared regions, checked a long baseline, stated the innocent explanations and declined to conclude. She names who she believes the spikes show. Neither method can show that a specific search happened, because Google Trends reports sampled, scaled data with added noise.\nQ: Why could other people not reproduce Baron Coleman's searches?\nA: Google Trends draws a new sample for each request, and results for low-volume terms can change from one run to the next. A critic says he re-ran every search and reproduced none, and a commentator who promoted the charts says the same. Coleman concluded the results had been wiped.\nQ: Has anyone confirmed the searches Baron Coleman showed?\nA: AFNPT found no independent reproduction of his Washington, D.C. or Huntsville charts as of October 13, 2026. Only Google holds the underlying counts.\n\nSources:\n[1] Baron Coleman (YouTube), \"DISTURBING Google Searches BEFORE Charlie Kirk Shooting - #1\", 2025-09-15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlSC57zqq5c\n[2] Baron Coleman Clips (YouTube), \"They Searched The Building 2 Days BEFORE Charlie Kirk Was Shot\", 2026-09-24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-TQhjLcqNQ\n[3] Baron Coleman (YouTube), \"MORE Disturbing Searches from BEFORE Charlie Kirk Passed Away - #2\". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-p7g7xRFOc\n[4] Yellowhammer News, \"Montgomery talker Baron Coleman out at News Talk 93.1 WACV for possible new radio gig\", 2019-09-13. https://yellowhammernews.com/montgomery-talker-baron-coleman-out-at-news-talk-93-1-wacv-for-possible-new-radio-gig-political-consultant-jack-campbell-to-assume-wacv-timeslot/\n[5] Americans for Transparency, \"The Fort Huachuca guest list, checked\", 2026-10-07. https://americansfortransparency.org/understandinggoogletrends/\n[6] Google, \"FAQ about Google Trends data\". https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4365533\n[7] Fox News, \"FBI Director Kash Patel says agency investigating 'theories and questions' surrounding Charlie Kirk's murder\", 2025-09-21. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-director-kash-patel-says-agency-investigating-theories-questions-surrounding-charlie-kirks-murder\n[8] The Conversation, \"How misreading Google Trends is fuelling Bondi attack conspiracy theories\", 2025-12-17. https://theconversation.com/how-misreading-google-trends-is-fuelling-bondi-attack-conspiracy-theories-272251\n[9] AAP FactCheck, \"Bondi attacker search data is static, not a conspiracy\", 2025-12-24. https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/bondi-attacker-search-data-is-static-not-a-conspiracy/\n[10] Paramount Tactical (YouTube), \"Google Trends is not a Historic Record.\", 2025-11-13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ2IFkq5lIg\n[11] GunsAmerica Digest, \"Charlie Kirk Conspiracy: They Knew It Was Going Down...\", 2025-10-16. https://gunsamerica.com/digest/charlie-kirk-conspiracy-they-knew-it-was-going-down/\n[12] Distractify, \"Wild Charlie Kirk Google Trends Conspiracy Theory Raises Major Red Flags\", 2025-10-16. https://www.distractify.com/p/charlie-kirk-google-trends-conspiracy-theory\n[13] Americans for Transparency, \"State of Utah v. Tyler Robinson: the seven charges and where the case stands\", 2026-10-13. https://americansfortransparency.org/charlie-kirk/court-case\n[14] 51-49 with James Li (YouTube), \"Charlie Kirk Shooting — They Knew BEFORE It Happened?!\", 2025-10-14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX1mn3ijgOc\n\n", "date_published": "2026-10-13T12:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2026-10-13T12:00:00Z", "tags": [ "Explainer", "google-trends-claims", "baron-coleman", "ana-escobar", "charlie-kirk" ] } ] }