Candace Owens vs Andrew Wilson: The Great Debate.

Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson debate the evidence surrounding Tyler Robinson's involvement in Charlie Kirk's death.

Ask about this video. Answers come from its transcript only — with the timestamp, so you can check them.

Generated from the transcript and can be wrong — check the timestamp.

Key Takeaways

Andrew Wilson believes the evidence supports Tyler Robinson as Charlie Kirk's killer.
Candace Owens argues Tyler Robinson is a setup by federal entities, not the killer.
The debate highlights the dangers of conspiracy theories without solid evidence.
Fact-checking and transparency are central to the debate's format.
Respect for Charlie Kirk's legacy is maintained despite differing views.

What the video covers

The debate was prompted by Andrew Wilson's claim on Joe Rogan about offering $300,000 related to the case.
Andrew Wilson argues there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk.
Candace Owens contends Tyler Robinson is a psy-op and did not kill Charlie Kirk.
The discussion includes references to conspiracy theories involving Israel and the U.S. government.
Andrew presents never-before-seen messages from Charlie Kirk expressing fear of leftist threats.
The debate format includes fact-checking teams for both sides to ensure fairness.
The conversation addresses the impact of Charlie Kirk's death on Gen Z and political discourse.
Both parties show mutual respect for Charlie Kirk's legacy despite their disagreements.
The debate challenges conspiracy theories and emphasizes evidence-based arguments.
Audience engagement is encouraged through subscribing and commenting on related channels.

Chapters

What is the main topic of the debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson?

The debate centers on whether Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk or if he was set up as a psy-op, with both presenting evidence and arguments.

How does Andrew Wilson support his claim about Tyler Robinson?

Andrew Wilson presents never-before-seen messages from Charlie Kirk expressing fear of leftist threats and argues there is overwhelming evidence pointing to Tyler Robinson as the killer.

What role does fact-checking play in the debate?

Both sides have teams dedicated to fact-checking claims in real-time to ensure a fair and transparent discussion.

Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown

Speaker A

See that too. Are we live? Okay, so we're officially live. Uh, Candace, Andrew, you know, good to sit down here with you, talking to you guys about the conversation that I think started with you being on Joe Rogan when you said, "Hey, I'm offering $300,000." And for the audience watching this, you have to know when you see this final product, there's a lot of stuff that happens behind closed doors. There was still communication till midnight. Even some of the stuff this morning, like it's like you're trying to sell a company. It's the last 24 hours that the deal doesn't work out, but kudos to the both of you guys that you made it work.

Speaker A

Uh, the topic of discussion today, how this got prompted is Andrew, you said there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk, and Candace, your position was he's a psy. Tyler Robinson is a psy. So, of course, we'll talk about a lot of different things, but that's kind of how the whole thing got started. For the audience watching, I think this is truly for three different people. Number one is anybody out there that loves Charlie, respects Charlie, his legacy, what he did.

Speaker A

Uh, we have a lot of love and admiration for what he did. He changed the lives of many people, uh, young men, young women. You worked with him for many years. You guys were friends. You've said a lot of good things about Charlie, respectful towards him. You guys may have disagreed on some things, but you got a lot of respect for him. The second audience is, um, the folks out there, you that's watching this. And so for you, you've been wanting something like this to take place. And kudos for Andrew for coming out and saying, hey, I want to have this conversation and for Candace to accept it.

Speaker A

Uh, so you have the ability to say I agree, I disagree. Comment all the stuff that you're doing online, and if you want to see more of these things on any of the three channels, subscribe to the Candace Show, the Crucible. I'm sure some of the people from Crucible are watching as well, and the PBD podcast. The more you subscribe to this, the more we're able to deliver these types of conversations to you. And last but not least, it's about the two of you. My goal is to speak as little as possible.

Speaker A

99% of the time it'll be you guys speaking, and the audience will be able to see it. If I jump in, just so everybody knows on the back end, both have agreed in the back there's three people representing Andrew and three people representing Candace to do fact-checking. So at any point if somebody makes a claim, the other can say, "Can we fact check this?" I can jump in and say, "Fact check this." Even the folks in the back can say, "Fact check this."

Speaker A

So it is a very fair conversation that we're having here. And so with that being said, kudos to Michael Nolles. Your name was mentioned a lot. You missed out right now the last 10 minutes. We talked about you. There's a lot of love and respect here mutually from both parties, all three of them here. And then of course the great Joe Rogan that started this conversation and he also volunteered, but it ended up being this format that we have here today.

Speaker A

So with that being said, Andrew, your claim is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. Opening statements, opening comments.

Speaker A

Sure. And what I mean by overwhelming is I just find it very convincing. That's, I think, that's what most people mean when they say overwhelming evidence. So I have a brief opening statement. On September 10th, 2025, Charlie Kirk was murdered. Many of you already know a lot about the events which occurred after Kirk's death. You remember the ghoulish laughter, celebrations, and madness we saw from leftists all over. From TikTok invasions, debates, posts on social media, destruction of memorials, and things like this.

Speaker A

Within weeks of Kirk's death, a cottage industry began to form, peddling various alternative theories on how he died, what special interest may have killed him, what nations were involved, and was our own government one of them? Because this was the first nationwide traumatic event in Gen Z's lifetime, the demand for answers was severe and palpable.

Speaker A

The leading theory from the conspiracy verse is that Israel worked with the United States government to murder Charlie Kirk. Within a day or two of Kirk's death, Ian Kroll claimed that Israel killed Charlie Kirk and the conspiracy caught on like wildfire. This theory was built on one misleading piece of evidence that in his final days on or around September 8th, Charlie sent a text message reading, "Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause."

Speaker A

This was sent in the context of a platforming dispute regarding Tucker Carlson. From this scintilla of misleading information, it was speculated that Israel killed Charlie Kirk because he would have successfully opposed the Iranian war. Now, that's a fun theory, and who doesn't like a good fun conspiracy theory? I like them. But there is no evidence that Israel actually killed Charlie Kirk. And if Candace has some, I'd like her to actually show it to me.

Speaker A

I'm open to suggestions, but to date, there hasn't been any. There is, however, tons of evidence that a leftist killed Charlie Kirk, just as Charlie feared they would. I believe Charlie Kirk, and I have the receipts. No, I didn't have a dream where he came to me and told me that the left killed him.

Speaker A

Uh, no, he didn't come to me in a dream and say Candace Owens betrayed him. That never happened. In fact, I don't need dreams of any kind because I hold in my possession never before seen messages from Charlie Kirk to his security team on September 9th, 2025. I'm going to share the message with you today, which is the first time this information's ever been publicly revealed. On September 9th, Charlie's security team wrote to him, "Yes, law enforcement has been fully supportive and agreed to a security plan and posture. Tomorrow's event will be covered by both my team and the campus PD. If additional support is required, patrol units will be available. I have 11 on site."

Speaker A

Charlie responded with this. "Okay, great. Remind them that they are there for one person's security only because I'm somewhat worried the left is trying to kill me."

Speaker A

That was a message sent September 9th. Whatever could he have meant by that? Well, I think he meant exactly what he said, that he was worried the left was going to try to kill him. Now, we'll discuss this more later on in the debate, and maybe I have more never-before-seen evidence that exposes just how wrong and, in my opinion, idiotic many of these conspiracy theories have been. But that's what happens when you rely on what's called the evidence of the gaps.

Speaker A

In other words, they don't have evidence. They seem to just make up evidence. And what did they make up? Well, in my opinion, kind of whatever lined the pockets. And I think it's ghoulish to profit off of the death of a good man. But we came here today to debate. And so, let's get to it. The debate topic today is one, my belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk.

Speaker A

Two, Candace's belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson was a psy and didn't kill Charlie Kirk. In some, the audience is going to decide who has more evidence supporting their theory. My theory is that the state is correct that Tyler Robinson is the killer, at least based on evidence so far. And Candace's theory that Tyler Robinson is not the killer and he is a patsy set up by the feds.

Speaker A

To be clear, this is not a question of reasonable doubt. If it was reasonable doubt and that's all it was and that's all Candace was proffering, I wouldn't even be here having the debate with her. It's fair to have doubts as a trial has yet to occur and the state hasn't even begun to try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But Candace makes a more forceful claim. She claims.

Speaker A

nationwide traumatic event in Gen Z's lifetime, the demand for answers was severe and palpable.

Speaker A

The leading theory from the conspiracy verse is that Israel worked with the United States government to murder Charlie Kirk. Within a day or two of Kirk's death, Ian Kroll claimed that Israel killed Charlie Kirk and the conspiracy caught on like wildfire. This

Speaker A

theory was built on one misleading piece of evidence that in his final days on or around September 8th, Charlie sent a text message reading, "Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this,

Speaker A

leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause." This was sent in the context of a platforming dispute regarding Tucker Carlson. From this centilla of misleading information, it was speculated that Israel killed Charlie Kirk because he would have

Speaker A

successfully opposed the Iranian war. Now, that's a fun theory, and who doesn't like a good fun conspiracy theory? I like them. But there is no evidence that Israel actually killed Charlie Kirk. And if Candace has some, I'd like her to actually show it to me.

Speaker A

I'm open to suggestions, but to date, there hasn't been any. There is, however, tons of evidence that a leftist killed Charlie Kirk, just as Charlie feared they would. I believe Charlie Kirk, and I have the receipts. No, I

Speaker A

didn't have a dream where he came to me and told me that the left killed him.

Speaker A

Uh, no, he didn't come to me a dream and say Candace Owens betrayed him. That never happened. In fact, I don't need dreams of any kind because I hold in my possession never before seen messages from Charlie Kirk to his security team

Speaker A

on September 9th, 2025. I'm going to share the message with you today, which is the first time this information's ever been publicly revealed. On September 9th, Charlie security team wrote to him, "Yes, law enforcement has been fully supportive

Speaker A

and agreed to a security plan and posture. Tomorrow's event will be covered by both my team and the campus PD. If additional support is required, patrol units will be available. I have 11 on site." Charlie responded with this. "Okay, great. Remind them that

Speaker A

they are there for one person's security only because I'm somewhat worried the left is trying to kill me.

Speaker A

That was a message sent September 9th. Whatever could he have meant by that? Well, I think he meant exactly what he said, that he was worried the left was going to try to kill him. Now, we'll discuss this more later on in the

Speaker A

debate, and maybe I have more never-before-seen evidence that exposes just how wrong and, in my opinion, idiotic many of these conspiracy theories have been. But that's what happens when you rely on what's called the evidence of the gaps. In other

Speaker A

words, they don't have evidence. They seem to just make up evidence. And what did they make up? Well, in my opinion, kind of whatever lined the pockets. And I think it's ghoullish to profit off of the death of a good man. But we came

Speaker A

here today to debate. And so, let's get to it. The debate topic today is one, my belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. too. Candace's belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson was a psy and didn't kill

Speaker A

Charlie Kirk. In some the audience is going to decide who has more evidence supporting their theory. My theory is that the state is correct that Tyler Robinson is the killer, at least based on evidence so far. And Kansas's theory

Speaker A

that Tyler Robinson is not the killer and he is a pathy set up by the feds. To be clear, this is not a question of reasonable doubt. If it was reasonable doubt and that's all it was and that's

Speaker A

all Candace was profering, I wouldn't even be here having the debate with her. It's fair to have doubts as a trial has yet to occur and the state hasn't even begun to try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But Candace makes a

Speaker A

more forceful claim. She claims that there's more evidence that Tyler is not guilty of murder and was set up as a pathy than there is for the state's case. And I just think that that's absurd and she will not be able to

Speaker A

demonstrate that in any way. In fact, she has almost no real evidence at all of her theory. Whereas my theory is supported by compelling witness testimony, physical evidence, multiple confessions, all of which are independently compelling, but which are

Speaker A

even more convincing as each piece of evidence corroborates the others. You'll notice the term overwhelming was included in both theories. This is because Candace demanded I defend my use of that term, which I think is fair, in describing the evidence against Tyler

Speaker A

Robinson. She, on the other hand, only wanted to defend her theory as merely viable. That is until I showed her her clips in which she said she believed the evidence of her theory that Tyler Robinson's a pathy was supported by

Speaker A

overwhelming evidence. Only then did she agree to defend that position. Regardless, we're both defending the claim there's overwhelming evidence on our side. So, it's worth defining that term. When I say the evidence against Robinson's overwhelming, all I'm saying

Speaker A

is that I mean that as of right now, I find it very convincing. I see almost no evidence at all. Only speculation on verified claims and suggestions of things that could merely be hypothetically possible. Dreams, vibes, feelings, things like this. Uh,

Speaker A

almost done. By the way, I have no problem defending the state's case and welcome Candace bringing up any challenges she would like. But if I'm honest, the reason I was willing to pay the $300,000 was this for this debate

Speaker A

was to finally have a chance for someone to demand Candace be held accountable for the unbelievable theories and claims she's been making. Candace's investigation's indistinguishable from a leftist operation. She couldn't be doing more damage to the right if she were

Speaker A

trying. She uses her considerable platform to relentlessly attack one of the most influential conservative outreach organizations for young people.

Speaker A

And she's making a mockery of the online right-wing commentary class. She's harming Republicans in an election year by dividing them. She's attacking the very organization Charlie spent his life building. And she's attacking the people he loved, including his wife. And it

Speaker A

cost me $300,000. But today, I hope that she finally answers for some of that.

Speaker A

Thank you, Andrew. Candace, did you get it out of your system? I did. Okay, great. Well, I'm not going to waste time with the preamble because I think I just want to get to the substance of the debate and I will just

Speaker A

speak to the audience. I I've obviously had an audience since we've been covering this case. People know that there was a personal friendship between me and Charlie. um and diminishing the pursuit of something that makes sense regarding what happened on September

Speaker A

10th by throwing it to this is just people who are conspiracy theorists. These are people who are just trying to generate clicks. I I'm don't think that people should be satisfied by that. I want people to remember that it's

Speaker A

important to think we've been lied to by the government a great many times um over I mean just the last couple of years if you just think of the things that we've learned about our government.

Speaker A

Um, and I do want to say this. What's been the most disturbing element I think for everyone is that not only does the narrative not make any sense, which I'm going to demonstrate. I don't need to waste time at the preamble going through

Speaker A

the points or trying to insult you or pretending that I've been running a podcast saying it's just dreams and vibes like I'm Miss Cleo and that's the reason why it it's taking so many influencers. It looks like a

Speaker A

billion-dollar industry of influencers. Um, to dispute everything Candace says is not because I'm on my platform saying I had a dream last night. I don't think that that I think that diminishes you as a as an argument. Obviously, we had

Speaker A

presented a lot of evidence. You just presented a text message and said, "This is evidence." Well, that's how this entire thing began. Uh you're talking about how Israel got into the conversation. It was because immediately after Charlie died, uh one of the first

Speaker A

things we saw was this push to make us all think and remember how much he loved Israel. It's because the prime minister of Israel, who's fighting like a 27 front war, felt that he needed to come do a little mini tour and to be

Speaker A

strangely to to state that I did not kill Charlie Kirk when nobody um was having that thought that I can remember.

Speaker A

Nobody was going, I wonder if BB Netanyahu killed Charlie Kirk. And then we had a round of influencers who lied and said Charlie was not changing on Israel, that he wasn't having any disagreements regarding that topic, that the day he died he just loved Israel so

Speaker A

much. And I demonstrated via a text message, which you just mentioned, uh, and you're now contextualizing and pretending it was just about Tucker Carlson, which is is not true. It was a part of a broader shift that Charlie was

Speaker A

having over the last I would say actually on your show it began um since October 7th which is when I began asking myself more questions about Israel as well.

Speaker A

Uh and so yeah when all of these things happen in the immediate aftermath and then I drop a text message after everyone is denying that Tucker Carlson then comes out and confirms the conversations that he had with Charlie.

Speaker A

Megan Kelly then comes out and confirms the private conversations that she had with Charlie. People then begin to ask a reasonable question, which is why are we lying about this? If they were forthcoming with that and they had said,

Speaker A

"Hey, yeah, Charlie was starting to ask questions." I think after October 7th, it's reasonable that people are starting to reexamine our relationship uh with Israel. We wouldn't be here today. But it has been lie after lie after lie,

Speaker A

debunk after debunk after debunk. Yes, I did share that I had a dream that Charlie was betrayed. It's not a dream anymore. It's a reality. I look at what the organization has become, the people that they are partnering with, the lies

Speaker A

that they are telling, uh, the extraordinary people that they're sending out to say that I never I hadn't speak to Charlie since 2018. And it begins to look like a conspiracy. And just as a historical fact, that entire

Speaker A

term was created by the CIA to gaslight people after the assassination of JFK. So, it's not exactly one uh that makes me nervous. like calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is essentially saying that they demand further answers.

Speaker A

They're not accepting the feds slop. So, um I'm grateful that you came today. I don't need to, like I said, take cheap shots and uh discuss your manner of debate or your strategy. And I'm also grateful that you shared that you have

Speaker A

that text message today because everybody watching knows that I I have been demanding not a debate, just a open conversation with Turning Point USA.

Speaker A

They should be here. It shouldn't be you in that chair. It should be the person that took Charlie's place. Maybe Erica Kirk, maybe Andrew Kat. He's a spokesperson and rather than doing that, they send us another influencer. So,

Speaker A

let's see how it goes. Just out of curiosity, are you between 0 to 100? What is the likelihood that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed him?

Speaker A

Based on the evidence right now, um I don't know. I'd say 75 85%. Candace, 0%.

Speaker A

0%. I'm at zero. So, with what we've seen in terms of the evidence, I'm at 0%. So not not only you know that maybe somebody was behind him as a pathy influencing him. You're not even saying that he didn't even shoot

Speaker A

Charlie Kirk. I would if you said was he involved that day as I have consistently said on my platform I would say yes he was. I I don't know what role he played but as the shooter 0%.

Speaker A

Do you have any evidence for it? Uh for what? My percentage. The fact that he didn't he didn't shoot and kill Charlie Kirk.

Speaker A

Yes. Which I'm hoping we're going to get to all of the evidence that he feels that he has. I mean, I don't I'm not even convinced that Charlie was shot from the rooftop on Loi that day based on the evidence that has been.

Speaker A

Do you think he was shot? I I do not think that Charlie was shot from a 30 six from just shot at all.

Speaker A

I don't I don't know. I I think that a projectile hit Charlie and I'm open to other people's presentations, but I have not seen any compelling evidence that Charlie was shot by a 30 six. Can we see maybe if we're going to uh have an olive

Speaker A

branch to each other if maybe we can establish what we consider the facts of the case to be first?

Speaker A

Yeah, sure. Okay. So, you don't you you're not sure if he was actually shot. You're open to alternative theories.

Speaker A

He was definitely hit with a projectile of some description. If we're talking about was he shot from a gun, a 306, I would say definitively no.

Speaker A

Okay. It defies it defies common sense to think that he had a Superman neck. And even if he did have a Superman neck, which has been demonstrated, I think actually recently a YouTuber actually set up Spalhalla steel cages and shot it

Speaker A

and it went through. So under no circumstance will I So at least not a 30 six definitively not a 300 ft. No, but you're not necessarily closing off the avenue that he could have been shot at all with maybe a smaller

Speaker A

smaller caliber. Okay. And then um there's some things that I'm going to make concessions on that I do think we need more answers on and I'm fine with that and we can get to those things as well. The other thing is in the

Speaker A

timeline, one of the things that we dispute I think on the timeline is that you think that uh Robinson drove hours away to a steakhouse in the timeline. Is that correct?

Speaker A

Yes. Okay. And what's the compelling evidence that you think you have there? I spoke to the owner of the restaurant.

Speaker A

Um and I u have seen the receipt. I know the conversation that I had and uh I think it's enough that you know it will be presented obviously if this goes to trial but yes I do believe that he was

Speaker A

in Panguage which is near his grandparents home. Did he give you an unedited copy of that receipt?

Speaker A

I have seen an unedited copy copy of that receipt. It was not given to me from the owner. But I want to before you we get into like all the timeline stuff, I want to address what you think is

Speaker A

evidence so we can keep this on par with what your claim is since Well, I think that that's a piece of evidence that's in dispute and that's why I'm Yeah, but we're we're trying to get to whether there's overwhelming evidence

Speaker A

that Tyler Robinson did this. Yeah. If you want to use the first part of that for the internal critique, we should go over the actual evidence that we feel the first reason that I think and I think it's compelling evidence is that

Speaker A

Tyler Robinson's rifle was found uh near the crime scene. So I would consider that to be very good evidence. And also the fact of the matter is is that I dispute this claim that a 306 could not have made this wound. I think that

Speaker A

that's absurd. 150 grain Remington corlocked. absolutely could shatter when it hits the neck of any human being.

Speaker A

When you say that there's some steel neck and it's a smaller caliber, you have to make a counter explanation. Why wouldn't a smaller caliber also go through bone?

Speaker A

It could. I didn't say it can't. Right. Exactly. So, if that's the case, then ammunition is going to be the critical key here. And if we have frangible ammunition, which we do in this case, a flex tip round, well, I'm

Speaker A

sorry, not a flex tip, a soft point round from a 150 grain Remington core lock. It's just a small jacket that goes around the actual lead piece. These that this thing could have split apart in air for all we know, but definitely upon

Speaker A

impact. And we have the medical examiner who confirms this in a summary. And my team can bring that up, the summarization, which means he would have to be a part of some kind of conspiracy as well.

Speaker A

Okay. So, just to start with your point about saying that the gun was found near him, I mean, uh, near Loy Center or I guess off in the woods. that gun. Did you watch the the testimony? Did you I'm

Speaker A

Did you watch the preliminary hearing? Covered it live. Yeah. Okay. So, forgetting what the summary of the medical report was. Did you watch the testimony that was given by the uh Caitlyn Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha Carer, any of those people who went into

Speaker A

the science of Yes, I recall. You're talking about the bullet analysis. Yeah. When they went into the DNA.

Speaker A

Okay. So, that's kind of the most relevant part. Okay. I'm not denying I've never denied on my platform or anywhere else that a gun owned by Tyler Robinson was found near the crime scene.

Speaker A

Right. That doesn't that doesn't remove if you think somebody set up as a psy I you could take a gun out of this room right now and you could walk out and plant it in a woods near a crime scene. That's

Speaker A

not convincing evidence to me. I concur I concur with the fact that that's a possibility.

Speaker A

So you I think have said on a platform that you were a gunsmith. Mhm.

Speaker A

Okay. And for how many years? Many many years. For many years. You also said that you were an army sniper.

Speaker A

I wasn't a sniper in the army. Okay. And I never said that, but Sorry. Your wife tweeted that you were an army sniper.

Speaker A

Yeah. I don't know. Like 15 years ago, she said something. Does it change 15 years later?

Speaker A

She said that it was colloquial. So Army sniper is a colloquial term. Yeah. I'm not an I was never an army sniper.

Speaker A

Okay. Um what did you do in the army? Did you teach She then I corrected and said you taught rifles in the army?

Speaker A

Not. No, I didn't teach rifle. No, I taught rifles as a private citizen. Okay.

Speaker A

Uh, and I was an NRA instructor for many, many, many years alongside my my gun show.

Speaker A

As with your expertise, when she uh gave testimony on the stand, Samantha Carer, that there was dust and there was debris.

Speaker A

Mhm. That was found in the gun barrel. Yep. Uh, and then when we had the person who, and this was, I believe, Caitlyn Oliver, who explained painfully about the DNA, the prince.

Speaker A

Well, let's start with a point. No, I'm not done. You You said something, so I'm I'm going to finish my thought right?

Speaker A

You don't want to do a point in time? No. Well, sure. If you want to respond to I want you to respond to two points.

Speaker A

I want I want you to start with two points. Okay. Dust and debris in the gun barrel.

Speaker A

Yeah. Secondly, the fact that there were five sets of prints, five plus actually by the end of the testimony, five sets of prints, uh, for which we already had the woman who worked for the FBI forensics testify that above two prints,

Speaker A

if you're taking a sample, it it's no longer a science, right? She testified that when they took the sample of what was on the trigger, they saw five plus prints. And among those five plus prints, Tyler Robinson's was the most

Speaker A

degraded. Mhm. So, I would like you to explain how Tyler Robinson's prints could be the most degraded when she said, "Actually, you could have DNA on something that you've touched. You could have DNA on something that you've never touched."

Speaker A

And to get DNA degradation, we've they've looked at pieces um items 20, 40 years on that don't have degradation.

Speaker A

Yet, Tyler Robinson's prints amongst five plus other prints were the most degraded on that weapon.

Speaker A

Yeah. So, let's get into all three of the claims. First with debris. When it comes to debris, firing rifle doesn't always blow the debris out of the barrel.

Speaker A

Okay. That I I You think there could be debris? Uh I'm sorry. Debris and dust.

Speaker A

Yeah. He just fired the weapon. Okay. Not only that, he left it in a forest.

Speaker A

Now, I don't know if if you agree with me, but if you leave a rifle in a wooded area, it's also possible that debris could get in that way. But I'm not even sure that that's what the case is. I

Speaker A

think it's far more likely that he fired the shot. It just didn't blow all the debris out. And it often doesn't. You'll find this if you if you take Grand Papy's, you know, dirty rifle and it's all dusty inside the bore and you go

Speaker A

fire it. You'll often look down the board and there's still dust. Okay. Happens all the time.

Speaker A

Okay. And the prince? Yeah. So, the prince we don't know all of the details on just yet.

Speaker A

We do. It was It was an excruciatingly long testimony. We don't because they haven't gone to trial. So, we don't know uh on the print front, but Tyler Robinson's DNA was on there. You made the claim that Lance Twig's DNA was on there and

Speaker A

it was not. Uh, well, when she gave the testimony. No, hold on. First, let's go to your first point cuz that's wrong. We can get a fact check on that. What do you mean we don't know until it goes to trial

Speaker A

about the degraded prince? She testified and this is the person who who took the prince.

Speaker A

Yes. But the problem is is that inside of this particular testimony, you agree with me that there's going to be much more of the DNA analysis trial, right?

Speaker A

But you also would agree that her fact is not going to change that among the prince, his was the most degraded. So, I'm asking you to address that. How could that be possible? Let's give it um let's just grant this for a second as a

Speaker A

possibility that his fingerprints were degraded. It's not a possibility. It's it's a fact. The person who took I'm just granting it for the sake of argument.

Speaker A

You should grant it because it's a fact. So now So now So now it's granted. So what?

Speaker A

What do you mean so what? Yeah. So what what does that prove? It proves that if his prince were the most degraded amongst five of them, you're going to have to explain how that's possible. If he's the one that

Speaker A

recently fired the weapon. Yeah. So, wait a second. You're saying that it's an impossibility that if his fingerprints are the most degraded, you're the you're the gunsmith.

Speaker A

Wait a second. How would a gunsmith give an analysis on fingerprints or DNA? Do you think that I've worked in a DNA laboratory?

Speaker A

So, your answer is I don't know. You can just say you don't know. You don't have to.

Speaker A

But I did. But I did. No, you said so. What? So, say I don't know. I actually don't have an explanation for that. Candace is my question. Well, I think that what it would prove is that it is a more viable

Speaker A

theory that people who had stronger prints on the gun may have used it more recently.

Speaker A

Did they tell did they say who else had fingerprints on the gun? They named Matt Robinson explicitly and then and this was a part of the testimony where she was speaking about how they got samples of um elimination

Speaker A

samples from the home of Amber Robinson, Matt Robinson, and Lance Twigs. Those were the three names they named. So, are you saying that Twix?

Speaker A

Would you like me to finish my statement? I just want to make sure I'm clarifying.

Speaker A

I'm I'm I'm trying to finish the answer, but it can't be clarified until the answer comes out of my mouth.

Speaker A

Okay. So, go ahead. This was a portion of her testimony where she was explaining how they got elimination samples from the home. And she named Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson, and Lance Twigs as the elimination samples that she was using. Um, and so she explicitly

Speaker A

said she said some of them some, so we can assume two out of the three uh were their prints were found on the gun. She explicitly named Matt Robinson um as someone who had prints on the gun and then said there were five people

Speaker A

that they had taken that sample from. And again, what's also relevant here is the earlier testimony uh which came from uh the FBI forensics analyst. I believe it was on day two where she said that when you're using those mixtures and

Speaker A

those samples and you get up to five plus, it's really hard to make any sort of a determination. So, both of those things are relevant. If you can't explain why his prints are the most degraded and you're saying he is the

Speaker A

shooter, it's not really a so what. It's an open-ended question that people have a right to pursue. It's not a conspiracy. It's actually proof of my claim that there is evidence that he was set up as a pathy.

Speaker A

That wouldn't prove anything about him being a psy. They said it's evidence it to support the claim that he could have been set up as a patchy. So this is why I said earlier, so what because even if it's the case,

Speaker A

this doesn't have an explanation for it yet. That doesn't actually give you any evidence in your corner for Tyler Robinson being a psych.

Speaker A

Hang on, hang on, hang on. I didn't cut you off, right? You would need to actually explain how this would demonstrate Tyler Robinson. This is tied into to Robinson being a pathy. Are you claiming that these fingerprints were Lance Twigs or

Speaker A

that he had any DNA there? I I'm saying that it could be Matt Robinson. It could be Amber Robinson. That sort of information is going to come out during the trial.

Speaker A

How would that tie into the idea that he's a psych? Yes. Because if his is the most degraded prince and the information that I shared on my platform is true that this gun was given to Tyler Robinson as an heirloom.

Speaker A

I had conversation with members of the Robinson family, Twigs family, both of them. You know, like I said, we're not just dreaming. Um, and if we're having those conversations and they told me that that gun was only given to Tyler

Speaker A

Robinson because it was a family heirloom. Okay. So, it was his grandfather's gun or great-grandfather's gun. I don't remember the difference.

Speaker A

Uh, I don't remember which one it was. And so, he got it because he's the firstborn. So, but he's not much of a shooter is what I was told. Uh, and so he has this because he inherited it

Speaker A

essentially. So, if I get something from my grandpa and I put it up on the shelf and I own this, you could see that could be How do we get to the patchy part?

Speaker A

You don't let me ever get to the end of the sentence. So, how could we get to the psy part if I can't get to the end patiently till we get So, that could be a reasonable explanation as to why there was dust in

Speaker A

the barrel because he doesn't often shoot this weapon and he is indeed a fisher. Um, and it could also be a reasonable explanation for why we have Matt Robinson's prints on this.

Speaker A

Obviously, Lance Twigs, even if he has prints on things, they live together. That doesn't really mean anything, but that could demonstrate that somebody took his weapon and put it somewhere.

Speaker A

His prints are the most degraded. somebody else's prints there. There there's more presence of somebody else's prints and that could demonstrate that somebody is taking items from his house and putting it into very but it also could demonstrate nothing.

Speaker A

So the problem the problem that you have here is that this is pure conjecture.

Speaker A

No, this is hang on. This is not evidence that Tyler Robinson is Apache. It's only evidence that you have conjectured up that uh well if it's the case that these are the the more degradated prints then therefore that means must be psy

Speaker A

parents finger dad's fingerprints on gun. Describe how this actually links in to Robinson being a psy.

Speaker A

Okay. I just described that for you so I'm not I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you so I'm going to move on from that. Uh but to just go back to your point about this is not

Speaker A

evidence. uh you can't make that claim because you're the entire basis for why you think that there is evidence for Tyler Robinson being the person that took the shot is based off of a hearing under Utah 1102 rules. Meaning that they

Speaker A

are doing the exact same thing that I am doing. This is the state. You said you're here to represent the state.

Speaker A

Well, did you watch the preliminary hearing? I didn't say I was here to represent the state.

Speaker A

The state's position you think is strong and convincing. What I'm here to do is represent my own opinion which is in your opening statement based on the evidence presented so far by the state. the state has presented evidence under Utah's 1102

Speaker A

rule. But this doesn't demonstrate any patchy. No, that's very important because that rule is hearsay. So you can't say at the same time, Candace, you're not allowed to. And and what that means under the Utah rule, which I'm sure you know

Speaker A

because I'm sure you watched the preliminary hearing and yourself understand what that means is that the entire hearing was hearsay. It means none of that information that was presented is going to be allowed. The majority of it, the overwhelming

Speaker A

majority of it is is not going to be allowed at the trial. They're allowed to present when it's this appropriate hearing.

Speaker A

I don't think all the evidence that was that was put in was hearsay. [laughter] Okay. You didn't watch this case.

Speaker A

But not only that. No, no, no, no. That's this is a huge point. I want you to call for a fact check if all the evidence need more than a fact check. This was every single day.

Speaker A

They want to go there. So, they said they had there's a medical examiner's explanation of the shooting that's in the back. Rob, if you want to pull it up and then Candace, if anybody from your team wants to pull something

Speaker A

up, no problem as well, but they're requesting it. If you guys got it, pull it up uh so we can show it. And in the interim, can is that it?

Speaker A

Yeah. So, I'll read this. Just what are we looking at? Just so we know.

Speaker A

Yeah. So, the this says the bullet or at least part of it sequentially perforated the interior left of Mr. Kirk's neck, strap muscles of the left side of the neck. This is a summary, by the way, uh left common uh carttoid on the left

Speaker A

internal external jugular veins. The bullet also obliterated the left side C27 vertebrae, transacted the cervical spinal cord. Medical examiner observed a significant portion of Kirk's cervical spinal cord was traumatically absent.

Speaker A

Mr. Kirk suffered from other severe injuries including bilateral apical and posterior intercausal hemorrhages, pulmonary apical hemorrhages, multiple disruptions to the thyroid, etc., etc.

Speaker A

So there the summary of the examination is that he was shot. Okay, that was what they were pulling that up for.

Speaker A

Okay. And I don't I'm not disputing that he could have been hit with a projectile. I we're not disputing that.

Speaker A

So, I don't know why this is brought up as a fact check. Uh could you bring up 1102 Utah rule? Cuz this is an unbelievable point that you're making by saying that I am not allowed to infer off of evidence.

Speaker A

You can infer. I'm trying to follow the inference. No, but your your entire reason like you you asserted that you believe there's overwhelming evidence on the basis of what we saw in the preliminary hearing.

Speaker A

The entire preliminary hearing was hearsay. Yeah, I'm fine with your inferences. But no, no, you just literally said I couldn't do that. Yes, I can.

Speaker A

No, I didn't. I'm just saying from your inference, how do we get to Paty?

Speaker A

This is how you got to shooter. The Tyler Robinson did it. The same way you got to Yes, you did. You You again, we This is something important. So, we should pull up a fact check about what the 1102 Utah

Speaker A

and under their constitution for the sake of a preliminary hearing. They do not have to have hard evidence. They don't have to put people on the trial.

Speaker A

But no, no, that's why the entire hearing was basically hearsay. Officer back, not all of it. Like I said, the overwhelming majority I mean outside of the one that you don't that you don't want to give me though.

Speaker A

Outside of No, that is what's in dispute. It means that your entire brand of saying you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence falls apart when the entire preliminary hearing is based off of hearay. In fact, Lance's testimony

Speaker A

before the they had about an hour debate. Actually, maybe it was more than an hour debate before he sat and they said, "This is not going to be allowed.

Speaker A

You wouldn't even be allowed to do this. We'd be able to cross-examine him. Uh the questions that they're asking, Lance, are all leading." And what did he say? Well, I'm the magistrate under Utah Constitution. You know, 11:02 it is my

Speaker A

job to allow all of this so we can see if the state has enough here that we can then move to a trial, which will then they would not allow this stuff. They would say we get to cross-examine Lance.

Speaker A

Lance just will say disputing. No, but the entire substance of your argument is that people can't infer off of evidence. That's what you're saying to me. Yeah. When you say Candace, which is a fact infer off of that Tyler

Speaker A

could have been a py you're just literally making stuff up. So here's what the position is. I'm not rule 112.

Speaker A

Let's pull that up. I am doing exactly what the state did. I am looking at a piece of evidence and I am saying, but you're not showing me how you get there. describe to the audience what rule 112. this just so everybody who's

Speaker A

watching this at home understands what I am saying even if he doesn't what Andrew is arguing is that I don't have the right to extrapolate from a fact like um making it up just purely making it up I'm asking based on can I show my

Speaker A

evidence you just showed yours reliable hearsay reliable hearsay in criminal prelim preliminary examinations the entire uh preliminary hearing that you just saw was on the basis of reliable hearsay And what that means essentially is the people who are making the statements can

Speaker A

just say Patrick told me that he did this on Monday. Patrick's not here. Uh and that is they they can allow that into the hearing. That's just because it's just meant to be probitative. And so it's the state saying here's what we

Speaker A

have inferred. So you are allowed to take a piece of evidence and then you are allowed to infer off of that evidence. Okay.

Speaker A

Case in point. That's a demonstration of to give you that's a demonstration of what I just did. I said the prince were the most degraded off of Tyler Robinson.

Speaker A

And from that, what I am inferring is that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson was set up.

Speaker A

That doesn't that's the point in contention. That's not a point in contention. That's the point in contention.

Speaker A

It's not a point in contention. If you're saying it's a point in contention, it's not the point in contention. I'm telling you that was what the entire hearing allowed for. So the evidence that he is describing that he is using

Speaker A

to argue his case is all based on inference, not fact. Inference, not fact. what they are inferring off of the facts.

Speaker A

We're So again, we're going to take this and I'm just going to even grant it because it's irrelevant. I'm asking how you get to the inference that even if you dispute that piece of evidence, that means psy. I'm looking for the logical

Speaker A

chain for how you get to that inference. What I am telling you is it's the exact same way that when you tweeted, I think that this evidence is overwhelming. When they say that looks like Tyler Robinson's car, he drives a similar car.

Speaker A

Okay. They are inferring that that's Tyler Robinson. Can you walk walk me through the inference so that I understand?

Speaker A

It's it's not a fact. It's not a fact. When you show a blurry image, which you kept citing that we have No, I'm talking about your inference that the fingerprints even if they're degraded equals psy. How do you get that

Speaker A

inference? I didn't say it equals psy. I think it is enough evidence that it should be explored, which is exactly what this preliminary was in the inverse.

Speaker A

That's not well in dispute. What's in dispute is when you said I'm using this as evidence that he could have been a patchy. I'm asking how do you get the inference to Py from that because what I am saying is that it

Speaker A

shows that somebody else had more DNA presence on that gun than Tyler Robinson did. So, it is plausible, which is all they're doing. They're presenting plausibility based off of the facts.

Speaker A

Okay, it is plausible that somebody just took his gun and put it there. That's it.

Speaker A

Is there equally that's how it works? And is there equally 100 other plausible explanations?

Speaker A

I think that's the reason why most people are exploring when things don't make sense. So yes, at the beginning of that this is how this is how the court process works.

Speaker A

If there's 100 other possible explanations, then Candace, why is it that we should go with this idea that it was a pathy?

Speaker A

I I'm not saying that we should go with the idea that it was a pathy. I am saying that there is Oh, I thought that was the whole defense. The your whole claim today.

Speaker A

My whole claim was that there is more evidence that he has set up that he is set up as a psy.

Speaker A

How does that equal evidence of psy? I don't know how many times I can say this like I I'm saying that I am using the exact same mechanism that you are accepting for some reason in the Utah courtroom. Yeah.

Speaker A

Right. To say I'm going to look at the evidence and I'm going to infer an alternative theory. So you just saw the states and you're accepting it and they are they have not presented any concrete facts. You listed on your own Twitter

Speaker A

that what you found to be convincing was something that looked like his car pulled into the driveway. A blurry image. No, I didn't. Standard white guy coming up the steps that could literally be anyone.

Speaker A

This never happened. Can we get a fact check on that? Can we pull up his tweet where he goes over?

Speaker A

I was going to say that's what convinced me. When you you actually didn't say it's what convinced me, but you said this is the evidence that you found to be overwhelming. And you you named I believe actually five things. I think

Speaker A

you said it was his car. Uh, you said it was Well, there's multitudes of things that I find You just said you didn't say it. So, we're gonna get a fact check on that.

Speaker A

You did. Go ahead. Um, you said the blurry images coming up the steps quite literally when Officer Bagley testified.

Speaker A

They talk about when I'm talking about making inference. This is the most I thought was the most absurd testimony I've ever heard. And pardon me, it was actually Hull, David Hull. Uh, they asked him a question. How did you know

Speaker A

the guy in the maroon shirt was the same as the guy that came up the stairs later that was wearing the American flag black shirt? And he said, "They're wearing the same shoes." Why is that absurd?

Speaker A

That's how you decided these two are the same people. Oh, wow. What a scientific.

Speaker A

They're both wearing Converses. Okay, that that's an absurd thing to say. That is not evidence that these are the same people if we're both wearing Converses.

Speaker A

That was what he said. That's what flew on the stand. But I I still don't understand how that would be absurd. If somebody This is an absurd thing. For instance, if somebody were to change their clothes but keep

Speaker A

the same shoes on, wouldn't you utilize the shoes to try to track that person?

Speaker A

If they were the idea that on a college campus, two people wearing this totally different outfits but both wearing Converses can't happen is such an absurdity that I don't even need to like argue that. I'm just going to let people

Speaker A

just concede that point. Obviously, it's absurd to say I know these are the same people because they're both wearing Converse.

Speaker A

Yeah, I'm not sure if in context that's what happened. But even if it is, you can get a fact check on it. But even if it is, um, again, if we're utilizing inferences, when whenever we're dealing with logic and we're dealing with making

Speaker A

a logical inference, we're going to take the entire collaboration of evidence and then we're going to make inferences from that. You would do that with any type of logical proposition. Otherwise, you could never have a true or false claim.

Speaker A

But you just told me I couldn't. So when we're I I never that never happen. You're just making stuff up. So anyway, when we're talking about logical inferences, what I'm looking for is the logical inferences that you have that

Speaker A

Tyler Robinson's Apache based on a totality of evidence that you have. We can keep going through your other evidence, but we should find his tweet where he pleas where he lists the reasons that he was convinced.

Speaker A

Let's start with the 306. I think that that's fine. Your team's looking for Do you remember how long ago that was?

Speaker A

Uh the tweets of the uh five Did you delete it or no tweets? Okay, cool. I just look for he said the it was his car. It was his uh it was the car and it was definitely the

Speaker A

staircase photos and it was when the trial was going on. Okay, she has it. Perfect. If you if you got Skyler has it if you want to pull it up so we can see it.

Speaker A

Somebody said, "So give me the clear evidence right here. I want you to provide it right here. All I heard from the investigator was we believe this to be Tyler Robinson. Is belief something you go as a fact?" You wrote the car

Speaker A

pulling in. That's a totally blur image. um Robinson getting out of it. You have no idea if that's Tyler Robinson. The fact that he is seen four other times on camera, the fact being just a standard white boy with brown hair was seen

Speaker A

getting walking up staircase. The DNA on the roof. We should discuss that. And on the screwdriver that he left behind, it's overwhelming, man.

Speaker A

Yeah, but that's not an exhaustive list. Well, just so we're clear, you did tweet it, but it's not an exhaustive. just 5 seconds ago. You should consider You said I only said this one thing and said that that was overwhelming.

Speaker A

Actually, that's not what I said. It is. You could even pull your own. C Can you Can you check if that was said or not? I did not hear her say.

Speaker A

So, the thing is funny here is like we still aren't getting to any of these inferences. So, these Why are you pivoting? But just say you were wrong. I just wanted to say I was wrong.

Speaker A

I was I'm not wrong. So, back to the tweet the tweet aspect here. It was really funny. That's not an exhaustive list of why I find it important.

Speaker A

I didn't say it was exhaustive. I just said you said it and on top of Well, no, you didn't. You said that I only said this one thing and then said based on that it's over. Well, I didn't. You didn't mention that I

Speaker A

mentioned the screwdriver, DNA, all these other things. You never mentioned any of that. So, no, you're actually incorrect there. But on top of that, moving over to the actual evidence itself.

Speaker A

Are you uh Yes, I'm okay. Anyway, back to the evidence. You're okay. Actually, I'm glad you're asserting that you're okay. I wasn't worried about your health. I'm just saying that I just said you tweeted this. You said no, I didn't. You got a

Speaker A

fact check and now you're like just going to gaslight me and pretend that I said there's no gaslighting. It wasn't exhaustively. I never said that. I just said you did say this.

Speaker A

Zero gaslighting. I didn't say you couldn't have said more. But I would like to address the what you said.

Speaker A

Your time if this is how you want to spend it interrogating my position. You can do it that way.

Speaker A

I'm just addressing what you asserted on your Twitter was like the hard evidence that convinced you was overwhelming.

Speaker A

That's literally your debate. That's not what you said. That's not actually in fact what happened in that exchange.

Speaker A

I was here for it. So what's your position here? Yeah. So my position is that based on all of the evidence which has been demonstrated at least all the evidence to my knowledge that I am actually not seeing um anything that's compelling as

Speaker A

an alternative theory. I'm not seeing anything which is convincing me of something otherwise than what the state is presenting is evidence. That's that's my position. That's what you're asking me.

Speaker A

So just going back to what you did actually tweet, is it fair to like to for me to ask questions about that? Um, that's [clears throat] the only tweet you're gonna ask me about.

Speaker A

Well, we're we're addressing your claim that the evidence is overwhelming, and this is a tweet where you listed what you felt was overwhelming. I think that's fair. I feel like that's fair, but not exhaustive, just so you know.

Speaker A

I and I never said it was exhaustive, even though you said I did. Sure. Whatever you want.

Speaker A

Um, but yeah, so going back to that, all of that, as you say to me, well, Candace, why are you addressing and making inferences off of the testimony?

Speaker A

No, I never never asked you why you're making inferences. I asked you how with the inference you made, you got to the conclusion.

Speaker A

Okay. So, I would like to know how you got to the conclusion. Uh, and I'm just gonna throw it right back at you because for some reason you permit yourself to do it and that's what I'm demonstrating is that you permit yourself to do it and

Speaker A

then you say when I do it, it's a conspiracy right? No. How are you able to infer off of blurry staircase images that that is Tyler Robinson?

Speaker A

Yeah. So, in that particular case, what you do is you take that evidence, you combine it with other evidence. So, it's not just that Tyler Robinson is seen in the staircase.

Speaker A

Why are you calling him Tyler Robinson in the staircase? That's what I want to get to.

Speaker A

Yeah. Because I mean, we'll just use this. If you don't agree that that's Tyler Robinson, then you would just have to humor me. I think it is. So, I'm using the name.

Speaker A

But why do you think it is? Cuz you make everybody literally what I'm trying to explain to you. Okay.

Speaker A

So, if you're asking for my inference why I think it's Tyler Robinson is because a Tyler Robinson said in his text messages, you you'll be able to see me on security footage at the campus.

Speaker A

Said it in his own messages. On top of that, twigs. Yes, you can pull them up if you want to fact check that. He did say on top I'm sorry. I actually think I really did miss that. I'm not saying you're wrong.

Speaker A

I just I don't remember him saying, "You're going to see me in parano." And by the way, um Twigs himself said that he had me on the staircase that he had some um maybe a tiny bit of doubt,

Speaker A

but it sure looked like Tyler Robinson inside of this various uh surveillance footage that he saw.

Speaker A

Sorry. There's hang on hang on. So, there's multi there's multiple reasons why it is that I believe that that's Tyler Robinson, not just because of blurry footage.

Speaker A

Did you have a dream? Just kidding. No, it's because I combined multitudes of evidences.

Speaker A

Okay. Uh, so let's address those multitude of evidences. The first one we're working on a fact check on because I I do not ever remember him tweeting that's me in the stair. I mean, or tweet texting that that's me in the staircase.

Speaker A

I think that I I I didn't say I didn't say that. I said he I literally didn't. What I said is that he texted over, "You'll be able to see me in footage at the at UVU." And I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he

Speaker A

said. Yeah. Could we get a fact check on that? The second thing you said was Lance's testimony where, and actually what Lance says is, "I'm not 100%." I agree.

Speaker A

But in terms of what he wears, again, me pointing out the absurdity, uh, he wears Converses, he wears sneakers. If his boyfriend is not 100%, I'd like to understand why Andrew Wilson is overwhelmed by it. That's what I'm

Speaker A

trying to get to. And lastly, I would like to remind you about Lance's statement would not be permitted. This was a huge part of the preliminary hearing that they were leading. All the questions that were ask asked of him

Speaker A

were leading. So they would be struck down at the actual trial. And also I would like to remind you that he got use immunity for that use immunity.

Speaker A

I understand which means like that happens by the way all the time in these and I'm wondering why it particularly happened for Lance in this testimony.

Speaker A

And I would also like to point out that something that's remarkable about this, again leaning to my perspective that Lance has a lot more uh which I have said many times, Lance has a lot more involvement than the feds are are um

Speaker A

letting us know. I think more is going to come out because they interviewed him on September 11th and then for whatever reason, just ahead of what was supposed to be slated as the preliminary hearing, which was initially supposed to be in May, they bring him

Speaker A

back to do this interview, which in my opinion should have never been allowed. And I I actually agree with the defense that it's a violation of his constitutional rights, not to allow them to have cross-examined him. But I

Speaker A

understand Utah 1102. Do what you do. It's all hearsay. Uh but to allow it in that way for him to just be able to also have use immunity knowing that he's not going to be he's not going to get in

Speaker A

trouble. He could literally get up there and lie about anything and he's not going to get in trouble because the use immunity was given to him in April. I believe April 28th is when they uh gave that testimony to the defense. I think

Speaker A

they shot it in like April 20th of 2026. That is not compelling to me for somebody who has use immunity to give a testimony and to say I'm not really sure but definitely like he wears jeans and stuff.

Speaker A

That's not what he said. He did actually. You can get a fact check on that. I think he said more than so so a couple things we have. We have rule 801 Tyler's messages that says it's not hearsay. But first go to what

Speaker A

Candace is asking about Skylar. I think you have it. You just texted me if you want to pull it up. You said you have the text if we can uh put that up on the screen. Thank you.

Speaker A

It was me. Look at the pictures from the surveillance footage. [clears throat] It was me. Okay. I literally said to you, it's not an oof. I said I didn't remember this and I'm I'm happy to have a fact check on that. Okay. That I I

Speaker A

didn't call for the fact check saying you're wrong. I literally said I don't remember that from the time.

Speaker A

I'm just saying to you like I'm trying to be concise for you. And then also bring the 801 that you just said. What was the other one?

Speaker A

Yep. The 801. Uh Tyler messages saying it's not hearsay. If you have that as won't.

Speaker A

There you go. Wait, what are we saying? It's not here. Not hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay.

Speaker A

It was hearsay. They said it in the trial. Hang on. Hang on. Okay. Okay.

Speaker A

uh uh is consistent with the decorant's testimony and the declarant denies having made the statement or has forgotten or is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut express implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated or acted

Speaker A

in recent improper influence or motive in testifying. So then wouldn't that mean that a bunch of this wasn't hearsay? It so the issue with his I just want to make sure would that make would that mean that a bunch of this

Speaker A

wasn't hearsay? Uh so the opposing party which down the line like I said they talked about this for about an hour and a half and they discussed how if Lance was in court and he was giving his first

Speaker A

party you know giving his testimony as the opposing party whatever all of this would be fine. They had an issue with how the questions were being asked and that they were not allowed to cross-examine him. So that is why his

Speaker A

video testimony would not be accepted in the main trial. And what I said to you is this entire preliminary hearing is under Utah's 1102. So they are allowed to just use hearsay.

Speaker A

No, you didn't say that. You said most of it was hearsay actually. Yeah. The overwhelming majority.

Speaker A

Well, I mean, and that's I'm I'm leaning now into my opinion that some scientific aspects which they kept asserting like the federal rule 403 or 402.

Speaker A

Some of those parts were quite sound like you're backtracking quite a bit. No, I'm not backtracking at all. What do you feel like? Let me help you. Where do you feel like I'm backtracking? It was It literally was done under Utah's 112.

Speaker A

Yeah. Nobody disputed that. What the dispute was is whether or not most of it was overwhelmingly hearsay. Is that the case?

Speaker A

Yes, it was. Yes, that's a fact. I'm not backtracking on that at all. How many times did I you watch here? It's like they constantly I'm 11:02 11:02 11:02 11:02 11:02. And the reason for that is because it's

Speaker A

allowed. I'm not saying it's illegal. It's allowed at this stage. But I'm just reminding you that when you're going to sit across from someone and your claim is going to be where is your hard evidence? This is what I heard and I

Speaker A

agree with what I'm watching. you are watching the state put on a hearsay preliminary hearing and that and all of those things are not going to be allowed, right? Even when they got into witness statements and things of that

Speaker A

nature, there's a reason why they swear you in and they say, "You swear of us the truth, the whole truth. Did you, you know, write this statement?" So, it's the overwhelming majority of what you saw was hearsay because other

Speaker A

people were representing other people's statements. They were saying they had conversations. We don't know where it came from. All allowed at this stage, okay? But it's hearsay. So, but even a lot of that stuff may not [snorts] fall under hearsay under what

Speaker A

we just read, right? But the evidence that you're speaking about like when you're just when you say that we're going off vibes, you don't know Tyler Robinson. Okay.

Speaker A

His boyfriend is not 100% it was him. So, I'm going back to your points that you made that this was overwhelming evidence for you. That doesn't make sense to me.

Speaker A

Well, overwhelming just means you can't consider another option that there could have been another white guy wearing Converses on campus.

Speaker A

Yeah. Do you agree with me that I said that? What overwhelming means to me is that it's just very convincing to me.

Speaker A

Yeah. And I find it to be completely unconvincing. That's fair. I understand that. I looked at those blurry photos that they presented and said your your statement on right now is that he's wearing Converses and he also That's just crazy.

Speaker A

These aren't the evidences that I find the most convincing. Well, you said that in your Twitter.

Speaker A

That's not the only thing I've ever said on my Twitter about this case. Right. But the question that was asked of you was pretty direct. Yeah. Right.

Speaker A

What What did you find? This is not an exhaustive list of all the things.

Speaker A

That's not what you said in the tweet. You can tweet longer, too. It's not like we're limited now to 240 characters.

Speaker A

So, wait. So, anything that I tweet and all other tweets that I've ever made are now excluded because I used the word overwhelming in this one. Even though all of this information, I've said so publicly over and over and over again,

Speaker A

is what informs my position for why I'm convinced on the case. That's bizarre to me.

Speaker A

I feel like this is Andrew versus Andrew. Somebody asked you a question. What are the points that you find to be the you know the most overwhelming and you answered you mean from that day from that particular day of the hearing that I was

Speaker A

responding to do okay is there something you have do you find to be more overwhelming let me ask that question okay go ahead go on what do you find to be more overwhelming yeah can we do this do we want to get

Speaker A

into it or do we know do we want to do a quick ad break are you guys good to keep going or I'm I'm fine to keep going but we we can also Would you like to take a quick break or

Speaker A

doesn't matter to me either way if we're going into a different topic that may be another 30 minutes 40 I don't want to stop you guys in the middle of what you find to be more overwhelming.

Speaker A

Yeah. Yeah. So, if we're the for me, it's the confessions, the text messages, all of that is what I consider to be uh from my opinion that's the most convincing for me.

Speaker A

Okay. We should discuss the text message confessions when uh we get back if you'd like to.

Speaker A

Okay. I think that's a good idea. Folks, we're going to take a quick uh ad break.

Speaker A

We will be back in three and a half minutes. Thank you. All right, you guys. For nearly 2,000 years, Christians have lived continuously in a small village just outside of Jerusalem called Taibbe. They remained through the Roman Empire, the

Speaker A

Crusades, the Ottoman Empire, and countless changes of power. Today, that Christian presence is in serious danger.

Speaker A

One father in the West Bank put it simply. He said, quote, "I don't want to leave. My family is buried here. My church is here." In Ta Bay, the church is more than a place of worship. It's a

Speaker A

school, a medical clinic, a food distribution center, and a safe gathering place for families. When the church can no longer serve the community, families begin to leave and a living Christian presence in the Holy Land begins to disappear. But you can

Speaker A

help. Just $35 provides a full day of protection and support for vulnerable Christian families. And $83 a month can help sustain that protection throughout the month. I support the Vulnerable People Project because 93% of every donated dollar goes directly toward

Speaker A

protecting vulnerable families and communities on the ground. If preserving a living Christian presence in the Holy Land matters to you, visit vulnerablepeoplepro.com.

Speaker A

Again, that's vulnerablepeople project.com. All right, you guys. Do you feel like you're working harder than ever, but still falling behind every month? Between grocery prices, bills, and credit card debt growing, it can feel impossible to get ahead. Minimum

Speaker A

payments aren't designed to get you out of debt. They're designed to actually keep you stuck. But PDS debt can help.

Speaker A

They can reduce up to half of what you owe on credit cards, personal loans, and medical bills. And it starts with a free 30-cond assessment at pds debt.com/candis.

Speaker A

Stop juggling multiple payments and get one lower monthly payment. The savings begin the day that you complete the quick assessment. If you're carrying any balance on your credit cards, it's costing you money every single day.

Speaker A

There's no minimum credit score that's required. PDS debt is the top rated company in the industry with thousands of five-star reviews and an A+ rating on the BBB. So get your free 30 secondond personalized assessment today at pdsd.com/candis.

Speaker A

Again, that's pdsd.com/candis. I also want to tell you guys about the wellness company because by now you've probably heard that there is an explosive outbreak in the US this summer. More than 18,000 confirmed and suspected cases of cycllosporasis have

Speaker A

now been nationwide. And Michigan health officials have confirmed the first two United States deaths associated with that outbreak. The CDC says the illness is caused by cycllospora, a microscopic parasite commonly spread through contaminated fresh produce. can cause severe stomach cramps, nausea, fatigue,

Speaker A

and other debilitating symptoms. If you get sick, the CDC recommends Bactrum. That's why the wellness company created the medical emergency kit with generic Bactrum, plus seven additional prescription medications to help treat more than 25 common illnesses and medical emergencies, all prescribed

Speaker A

before you need them. Getting your kit is simple. You complete a secure online medical questionnaire. If it's approved by a licensed physician, your kit ships directly to your door. So, don't wait until you're sick to wish that you were

Speaker A

prepared. Visit twwc.health/candis and use code candace at checkout to save up to $45 off plus free shipping. That's twwc.alth/candis.

Speaker A

Kits are available for United States residents only. Okay, we're back. Fantastic. I think we're back. Uh, by the way, just an FYI for those of you that are watching The Crucible. There's 30,000 concurrent there watching. Support uh Andrew

Speaker A

Wilson. That's your your fans of his. Click that subscribe button. It helps him grow his business. If you're watching Candace, I think there's 225 to 250,000 concurrent right now. We'd like to see that 300 400,000 number on there.

Speaker A

Click that button as well to subscribe and share it with your friends and family. And if you're watching it on PBD podcast, do the same there as well. This allows us to have more conversations like this. The mainstream media hates

Speaker A

the fact that we're having these conversations right now. Just so you know, they want to control it. This is freeforall. This is what's best for the audience. That's why we like freedom of speech. Having said that, let's go back

Speaker A

into the text conversation you were having, right? Okay. Let's stay there and then we'll go into the cross- examination stuff in about 30 minutes.

Speaker A

Okay, that sounds fair. Um, okay. So, yeah, my I I use basically three pillars for the totality of the evidence. Okay, so if you want to know exactly what those three pillars are, this is going to be uh the testimony with the text

Speaker A

messages and um the confessions. This is going to be the physical evidence and this is going to be the totality of the summary of the case. Okay. So, uh right now we're we're focusing on one of these pillars in my defense, which is fine. I

Speaker A

understand that I have to defend my claims as well. So, when we're talking about the messages themselves, uh they seem totally valid. I have no idea why they wouldn't be valid. And I have not heard any good explanation for why it is

Speaker A

that these messages should even be questioned. The defense hasn't questioned them. As far as I'm aware, nobody has actually questioned that these messages came from Robinson to date except perhaps you and and other other people who are kind of in that

Speaker A

camp. But why should I question these exactly? I'm not sure. Okay. So, first let's just go over legally what the point is of a probitative hearing. The defense is not putting on they're not there to say or to argue or to defend themselves at all.

Speaker A

They have to address what is being presented by the state. Okay. So, they're not here to then say, "Let me give you an explanation for these text messages." The relevant portion of what the defense did do was actually before

Speaker A

we got to the preliminary hearing, I I had mentioned that it was initially supposed to be scheduled for some time in May, uh, they asked for an extension that that reading through those filings of why they were requesting an extension

Speaker A

and why I actually believe their extension should have been granted. Uh, because they did not receive discovery on their text messages. That was one of the reasons. There were many reasons why they wanted to have an extension, but

Speaker A

this was crucial, right? So, forget just the general sense that these messages feel off and and yes, you are allowed to have an intuition. You are allowed to have a sense and just go, "This is very weird." We're being told this kid had

Speaker A

like above a 4.0. Tyler Robinson, he wanted to get away. I mean, the tech text tech messages almost run headto-head with themselves. like he wanted to get away with it. So, he thought the best thing to do would be to

Speaker A

text a full confession of what he did uh down to what I didn't even remember saying, "Yeah, and that's also me in the surveillance footage." It It felt a little too on the nose. I just people have common sense. You just don't text

Speaker A

message. But then we're also supposed to believe that he put a note under because and burn this and get rid of the evidence. But don't worry about that cuz I'm about to text you a full confession.

Speaker A

That it felt off. It felt weird off the bat. The manner in which they were texting. We're told he's like a gamer who's using a Dremel uh to carve expressions catch fascist but then suddenly he's writing like a 17 player

Speaker A

he did get he did actually get the 500k code correct. Yeah, I'm not a gamer, so I will say that we start debating that, you'll be way over my head.

Speaker A

But yes, but my point being is just that just first just a general sense of why people had a reaction to these messages uh that seemed like they were written by Jane Austin rather than like a kid who

Speaker A

games and writes caption that is I am I just said that I said just put parking aside the intuition of just something feels wrong here which you should follow your intuition. You should actually do that. If you say the

Speaker A

COVID vaccine is running out, feels like it's coming out too fast and there's too many celebrities telling me to do it.

Speaker A

I'd like to take a pause, that's good. That is you are allowed to do that. I believe in intuition.

Speaker A

But hang on, hang on. Let me respond a little bit here because you've been going for a minute. Let me at least respond to a little bit of this. So the first thing is is like with when people

Speaker A

bring up the COVID vaccine, not trusting the COVID vaccine in mass was the science. That wasn't just intuition.

Speaker A

That was the science. There was tons of competing science. Now they tried to suppress it. That's true. But there was tons of competing science for why you shouldn't take a risky mRNA vaccine. Um things like this kept telling us was

Speaker A

when you're talking about intuition though when you say trust your intuition I'm actually giving a different message.

Speaker A

You actually should be very wary about trusting just your intuition. It is true that intuition can be useful but you it has to be tempered with logic, reason, explanatory power and evidence not just intuition.

Speaker A

That's why we're parking it aside. Intuition is the first step. Something feels off right.

Speaker A

Okay. That was my first step with COVID. I don't like the way it's being pushed.

Speaker A

It shouldn't require a celebrity campaign. By the way, another element of that is why people don't feel good about the Charlie thing. Why do we have so many influencers saying things? It's over. Why are you guys all using uh the

Speaker A

same adjective? Can you switch it up? I'm overwhelmed. I'm overwhelmed. Like, chill. Like, you could say, I found some parts compelling. I think this should go I found I found some parts compelling.

Speaker A

Maybe we should, you know, see at the trial. That would be kind of Don't you think fed slop's a buzz word for the other for the counter industry?

Speaker A

Everyone on the same day of watching this trial, which was I would say not overwhelming at all. Nobody came in medium, right? No one came in like there were some interesting aspects. This was a little suspect. I I but I do think

Speaker A

it's enough to go to trial. They all came in like they were passing away and we're going to die from being overwhelmed.

Speaker A

Well, they're trusting their intuition. Okay. Well, actually, in that scenario, they're they're looking at the preliminary hearing and have a reaction to it. It wasn't their intuition. But like I said, parking aside, just getting to the substance, parking that aside,

Speaker A

parking aside, just a general intuition that some might be sex messages. Then we look at the filings which came from the defense and they were requesting an extension saying, "We have gone to the prosecution and we have requested all of this stuff in

Speaker A

discovery." Yes. You are saying that you took Lance's phone, okay, and that you uh collected his phone on September 11th and that you sent it off or whatever.

Speaker A

You took a picture of the text messages and we are being given these text messages to review. Crucially, Kathy Netor said, "I have not even been given access to my client's phone during this hearing." She said, "I haven't been

Speaker A

access my client's phone." She can't tell you as a part of their discovery request is it's not enough to say to me, "Uh, Candace, I just got a text message from Candace." And I say, "I didn't send that text message." Maybe that's what

Speaker A

her client's saying. We don't know cuz we're not at the trial, right? Maybe he didn't send those messages. Could there be someone who logged into his Discord?

Speaker A

Could there be someone who logged in to his Apple? George could be sending text messages right now. We are married. He has every login that I have. And remember, he's up for a death sentence.

Speaker A

So, if I'm able to sew reasonable doubt with common sense, he may come during the trial. And when they actually have to address these points, say, "I did not write those messages. I was here. Lance, my boyfriend, was logged into my phone,

Speaker A

logged into my Apple ID and my iCloud sending messages. I know that we have the capability because my husband does it. He has capability to send messages from my phone. It is not convincing to the public when for whatever reason the

Speaker A

FBI would not FBI combined with the SBI, it was not the prosecution's fault. They made that clear during that hearing.

Speaker A

Would not allow them that discovery request to be able to see where did that message come from? Because you're saying my client was here, right? I want to know if that message actually was generated from his iPhone when he was

Speaker A

waiting to retrieve his, you know, rifle, hoping that the pooch doesn't have a bad sniffer. Like just weird messages. I want to make sure that yes, it was actually him. He was holding his phone and his boyfriend didn't just log

Speaker A

in to his computer when he was home. Lance was his boyfriend. That is a that is a crucial fact here. That discovery was not met by the time we got to preliminary hearing. So I remain unconvinced by these text messages just

Speaker A

as you feel convinced by them. I feel unconvinced by them. Okay. So then the idea here is the reason that you don't think that these are valid text message and you don't right.

Speaker A

I I I I it has not been proven that these messages are valid and they don't sound valid to me. I don't think anyone even if someone was selling like a I don't know pot on the corner would be

Speaker A

smarter than to write a full-fledged confess confession. He even writes, "I thought I would get get away with it and I was hoping never to tell you until old age." And then we're being told that he wanted to commit suicide and Okay. But

Speaker A

he just said he wanted to get away with it, but he's not smart enough to um I don't know, maybe not text a like it it's such a confession. Like we've never seen I think this would be like the

Speaker A

first time ever somebody has start to finish written an entire here's I'm in this surveillance footage and I'm here and I'm wearing my Converse. You know, I'm being a little facicious here, but it was a little ridiculous. It didn't it

Speaker A

didn't pass a sniff test for me. You have kids and you love them more than anything. I do.

Speaker A

If it was the case that you thought that the your kid was innocent, wouldn't you be out telling everybody and their brother that you thought that they were innocent? And also, wouldn't you say wouldn't you maybe recant and say, "Hey,

Speaker A

I didn't actually he didn't actually confess to me. He didn't actually none of this happened the way that the uh state is presenting it." What would have prevented the parents from testifying?

Speaker A

Well, two things. I can answer that. And if you if you watch my show, I keep telling you it's not vibes. So, right after the shooting happened, uh Lance Twigs, you know, the FBI put him into a house, safe house they paid for. They

Speaker A

went to the parents as well to Matt Robinson and Amber basically said, "Your life's at risk. There could be somebody who jumps up and wants to avenge Charlie Kirk and you know, we're going to watch you." And they went into a federal safe

Speaker A

house. Uh what happened next is that they started thinking that the feds were maybe going to like maybe not as honest as they thought. Um and how do you know all any of that?

Speaker A

You got to you got to watch the show, right? Yeah. No, how do you know that?

Speaker A

I I I had a source within the Robinson family. You have a source, an anonymous source, of course. So there's no way for us to verify that what you're saying right now is actually even true.

Speaker A

Do you find it to be reliable hearsay? Uh no, I don't find it to be reliable at all. It's just a source. I'm just doing what the process what you're doing is a cool story.

Speaker A

It's not cool. Well, watch. You must have hated watching. You're giving us a cool cool. You're saying that according to your sources that the reason that the parents haven't recanted any of this recanted what? They have no statement

Speaker A

from the parents. Wait, I just want to make sure that I if if it was the case that was being reported in mainstream media that your father came to you and said, "Hey, is this you? Is what's going on here?" and

Speaker A

then he and one of his uh buddies took you in where you turned yourself in. You wouldn't go out and be like, "No, that's not what happened." That isn't what happened, though. You're just wrong on this.

Speaker A

Okay, maybe I'm paraphrasing. What am I wrong? So, what is your Sorry, just so I'm clear. What where is your evidence that the parents turned him in?

Speaker A

Well, no, no, no. I didn't say that. I said mainstream media. I said with um a sheriff friend. Yes.

Speaker A

But the father did confront him. The the father confronted what? Tyler Robinson. And where did you learn this? that the title I mean that's part of the official documents. Our fact checkers can pull that up. But yes, but I'm saying but when you say official

Speaker A

documents, do you mean you saw this on CNN or you saw this play out in the hearing?

Speaker A

No, this was one of the things that I went through and fact check pre-debate.

Speaker A

Are you talking about like the charging documents? I think it was in the It could have been in the charging documents, but I did but I do we can pull them up. No.

Speaker A

And the and yes, are you disputing this? Do we have that on the back to pull it up? I can I can already tell you what you're talking about the charging documents because this is where we had to figure out where this story came from

Speaker A

because everyone was operating under the assumption that Matt Robinson turned him in until we got to the preliminary hearing and we understood like I said even for that when you are charging someone you can use hearsay it's all probitative

Speaker A

right nothing so they didn't have statements it's not like Matt Robinson even though he was interviewed that night Amber Robinson was interviewed that night by a fed separate rooms uh Tyler Robinson was interviewed by a fed they did not produce statements saying,

Speaker A

"My son did this. My son I believe my son did this." Um, but what happened was they did interviews, but also the crucial person here who you just brought up is Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell is the biggest unknown in this entire case.

Speaker A

Everyone keeps saying they heard from Mike Mitchell this, they heard from Mike Mitchell that. So when the person wrote up the report that night and it was Brian Davis who wrote up the what became the charging document he uh after they

Speaker A

transported uh Tyler Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's County office uh up to I think it's Salt Lake City at I think it was 4 a.m. in the morning they got up there. He then writes the uh charging what becomes a charging

Speaker A

document. So he's basically saying we all spoke to a bunch of people and here's the information that we got.

Speaker A

Right. We've not seen that. So it could have come from Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell could be saying I don't know how this negates the point though.

Speaker A

Truly negates the point because you don't have a statement from the parents. You are you are going Why wouldn't they just correct the the correct information? It doesn't negate the point. The point is is that we now got the preliminary hearing. If the

Speaker A

parents were the ones who said I'm turning my son in because he's guilty. I didn't say they turned him in.

Speaker A

This I think you're talking about the over. You said it's been the narrative. Everybody's known this. The narrative initially, which I think you agree with, was that, you know, Matt Robinson knew his kid was guilty and turned him into

Speaker A

the police station. What actually happened in terms of Sheriff Brooksby, who was present there, and gave a press conference. What happened was this Mike Mitchell character uh essentially peer pressured him. And we can get a fact check on this. We can find Sheriff

Speaker A

Brooksy's uh press conference. And he said, you know, they they know it's you and you're going to come in uh peaceibly or people are going to be banging down your door. He was a undercover cop, which I don't like that. I don't know

Speaker A

what he did undercover. It's very hard to find anything about me Mitchell, but he worked with them for 20 plus years, the police officers. Uh the reason why Tyler Robinson knew him was because he lived nearby and he was also his boy

Speaker A

scout. How does this negate that the parents could write this second? And by the way, if you if you had I didn't address that point. I'm just saying that your your first point, which is that the parents did this.

Speaker A

We don't know that the parents I never I didn't say that they did ever.

Speaker A

Never ever. You're you're quoting the parents as having said you said that Matt Robinson said that his kid was you say involved just I don't want to misquote you confronted him about it confronted him.

Speaker A

Yes. And I'm telling you that we have not seen any evidence that that is true.

Speaker A

We can fact check that because we do have evidence of and I'm saying it's the charging dock which could have been derived from a statement Mike Mitchell said.

Speaker A

Two thing I have ready in the back. One is the charging dock and the other one is a video of Kathy Nester saying she hasn't seen Tyler's phone.

Speaker A

Okay, we can run Kathy to go back just to go backwards. Yeah, Kathy first in court saying she didn't get her client's phone. Yeah. And then I think we'll go to the thing not in dispute. [laughter] These are all things that that I'm not even

Speaker A

disputing. We never get to the thing that I am disputing. Well, you were I was just providing an answer. We were coming back in from a break because you were talking about the text messages as something that you felt

Speaker A

was concrete. So, it was just my rebuttal to you that it's not concrete because they haven't had a chance to actually answer that and she didn't even get to see your client's phone. So that's effectively again the state

Speaker A

saying these messages are real. You don't get the discovery on these messages just yet. She will during trial. They will actually get that would make their case fall apart if it was the case that they weren't able to actually

Speaker A

pull the data off the text messages. Do you think the prosecution would go to court with fabricated text messages?

Speaker A

It's called it's called winners and losers. They may not be fabricated. But by the way, as as as what they are saying, like I said, if there was somebody logged [clears throat] into his phone, they may not be fabricated.

Speaker A

That's the point. So let's get to the point. the parents fact check that that so I was saying I I believe what you're talking about was derived from the charging dock which was signed off by Brian Davis. Uh if let's see if that's

Speaker A

correct. What are we looking at here? Robinson's mother explained uh that over the last year or so I'm sorry.

Speaker A

Can you zoom in a little see it? Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that police

Speaker A

suspected the shooter used matched the rifle that was given to his son as a gift. As a result, Robinson's father contacted his son and asked him to send a photo of the rifle, which makes sense with the text messages.

Speaker A

Robinson did not respond, however. Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Robinson. Robinson implied he planned to take his own life. Robinson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home.

Speaker A

Yes. So, this is proving my point. Is this This is from the charging document, correct? Yeah. So, what I'm saying to you is that three people got interviewed on that night. Mike Mitchell got interviewed, Amber Robinson got interviewed, and Matt Robinson got

Speaker A

interviewed. Of the three of them, only one of them actually wrote a statement, which was referred to in this preliminary trial. He came in, I believe, in March, Mike Mitchell, and he wrote a statement, which I find to be

Speaker A

very shady that they decided to bring. Why aren't the parents disputing that? Well, first off, that's the question.

Speaker A

The parents are not going to ever play in court, play to the cameras in court when they have a legal team that is going to be advising them not to speak to the court because you could your son

Speaker A

could go to prison. But they're playing to somebody else who's your source. I I'm I I I'm not going to address that.

Speaker A

They're playing to someone else who's your source, but won't go publicly tell the media this is not true. Well, what I I I did not say to you that I just said I have a source. So, I want to be very

Speaker A

clear and take it from somebody who was involved and permanently sued. Uh when I have to take my lawyer's advice, I mean, there's so many things that I want to respond to when people are speaking about.

Speaker A

Yeah. But it's bizarre that they would utilize a source which would get the information to you, but wouldn't just go to the media and be like, "Actually, that's all wrong." I I I am telling you that you would ner

Speaker A

find a lawyer who would advise you to go to the media and these this mother especially when your son is thought that my kid was up for death.

Speaker A

If I thought that my kid was in any way, shape, or form going to be up, you couldn't shut me up. Or my wife, she would be like, "That's not true. That's ridiculous. There's no possible that never happened. These people are lying

Speaker A

through their teeth. I They'd be public whether you like it or not." Yeah. I that I'm That's for you and your wife. But when a judge issues a gag order in a case and your son is up for

Speaker A

death and your lawyers could be advising you that if you say anything you could blow the case, you would have a more responsible consideration.

Speaker A

I see. And and and we're and we're speaking opinion here. You're like, "Well, I wouldn't care. I'd violate it and I'd violate the judge's orders and see what happen. If you have a source, it seems like they're violating it with them."

Speaker A

I didn't I I'm not speaking to a source, but what I am saying to you is speaking just relevant to what this is. We have not seen any proof that that statement that is included in this charging document. I think it is

Speaker A

highly likely on the basis of the preliminary hearing that that all came from Mike Mitchell and Mike Mitchell would be a part he said based on the statements of the parents. It's him saying the parents told me this the parents could dispute

Speaker A

that. That's going to come down the line, right? They're going to be able to seat the parents. I I will say this, putting together context clues, if the state had it on, you know, 100% certainty that Matt Robinson and Amber

Speaker A

Robinson said it, a 5-day preliminary hearing would be a good time to say, "We have enough evidence." And I can tell you why. Matt Robinson uh made this statement and here is his statement that he signed. That would have been a good

Speaker A

time to present that evidence. That would also be a good time for the defense to say that's just totally fabricated.

Speaker A

That's the wrong time. Why couldn't they? That is completely the wrong time because what they're doing is they they already said they didn't receive discovery. They literally can't. They literally can't cuz they can't. They did not receive that

Speaker A

information. No, no, they just received the text messages. But in order to That's not the text messages.

Speaker A

The probative information. Yeah, we're talking about the information that we just reviewed. That's not the text messages.

Speaker A

They never presented it. The state never never put it on. Yeah, they didn't. The defense could easily still have presented this. Yeah.

Speaker A

No, they could have said they're No, no, they're not allowed to. In a preliminary hearing, the def the defense is engaging with whatever evidence the state decides to put on.

Speaker A

They did not put this on as evidence. Brian Davis was up there. Uh so they're not allowed to present anything.

Speaker A

They're responding to the state. I'm asking, are they allowed to present anything? They are allowed to say like if there was a conspiracy that they could prove right then and there, would they present that in one of these

Speaker A

hearings? No. It wouldn't be the right time for that. I disagree. I think that I think that they not only could do it, but they would do it. In fact, when I talked in depth with my attorney, they said that's exactly if you had

Speaker A

actual evidence that there was fabrications by the feds, that's exactly when you would introduce that.

Speaker A

So, when in the document that they filed yesterday or a couple of days ago, the appropriate like what you're doing at this stage of the hearing is the state is saying we have enough evidence that we think this needs to go forth to

Speaker A

trial. Hence the reason that there's this extraordinary we allow hearsay because it doesn't really need to be perfect. It can be enough that we feel like we can move forward, right? Um and okay, I disagree with that in general

Speaker A

when somebody's rotting in prison, but whatever. Uh the next phase is for them to meet in court and for the defense to essentially present an argument to the state that says, "We find this filing to be defective in and of itself. we don't

Speaker A

even have to defend ourselves because you the state have enough uh you know what the laws are on the books and this filing is defective and you should get rid of these charges because they don't make sense based on what you can decide

Speaker A

bas based on a law on the books. So then that's why they then file the dismissal, right? So in the dismissal what they're doing is they are engaging and this is what was widely misinterpreted.

Speaker A

Well yeah they're engaging as though as as it's a hypothetical. If this is hypothetically true, then so you're saying all of these I'm not disputing any of that. So that's what I am saying.

Speaker A

No, what I'm asking specifically is like who could shut a shut parents up who are like no way there's no possible this never happened. This is ridiculous. They would be shouting it on CNN. They would be shouting it from the rooftops. They

Speaker A

would be losing their minds. And you're like, "Nope. The gag order would be enough to to keep them quiet. Not enough for them to talk to your source, but enough to keep them quiet." I think that that's quite ridiculous. But I'll even

Speaker A

concede this whole point to you. Let's just say maybe this was misconstrued, right? There's um there's a little bit of reason to doubt it because we're still waiting for the evidence for trial. If that's the case, then why not

Speaker A

take the same standard for the evidence that you present? You're just waiting for trial.

Speaker A

Well, you didn't do that. Wait a [laughter] second. I just I just want to make sure that I got this right. That's your argument to me right?

Speaker A

My argument to you is what? My argument your argument to me is that Hey, wait a second, Andrew. There's not enough here that convinces me, right?

Speaker A

Well, that's actually my rebuttal to you is that you are saying, why are people engaging in what you term to be conspiracy theories? I I I term it to be thinking. They're just thinking because they're recognizing there are a lot of

Speaker A

holes in these stories and that this is not strong evidence, right? This is the reason they're doing it. I'm I'm explaining to you this is the reason that they're doing it. I'm I'm addressing what you view to be

Speaker A

overwhelming evidence. And and by the way, I want to be clear that which convinces me. What? Yeah.

Speaker A

Well, but thus far every point that you brought every point that you've brought up, would you did you feel like this is beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, you're you realize I remember what I said in my op going to be put

Speaker A

it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just what I find convincing is what I find overwhelming.

Speaker A

So, why are you so upset when people say they don't find it convincing? If that was the limitation of the claims that you made, if it was just, wait a second, there's a little bit of problems. There's some problems in this

Speaker A

case that I have questions for that I want answers to. Nobody would have a problem actually. At least of all me. I would be the least likely person to have an issue with you, any of your fans, anybody saying. In fact, I've had tons

Speaker A

of Discord calls about this. My position's always been clear. Of course, conspiracies exist. Some of them have way better evidence than others, but I've seen them myself. I know conspiracy. In fact, the federal government has hundreds of thousands of

Speaker A

laws about conspiracies. They see them everywhere. we both know this, right? That's never the what the problem is.

Speaker A

The problem is when you make claims outside of, well, wait a second. I'm just questioning evidence here. I'm just questioning what the state's case is here. I'm just asking questions. It's when you make claims outside of that where you claim that there's good

Speaker A

evidence or good standards, you should believe because and then it turns out that it's all nonsense or it's wackadoo stuff or it it makes no sense. And when we have a chance to cross-examine your evidence that you've presented, I'm

Speaker A

going to show a lot of that. A lot of this conjecture that's based on literally nothing that leads from no inferences whatsoever. Like you couldn't even infer it logically. That's the problem. The problem has never been whether or not you just said, you know,

Speaker A

there's not enough in this case so far until we get to the trial. I remain unconvinced. I'm sure there's tons of people who remain unconvinced yet until we get to the trial. I think that's fine. I think it's fine. There's people

Speaker A

who are convinced too. That's never been my problem. My problem is the claims which are external to that.

Speaker A

Okay. Um I not sure I really care if you have a problem with what I think in my own spare time. I don't I don't understand this like lecture that you just gave. Um but beyond that, what I'm saying is that

Speaker A

the state is allowed to use this is what my this is what my problem is. You guys are not Yeah, you guys think while it's illegal. You actually you can you are allowed to do that. So, um, but anyway,

Speaker A

going back going back to you saying I wouldn't have a problem. I think I just demonstrated pretty thoroughly that what you claim that you have a problem with is exactly what the state is engaged in at this stage. So,

Speaker A

it doesn't make it just doesn't make sense. That's not the case. In fact, so if people look and they say, "I'm looking at the gun and I see and I'm inferring this." And someone else says, "I'm looking at the gun evidence and I'm

Speaker A

inferring that." They're both doing the exact same thing. You're just saying, "I want to do it for the state." That's propositionally false. I'll explain exactly how it is the case that every proposition is going to have a true or false

Speaker A

conclusion. Period. That's just logic, right? It's the law of excluded middle. All propositions are going to be true or they're going to be false. When we get into when we're making inferences, we're making inferences based on on propositions. We can make we can

Speaker A

actually come to true conclusions with false uh premises inside of a proposition. In fact, what we're talking about here is not whether or not you feel that you're convinced by this evidence, but you felt like you were convinced,

Speaker A

right? Sure. But here's the thing. When you ask me my reason, Andrew, why are you convinced by this? I can give you my reasons why I'm convinced by it, why it seems reasonable and rational to me to be convinced. You could even say, but

Speaker A

Andrew, I'm just not convinced by it. If that was the limitation of your claims, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. That's why I wanted to have the conversation in fact was so that we could move into your actual

Speaker A

claims that you've made which transcend the idea of I'm just asking questions. Before we get into that, your team has one thing they want to show before you go into that. So, if you want to pull that up, this is the prosecution filing

Speaker A

showing defense had full discovery by April 1st. They did not. That's not true. Wait a second.

Speaker A

Yeah. To date, the state's prosecutors have disclosed all evidence that is presently and reasonably available to them as required under rule 16 Utah R criminal to be more precise as of April 1st.

Speaker A

Yeah, that was that was not that was not 100%. That's why that they're caging that by saying what's reasonable. There was I mean there was an entire and we can pull this up like we should now play the Kathy Nester clip because that

Speaker A

that's from there. So, and they were basically saying you don't need it at this stage. meaning it's reason it's not reasonable that you're asking for this when we're going into a hearing that's just going to be based on hearsay and

Speaker A

stuff of things of that nature but of course by the time a trial comes you're going to get all the disc yes so that's what they're saying there yeah I understand okay so that's and I'm even and I'm even fine with it

Speaker A

we all we all know and then by the way just now that the hearing is over and you can also fact check this they now at the at the end of the preliminary hearing dropped like an insane amount of the discovery stuff

Speaker A

they gave to them like the week after you guys can give me the exact amount I don't want to say because I don't know my uh um I don't remember how much it was was an absurd amount of stuff that

Speaker A

they gave to them right after the preliminary hearing that they had been asking for because that was one of the things that I kept saying on my show is as we were watching that preliminary of the preliminary why not just give them

Speaker A

the stuff now so they can engage in these arguments is I feel like you it's like I want to hear what they have to say about the text messages I want why can't you just give them what they're

Speaker A

asking for so that they can actually engage you and uh it didn't happen so but the judge ruled that it wasn't necessary at this stage and that was the whole point of that uh because it's preliminary to the preliminary. Yeah.

Speaker A

Yeah. Would you like to play the Kathy video? Uh well, he's saying he's not disagreeing, so I don't think we need to.

Speaker A

Yeah, there's no disagreement that that she said that. So the Yeah. So I guess the disagreements now would move into the evidences that you have stated on the record which transcend elements of reason.

Speaker A

Why are we having a transcendental conversation now? Because I mean your your entire thing was about looking at the evidence which never made sense to me again because all of the evidence that you felt to be overwhelming was

Speaker A

hearsay. That was bizarre to me. You told me that I could take as much time as I wanted to question.

Speaker A

No, but I'm just asking you to just to lay the groundwork of what you're saying is that it trips into something else. And I do still want to hold you for going through because we've discussed the gun, we've discussed your uh

Speaker A

and you can hold me to those things, but I would like to get into the things we should discuss the screwdriver as well.

Speaker A

Oh, and I'll explain exactly what the groundwork is. When you make claims which pass the idea of I'm just asking questions because the state's evidence is not convincing. I think you have to answer for those claims because they are

Speaker A

in regards to this case. You're saying I have a claim. It is in regards to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is what we're talking about, not just the case of Charlie Kirk, his assassination.

Speaker A

You should have to answer for the claims that you've made in regards to the assassination itself. You should. Yeah.

Speaker A

Agreed. So, if that's the case, then I would I would like to finally dive into some of that evidence and dive into it.

Speaker A

Well, just to be clear, and I'm happy to to have you talk about, like I said, publicly, you want to engage in some conspiracies, but I said, I want to make sure that we get to the substance of our

Speaker A

debate. The substance of our debate is the major is me demonstrating that all of the quote unquote evidence that you feel that you have, which demonstrates that Tyler Robinson, I mean, that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk, you don't find convincing. It's well,

Speaker A

it's been invalidated by the by the testimony that we saw. And in your answer for when I explained to you that he had the most degraded prince was I don't know. Okay. Well, there then there lies my ability to process that. It's

Speaker A

just fine for you to not be convinced up to this point. All of your viewers, everybody watching, nobody's giving you're conceiving a dispute that if all your claims ever were were just up to now, the evidence that the state's given,

Speaker A

I'm just kind of not convinced. That is not what's been happening. What's actually been happening is that you've made tons of claims uh in regards to this case and in regards to the Kirk assassination which are far above and

Speaker A

beyond I just doubt the state's theory. Okay. Yeah. I mean sure I do doubt the state's theory. I also am welcome to say what I think you know. If you want to move into opinions, if you want to

Speaker A

talk about Erica Kirk, if you want to talk about Turning Point USA like to talk about all and get into it, I'm totally happy to do that. But I just want to say that like I do not feel cuz I've said what's

Speaker A

important to me is that we exhaust this topic first of our actual debate claims. I do not feel that you sufficiently have argued that the evidence is overwhelming.

Speaker A

Question for you. I am sorry you feel that way. Candace, one question. What what evidence do you need to see for you to say Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk?

Speaker A

That's a great question. Um, so I actually expected in this preliminary hearing actually the almost the in inverse of what he was saying is true, right? So the this is now the time the state is putting on their evidence.

Speaker A

That's the purpose of this hearing, right? The state is using hearsay, but they're also putting on their evidence.

Speaker A

So I was just expecting some sort of a slam dunk. Like we got them on camera taking the shot. At least we have them clear on camera. You're telling me this guy drove 13 hours all around. Like we

Speaker A

can definitely show you a picture that it's going to be beyond a reasonable doubt before we even get to the trial.

Speaker A

people are going to see and go, "Oh crap, like it was really Tyler Robinson." Um I was expecting to at least see evidence that because I had reported early on that uh the source was saying that Tyler did not step foot on

Speaker A

campus that day. It is my perspective that he had something to do with something. I I do believe he was putting like disposing clothes at at this stage at this phase. I do believe he was disposing clothes. He was involved

Speaker A

somehow. Um I I find Lance to be more uh suspicious if I'm being honest with you.

Speaker A

Uh, and also like I said, the use immunity that was given to Lance by the feds. The fact that the feds didn't ask him any questions. The fact that I spoke with Lance Twigs's family and they were like, "It's very weird that the feds are

Speaker A

not asking him more questions. He's exactly the person um that I would imagine to be involved in some stuff allegedly. I'll say allegedly." Uh, but uh when we got to the preliminary hearing, there was no there was not a

Speaker A

single piece of evidence that I felt was slam dunk. I was waiting for that. A photo. I mean, anything would have made me go, "All right, I think this this could be the guy." Uh, if they had handed over the discovery on the text

Speaker A

messages since that was their big, "Tada, we've got the text messages." That would be the first thing that I would hand over. But actually, who was holding them up? Like I said, it wasn't the prosecution. They're right to say we

Speaker A

we were handing things over. And we heard the defense argue on behalf of the prosecution saying, "It's not them and it's not the FBI, it's the FBI that's holding on to things. It's the FBI took everything. The FBI took the gun. The

Speaker A

FBI took initially the screwdriver and then when I heard testimony about the things that they didn't that they found that were suspicious. Um example being the backpack. That's something that really bothers me. Uh that they say they traced the shooter. They traced the

Speaker A

route that he went on and then there was an abandon. We know like it looks like he's wearing some sort of a backpack. We know that there was an abandoned backpack found at the bus stop in front of a library and they felt that this

Speaker A

should be taken into evidence. They took it. uh the FBI. Uh this was the testimony of Amanda Baker, I believe her last name is, but you might want to fact check that because I think I'm blending last names. Uh she so she was the

Speaker A

forensics for the FBI. And then she says she gets a call on the 13th and they stop testing on this backpack because they find that the backpack actually belongs to somebody on Charlie's team.

Speaker A

But if you know the map of the layout of the campus, you're going, "Well, what the hell are they doing all the way up?

Speaker A

This is nowhere near anywhere." And by the way, that's not an acceptable answer for why you just gave it back. That's not that's like why would you give it back? You're acting like no one's ever been killed by somebody on their team

Speaker A

before, right? So I found that to be very strange that it was on the exact route that the that the alleged gunman ran and that their excuse was we just gave it back because we heard that this was some this belonged to somebody on

Speaker A

Charlie's team. So that to me is you this is why the the investigation itself feels underwhelming when you learn and this is completely crazy to me that the some of the artifacts that Charlie was wearing were immediately returned to

Speaker A

Erica. That's absurd. That is absurd. Everything should be in evidence. When you learn that the car that they carried Charlie in to go to the hospital, they had immediately towed, cleaned, and back up for resale. That's absurd. That

Speaker A

should be sitting in evidence. And any police officer that you speak to will say or person that's been involved in a crime will say, "I didn't get my stuff back for years. Had nothing to do with anything. It was just around." And I and

Speaker A

they kept it into evidence until the trial was over and it has to be approved. I think somebody said by the attorney general has to sign off on giving you those objects back. And we were told this is all fine. And we see

Speaker A

and this is just one example. Erica holding the uh crucifix. Uh that's that should be an evidence irrespective of if you feel bad for her and think she should have, you know, have it and it's sweet, that should be an evidence. Uh

Speaker A

immediately paving over the crime scene. Is this is like the craziest thing ever? You're it's this like defies common sense. You immediately and when you heard the guy who did it actually go up on a podcast and explain. I got the

Speaker A

call. They said it was a paver emergency. I don't I've never in my entire career heard of a paver emergency. They had already had someone come up and dig up the dirt. So by the time he got there on Sunday, the dirt

Speaker A

had already been dug up for him to lay down pavers. That is what people are looking at and going, "This is weird.

Speaker A

There needs to be answers for why this was done. And he tells us the call came from the feds and the governor's office.

Speaker A

UVUs wa washed their hands of it. And what he's saying sounds true because we heard during the testimony, uh, one person described the regions of who was in control of everything, the feds were in control of the courtyard. So, in

Speaker A

order for anybody to have paved anything, that was federal territory, so to speak. I'm maybe not using that the best cop term, but the feds were in control of the courtyard. So, these are things that I think should be answered

Speaker A

for. Why? Why are we doing things differently than you would in any other criminal scenario of keeping the evidence until we know more, until we're confident? Uh, you know, the various decoys. I did it. I did it. It just

Speaker A

doesn't look right. Okay. So, go back to the question. So, what would you need to see for you to say something if they had I was expecting here we have him. He took the shot. Here it is. And then I'd be like, great. A

Speaker A

clear image of him on the staircase. I'm like, that's definitively Tyler Robinson. He was on campus. We got nothing. We got literally nothing. But hearsay of people saying, but you're basically getting no case.

Speaker A

What? You basically no case on planet Earth. Do you get the Sure. Oh, we got a picture. Here's him with the murder weapon. Here's him taking the shot.

Speaker A

Most most of this doesn't take place on a college campus that has surveillance everywhere.

Speaker A

Yeah. One clear image of his. But I don't understand when when you're asked. If you're asked the question, what would it take to convince? It'd be the same question be asked to me. Andrew, what would it take to convince you that the

Speaker A

oppositional is true, right? that he's a patchy or something like that. Just good, clear, concise evidence that's been presented, right, and is being presented that I could go through and link all together to see if there's actually some clear picture of there

Speaker A

being a pathy. That's what it would take for me. Okay. Just a good I don't disagree with that. We haven't heard the defense.

Speaker A

Just a good evidentary standard. And then of course I would change my mind. So So just to qualify this, so there is a possibility in the next few months that you may come out and say, "Guys, it's done. Tyler killed him." So you're

Speaker A

saying I think it's very important for the audience to hear that from you. Is there anything that you could see for you to say, "Yeah, this guy was a pass.

Speaker A

I'm going to follow evidence." So my my whole thing is just this. It's it's really important to me. I don't mind people being truth seekers and justice searchers and the internet has helped solve tons of crimes. There's no ifands

Speaker A

or buts about that, right? However, there's also people who, you know, they they not only don't solve crimes, but they just come up with conjecture and they what's called flooding the zone.

Speaker A

You flood the zone with tons and tons of conspiracy based ideas and they go nowhere, right? They and in fact, they actually take away from uh legitimate investigation. Now, I'm not even saying anybody here is purposely flooding the

Speaker A

zone. That's not even the claim. All I'm saying is is that the claims made absent absent. Oh, uh, this is just me not being convinced by the state's evidence.

Speaker A

Those become claims. And claims have to be defended. Just like mine have to be defended, yours have to be defended. And that's what we're going to get to now.

Speaker A

Yeah. You want to get into it? Would you guys like to take an ad break?

Speaker A

Take an ad break. And then we'll talk Erica Kirk and TPUSCA and con and the conspiracies that have been conjectured by Candace Owens in regards to this case.

Speaker A

Folks, we'll take a three and a half minute break break and we'll be back soon.

Speaker A

All right, you guys, you have probably seen all the buzz around red light therapy lately, but what's even more compelling are the stories from people who say it completely changed their lives. One example starts with a woman named Natalyia. She sat across from her

Speaker A

medical team and got an ultimatum most of us will never have to hear. Aggressive chemotherapy, steroids for life or amputation. Five years earlier, a plate of ceviche in Peru triggered heavy metal toxins and parasites that she never recovered from. 20 specialists

Speaker A

and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, nobody addressed the cause, just the symptoms. With the support of medical journalist Jonathan Otto, she refused all three and went after the root cause instead. Purging parasites, binding heavy metals, and restoring her

Speaker A

gut health. Today, she runs, swims, and cycles on the same legs that she was told that she would lose. Right now, you can get the same holistic detox cleanse that she used, plus a red light therapy belt completely free with every order.

Speaker A

Not discounted, free. 120 LEDs, red and near infrared working from the surface down to the gut and thyroid. Head to purge parasites.com/candis.

Speaker A

Buy your detox and gut renewal restoration bundle today and get your free Red Life therapy belt, plus your in-depth protocol. That's purgemyarasitenow.com/candis.

Speaker A

I also want to remind you guys about Pure Talk because you do not have to overpay for your wireless network. Not when Pure Talk comes in with the same service for a tiny fraction of the cost.

Speaker A

And now, for the first time ever, Pure Talk is offering any plan at just $15 a month for your first 3 months. There's never been a better time to take Pure Talk for a test drive. It's fast, it's

Speaker A

reliable, and you're going to love it. You can now get any Pure Talk plan, including their unlimited data plans and even their top tier $65 plan for just $15 a month for your first three months.

Speaker A

That's a savings of up to $150. I recommend making a switch today because his offer is extremely short-lived.

Speaker A

Switch to Pure Talk and enjoy your first three months of talk, text, and data for just 15 bucks a month. Head to puretalk.com/owens to make the switch to pure talk. Again, that's puretalk.com/owens to start saving today. And I have to

Speaker A

remind you guys about American Financing because everyday expenses keep climbing and high credit card interest is not making life any easier. If your budget is feeling squeezed lately, there's a smarter way to take back control. If you're a homeowner, your home equity is

Speaker A

your best financial tool. American Financing can help you consolidate high interest credit card debt so that you have some breathing room. Timing matters now more than ever. With a strong chance of an interest rate hike this September, waiting could cost you thousands. And

Speaker A

with rates in the fives, there's no better time to find out how much you could be saving. So ditch those 20% interest rates by consolidating. You can slash your monthly obligations. In fact, American Financing borrowers save an average of $800 a month. Imagine what

Speaker A

that kind of cash flow could do for your family. There are zero upfront fees and you may even delay up to two mortgage payments. To lock in your lower rate before September, call 8007951210.

Speaker A

Again, that's 8007951210 or visit americanfinancing.net/owens. That's americanfinancing.net/owens. Okay, so we're officially back. Uh, Andrew, before we go into the other issues you want to talk about, is it fair to say you're good defending your position of the overwhelming evidence?

Speaker A

Yeah. Okay, beautiful. You take the lead. Go for it. Yeah. So, I have a bunch of questions for you and I want to make it super painless, right? So, uh, no traps, no gotchas. I'm just going to ask them

Speaker A

direct. And I think that as long as they're not loaded, if they're loaded, you should not respond yes or no. As long as they're not loaded, if I just directly ask them, I'm hoping that you'll just give me a direct answer. So,

Speaker A

here's the questions that I have. Wait, wait, before we get into that, I would like to just reply to that. So, just to be clear, we agreed to debate our claims and then I agreed publicly that I have no issues

Speaker A

having a conversation with you about other things that I've discussed that were outside of the court hearing and things like other evidence that's come across our lap and things that we've been speaking about. But I just do want

Speaker A

to make it clear to viewers that for whatever reason you think that you have a right to sort of depose me.

Speaker A

I'm not deposing you. I just want to ask you, but you literally said that I want to be able to question.

Speaker A

This is a meta meta conversation. But okay, so now we're transcending like I to use a word to use a word that you're saying, but this is but this is what you're doing, right? So this this part to me

Speaker A

feels like a bit of am I allowed to ask the questions? I'm going I've already said you can ask questions, but I made it very clear to you via email and with you in conversation that we should be speaking. This isn't like

Speaker A

you get to I said if you want to depose me, you should join defense team, but you're like I'm just going to ask questions. Can you answer it? Blah blah blah. It's like I don't know what you're going to ask and I'm

Speaker A

going to answer as I have issues with it because I'm not I get it. Yeah. Just so we're clear.

Speaker A

Usually in in the debate if something's not loaded I'm just direct with cuz you kept saying I'm Joe Rogan. They have no evidence. They have no evidence and now you're like let's move away from the evidence. Let's talk about

Speaker A

transcendental actually. Yeah. Okay. Anyway, so direct question super easy. Was Lance Twigs DNA on the rifle as far as you know?

Speaker A

We can't say that for for certainty. As far as you know I I already answered that in the first part. We can't say that for certainty. I told you the context of which they spoke about those things.

Speaker A

So no as far as you know. We can't say that for certainty until we know what other the five sets of prints were on.

Speaker A

So that would be no as far as you know. We can't say that for certainty.

Speaker A

You can say no as far as I know for certain. Uh we can't say that for certain. I actually can't say that for certainty.

Speaker A

If if you're if your energy here is going to be like you're my dad and you can tell me how to speak or what I'm supposed to say, you're you're you're just going to come up against the wall.

Speaker A

I I'm I'm familiar with this debate strategy. Yes. Yes or no? Yes or no?

Speaker A

We're not debating anymore. We're having a conversation. So I already addressed that in the first half of this about why No, we're still definitely debating.

Speaker A

This is still No, it's not a debate. Now, this is you saying, "I want to probe things that sit outside of the evidence." I actually already addressed this. You asked me.

Speaker A

You're not going to go like we're you're you're sitting and I'm on trial. I'm not on trial.

Speaker A

Okay, great. Can you have a conversation? Let's talk about the Foreign Legion. Sure. Was the Foreign Legion do you believe trying to kill you?

Speaker A

Yes. That's why I reported it to the correct officials in government. That's what I was told and I handed over that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office.

Speaker A

What's your best piece of evidence for that? Well, it was positive evidence. It was told to me by somebody who is high up in the French government. I passed off that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office. I also passed it off

Speaker A

to Trump's office, Donald Trump's office. Um, and that's all I can tell you. I I wouldn't be able to probe any evidence because I don't have the power to do that. I'm not the federal government.

Speaker A

And I would also like to say that this becomes this this other piece of what you do, which is when people say this, I was told this and this is the evidence that I have and I'm willing to have that

Speaker A

conversation and write the email to the correct government body that deals with this. Like I can't hack into Emanuel Mcronone's bank accounts and say whether or not the information but then you go, well, where's your evidence? It's like,

Speaker A

well, my evidence is that I I reported it. I did the right thing that you're going to do. So if somebody calls and says, hey, Andrew, there's a viable death threat against you. and that person definitively has the rank to be

Speaker A

able to tell you this and you say, "Well, what I'm going to do now is I'm going to report that to the feds." Then I go, "What's your evidence?" It's like, "Well, I got the information and I gave

Speaker A

the information that I got from who I got it to the right body of people." And that's what I did.

Speaker A

Got it. I just I just want to make sure. I'm not trying to trap you. I just want to make sure I got it clear.

Speaker A

And that's why I say I want to know what you're doing now because this has always been the thing. It's like we actually can't win on the overwhelming claim. So, we're just going to go and bring up everything that I think can try to

Speaker A

embarrass her. I reported exactly. I'm not trying to embarrass you. I just want to make sure that I get your positions clear.

Speaker A

I have not said. Yeah. Go ahead. And now you have stated multiple times that you believe that Israel's involved in the death of Charlie Kirk.

Speaker A

Can you give me Yes, we can pull up the clip. I'm sorry. I'm just saying.

Speaker A

Can I finish the sentence? Go ahead. Can you give me the context for what you're are you talking about like when I say generally speaking why people think that Israel is involved?

Speaker A

Okay. Where's your question? Yeah. Do you have any positive evidence whatsoever that Israel killed Charlie Kirk?

Speaker A

Well, I couldn't say Israel was on the ground and shot and killed Charlie Kirk.

Speaker A

I would say that there are various things that we're trying to establish, one being a motive. And since I don't believe that Tyler Robinson and his transfery uh is a convincing motive uh because he was fired up about politics,

Speaker A

which Lance testified that he never spoke about with him, nor do I believe that he was, you know, so into LGBTQ issues since Lance testified they never spoke about LGBTQ issues, that he stopped and ate at Chick-fil-A, which if

Speaker A

you are into LGBTQ issues, wouldn't be your lunch before you go kill Charlie Kirk for LGBTQ issues. Uh because, you know, Do you have positive evidence?

Speaker A

I'm I'm I'm answering the question as I feel like I want to answer it. Like I said, you don't get to for an hour and a half pepp.

Speaker A

And again, I already explained this at the top of the show, but the reason why people find Israel to be an interesting question is because truthfully, Charlie's perspectives were changing on Israel. And he was starting to realize how much pressure was being put on not

Speaker A

just our government uh to constantly fight their wars, but also being put on his organization personally. If people had come out and been honest about that, uh, rather than rabid claiming he never flinched and everybody's lying and this

Speaker A

is not true, you would probably have people that just go, "Eh, that's life. People change their opinions." I understand.

Speaker A

And then there was the rabbit. I mean, not even that. It's like everything was about trying to convince the public how much he liked.

Speaker A

So then other than intuition, how you feel about things, do you have any evidence his real was involved in killing Charlie Kirk? I have already said and if you're watching my show in the context of what I said, this is the

Speaker A

general sense of why people think Israel's involved. We don't nobody has made the claim that is Israelis. There were also, you know, obviously Carol made the claim.

Speaker A

Well, Joe Kent, who I I think would uh have the right to assert it, uh noted that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground that day. I think most people would like to probe that. Now, it

Speaker A

could be maybe they were students, you know, and there were Israeli students in Utah that day, but we'd like to probe that narrative because what we've seen after coming from the Israeli government, the Israeli prime minister, uh, kind of denying that he did it,

Speaker A

which wasn't really necessary, was quite busy, uh, the phone call that happened, which no one wants to discuss in the Hamptons the week prior, uh, or not the week prior, I think it was, uh, around August 5th or 6th that took place. And

Speaker A

again, the almost desperate lies about Charlie shifting opinion on Israel lead us to believe that there could be an Israeli angle in this. Uh, but we cannot say for certainty that Israel called the shots and this is how it happened. But

Speaker A

it is definitively, I think, a threat that a lot of us would like to see.

Speaker A

There's no positive evidence. I I whatever you want to say, however, positive, negative, however you want to say it. I don't have a conversation.

Speaker A

material evidence and other evidences. What we said is on our show is what we said which is we this feels like a conspiracy building. There's no reason to lie about these things and yet people are lying. Uh BB ain't acting right. The

Speaker A

Hampton's thing was weird. And the way they tried to shove the is Israel narrative down our throat immediately. I mean the day he died posting a picture of him with an American and Israeli AIed photo on the president's feed doesn't

Speaker A

feel right. Do you have any evidence that Erica Kirk or TPUSA participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?

Speaker A

I've never said they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk. So, how could I say that I have evidence they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?

Speaker A

Okay. So, then you don't believe that they did? I never have said that statement. So, I'm not going to get you to ask me personal questions about things that I've never said on record. Okay. Fair.

Speaker A

Your team is sending messages in the back saying they have a video they want to play.

Speaker A

Okay. Go ahead. I don't know what the video is. If you're Yes. You said that there's a video you want to play that Candace said she has full confidence Israel was involved.

Speaker A

Yep. Yeah. You said evidence that I that they killed him. I said they're This is why people think they're involvement.

Speaker A

Involvement. If they have the clip, they can play the clip. They're they're referring to a clip.

Speaker A

Yeah. via who? My guess is Pierre Erica. I think that there's a reason Pierre knew that Charlie was dead first. I think there's a reason he was a priority.

Speaker A

How why think France and Israel are involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination. And um I'm going to put that out there with full confidence.

Speaker A

Okay. I also involvement I understand. Yeah. So you think you you with full confidence you think that Yeah. I think Israel.

Speaker A

Yeah. I I I mean the person that gave me that thing that I reported said that French Foreign Legion were on the ground that day. Again, this would be this would be at a professional limitation for me to then go and probe that

Speaker A

information that I handed over. I can't do that. I'm not the You don't have any positive evidence of that?

Speaker A

I don't you [clears throat] can you just stop? It's It's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying positive evidence. I've just asked me what I think and I just tell you yes, I think they are involved.

Speaker A

That's a claim. No, I said here's what here's what I think. I have every right to ask you about your claim and if there's positive evidence for your claim statement. I literally just said I think and I am allowed to

Speaker A

think and you're thinking I have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think.

Speaker A

I I agree you're allowed to think. Nobody's disputing whether or not is allowed to think. What I'm asking is what's your issue then? What is your issue with the state? I think that Israel is [clears throat] involved.

Speaker A

That's not what That's not just what you said. You said that with it's with full confidence that you think that if you had full confidence to think when you think if but if you if I said for instance I

Speaker A

think I'm going to be late to work right with full confidence. I would say my evidence for that is that I'm 20 minutes away and I need to be there in 5. Andrew that's how you would know whether or not

Speaker A

you had confidence. Let me tell you something. Hang on. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish.

Speaker A

If it was the case that I said I I have full confidence I'm going to be late to work. I would say my evidence that I'm going to be is that work is 20 minutes away, right? And I have to be there in

Speaker A

5. So I have full confidence. That's why I would think that. So I'm asking if you think that Israel and France were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk and you say with full confidence.

Speaker A

I'm just asking for the evidence or at least walk me through the mindset of why it is that you could think that with evidence.

Speaker A

I actually don't [clears throat] have to walk you through why I think. Um I can also I can give you something that I think with full confidence. I think with full confidence that you know you lost the substance of this debate and now

Speaker A

you're moving toward things that I have said that I think which I can do. I'm allowed to pertinent to this debate that it's not exactly pertinent to this debate. It's not pertinent because our debate these are claims made about Charlie

Speaker A

Kirk's assassination. That's the complete substance of the debate. No, actually would you like to remind him of what our debate claims actually were?

Speaker A

And would you like to remind that you said I could ask you about any of these things to my heart's content? agree. But you did you do not get to structure how I'm allowed to reply or ask me why are you

Speaker A

structuring how you're allowed to reply. I'm just asking you direct questions. My I have full confidence that you do not feel that you represented your claim well. And so now what you came prepared to present yourself like a professor of

Speaker A

fallacy. I just want to know and to say you are not allowed to say that. You can't. It's my say whatever you want.

Speaker A

Well, nobody's disputing that. I'm asking Seems like you are disputing that. I'm asking specifically when it's all said and done. I've already explained to you I explained at the beginning of this why I think Israel is is is ultimately going

Speaker A

to be proven to have involvement in this. Um I just explained to you in the middle and now you're wanting me to structure the sentence or provide evidence. You don't have to. You're just allowed to think and I've explained to

Speaker A

you my thought process. I don't need to structure it in a sentence. If you feel like a professor today, you picked the wrong day. Don't you think that like tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people would want to know

Speaker A

what Candace Owen's positive evidence for why it is that Israel and France were involved in the most traumatic public assassination of Jenz's lifetime is?

Speaker A

That's why they watch my podcast. So you're just going to drip to them like here's why it's not dripping. I every time we come across any of these discussions they're watching this in context and they know why I'm saying it. So, for example, when

Speaker A

you're bringing up, well, Candace, where's your evidence for France doing this? I just told you someone who was high ranking in the French government, right?

Speaker A

Who's nameless? Of course. Of course. Of course. Of course. So, there's good reason to not conspiracy though if I then took it to the federal government. Like, you can't just go out there making a claim to the federal government. You get in

Speaker A

trouble for making false statements and things of that nature. So, and then you go, well, I'm going to probe that. Well, how can you probe that? This happens.

Speaker A

I can ask you what I'm probing specifically. This is my podcast. I am sharing my life and my experiences and what has happened to me and you're basically coming in like you're going to what regulate what I how I'm allowed to

Speaker A

say if I'm not trying to regulate anything. I'm asking very questioning a bit like a professor trying to regulate and say Candace.

Speaker A

You sound very defensive and like you just don't want to answer questions. I I I did answer your question three times. I didn't say it in the way that you wanted. just kind of offiscate and you run away from it. But I would like

Speaker A

for you to actually go through every clip that you guys have prepared because I it's pretty I I I think with full confidence people will recognize the strategy that you're trying to employ.

Speaker A

So let's get to the next clip you have prepared. Sure. They can pull up whatever clips whatever it is that you guys have prepared.

Speaker A

But there but I I would still I on this point I just want to make sure that you have full confidence that France and Israel were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk and you have no evidence for it at all that

Speaker A

you'll give us. Well, the high I I already did tell you where it came from.

Speaker A

I like I said, I can explain it to you. I can't understand it. Did that same higher up tell you that he was going to kill or that France killed Charlie Kirk or just that you were in danger?

Speaker A

They said that the French Foreign Legion was involved and on the ground that day.

Speaker A

I've already said that. You just don't like hearing it. Just out of curiosity, when you pass down that message to a Tulsi or Trump, Tulsi's office. Yes.

Speaker A

Tulsi's office. Are you giving them who told you that or you're just saying here's what I heard from someone and I have this and I have this information and of course if they wanted to open a file on it which I thought was

Speaker A

quite mysterious that Trump's office never got back to us. It was kind of weird about like from maybe that maybe they're not the correct office to I did receive a response from uh Tulsi Gabbard's office but I I don't think

Speaker A

there was ever any investigation into what I said. Got So the call was, "Hey, I've been told some the email was I've been told I have information." Yeah. That that that the French Foreign Legion was on the ground during Charlie's

Speaker A

assassination. Um uh and that I mean I it was a lot of information, but like Well, you didn't give specifics who it was from.

Speaker A

Not in the first email cuz I figured they would like Perfect. So if they do contact you, are you comfortable giving 100% who it is? I would absolutely give them as much information as possible.

Speaker A

Question if if whoever is the US government, why are you not Yes. It's very strange to me, you know. So if that's the case now, they may respond back and say we did, you know, that's their position.

Speaker A

That's why I did it in writing. And so I'm glad that's the case because so so if they right away in Trump's office his like Margot got right back to me. She said it was on his desk. So he has that there's

Speaker A

no and if you do say that and they contact that individual obviously you don't have to leak your sources here.

Speaker A

Is there enough credibility where that person would be willing to talk to them and explain to them exactly what their sources are?

Speaker A

Yes. Okay. I mean that's it seems reasonable. And so why he's asking me to defend that is like I'm not I think those are two different things. That's more something different.

Speaker A

Why are they not reaching out to you? I've asked that many times on my podcast.

Speaker A

What do you think about that Andrew? What? the fact that she emailed, she gave it, and nobody reached out to want to contact the source.

Speaker A

Probably didn't think it was actionable is my guess. But even if they did think it was actionable, great. Every lead should be followed up on within the confines of what's rational and reasonable.

Speaker A

Is it fair to say that this is maybe a different individual because this is a person that was involved with TPS, had a relationship with Char? No. No. Her relationship like this isn't just anybody. So if an average person sends it Yes.

Speaker A

Yeah. But I mean, we don't know who the source is. We don't know any of this.

Speaker A

Well, then if it wouldn't you if you were in that department, wouldn't you want to even you assign it to one of your guys?

Speaker A

There's no guarantee they didn't look into it. How do we know? We don't know.

Speaker A

How could they come the information? More of the information because it was a long file.

Speaker A

This is a separate This has got nothing to do with the debate. This is more on on uh Well, I just I sent the email assuming that's I'm saying like you go and you you make a report. you if think they're

Speaker A

going to come back to you and say, "Hey, what's more information? We're investigating this." And that didn't happen, and which is what I raised. I found that especially because this was at a time where they were saying that

Speaker A

they wanted to explore every possible lead with I even texted Dan Bonino. So, actually, it was three it was three offices.

Speaker A

Let me ask one question, Dan Bonino and uh the and Tulsi Gabbert's office. Okay. So, a followup to that is the following. Mhm.

Speaker A

If they contact you to say, is that specifically to the French government or Israel's involvement in the killing of Char?

Speaker A

It was that wasn't about Israel. Those are two separate things. That wasn't about Israel. It was they were saying the French foreign that person as a part of it was saying that it was the French foreign legion that

Speaker A

was on the ground that day. I'm surprised they haven't called you then. I find that to be very strange to I do as well because who would want to make a report like I mean I've never made a report

Speaker A

with the federal government. Let me ask one question. Let me just ask one question. Let me just ask one question and then I'm I'm going to bring it to you. Sure. The question is in regards to I've not seen that clip so

Speaker A

I'm seeing it now. The full I'm full confidence I believe that Israel French was involved.

Speaker A

Is that also based on a source that somebody told you that Israel was involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk or is that a gut feeling?

Speaker A

Uh so in terms of Israel I mean what I've said is what I publicly have said here. I do think that at the end of this we are going to find that Israel was involved. I do. Uh now when in terms of

Speaker A

any of the hard evidence that's been presented, I think this has been a huge problem that a lot of us have have had is that they won't even explore um anything else that was going on in Tyler Charlie's life personally. So if we're

Speaker A

not satisfied that Tyler Robinson did this in any way, then every alternative theory should be explored. Other evidence should be brought forward.

Speaker A

We've done that in our in our capacity. Like when people keep saying she has no evidence, it's kind of crazy. I think we've broken like more stories than any news source in the world. I mean, down to pictures, details, police officers,

Speaker A

uh, what the dog's name was, because we're not we're not the only people that believe there's a conspiracy here. The police officers that are were involved, the many police, sheriff's offices, um, that were departments that were involved that day all believed there was a

Speaker A

conspiracy down to the US marshals believed there was a conspiracy. They were uh, my sources at the US Marshalss were saying they were basically sent in a wild goose chase that day.

Speaker A

But do you see how you say my sources? You're not allowed to have sources. The thing is CNN allowed to have sources.

Speaker A

Hang on. I have sources if I said I have sources that claim none of that's true.

Speaker A

In fact, my sources claim that her sources are lying. My sources claim that there is none of them believe that there's a conspiracy. My sources claim all of them really think that Tyler Robinson was a lone gunman. If I just

Speaker A

said that as a hypothetical, wouldn't you say what? Yeah. I think what probably adds weight is like then when I drop photos of the car that no one was supposed to see, people go, "Okay, her sources are legit." So, um, and then when what I say

Speaker A

is then proven in court and nobody knew those things, uh, people are recognizing that my sources are legit. When I say Charlie, uh, was scared in in the last days and then I dropped the text message, which you've just learned about

Speaker A

a couple of weeks ago of him saying he was leaving leading the pro-Israel cause when everyone was lying about that. Then they say, I think Kansas sources are legit. So, I think what's happened is I've actually built up a rapport with my

Speaker A

audience that it's not vibes and dreams and that's why they keep watching my content because I like for example when I just the other day released the content of the shooter on the roof uh doing the lateral crawl then they're

Speaker A

going I don't think these are just vibes. It seems like Canada sources are legit. So, I've proven myself in the market.

Speaker A

Yeah. I'm not sure that that would legitimize your sources as being legitimate when it comes to the idea that oh, they all believe that there's a conspiracy going on, which is actually what your claim is now. How would that

Speaker A

actually hang on, hang on, I'm almost done. I'm not talking to PBT. How would that legitimize Well, it's not his debate. How would he how would it legitimize these sources that even if it's the case that you get some court

Speaker A

footage or some things like this? Why would it legitimize that your sources are telling you all the marshals believe it's a conspiracy, the police believe it's a conspiracy, everybody believes it. How would that legitimize any what I am saying to you and you are not

Speaker A

you are not forced to believe it. So let me just explain what I was answering here and I think that you understood what I was saying. Um is I have because people trust me uh compiled a lot of

Speaker A

information and presented it to the public and this information has been uh proven true. We've presented photos. We have presented videos never before seen stuff. The public has never seen it. And so what that does is your audience goes

Speaker A

okay when she says that she has these sources clearly she's telling the truth. No. Whether you would then go, "Well, I'm going to believe her when she says they don't believe they think that there's a conspiracy." That's up to you.

Speaker A

You cannot watch my content. I'm I'm not here to tell you that you have to watch my content or believe everything I'm saying.

Speaker A

Well, don't you think questioners should get questioned as well? By whom? I'm not committing a crime, am I? By just like saying what?

Speaker A

Are most of the people you ask questions of not actually committing crimes? But what do you mean they should answer questions where like at a police station? Like what are you saying? It's like if you're if you want people to

Speaker A

come in and answer questions for you. I have questions about this in the investigation. I have questions about this. I have questions about that. You want them to answer your questions.

Speaker A

Doesn't it seem totally fair that you answer back the questions people have for you?

Speaker A

Well, they're not answering our questions. So, it's also fair that they don't answer them.

Speaker A

So, you're Kovette should be in this chair. He's not. But isn't that a double But isn't that a double standard?

Speaker A

No, it's not because he's not doing it. Yeah. But what that would still be a double standard. If you're if you're requesting that he does do it, then that seems to infer that you think he owes you answers.

Speaker A

Oh, so inferences are allowed again. And they never weren't. So that seems to infer that you think that he owes you answers. If that's the case, then don't you owe answers?

Speaker A

Yeah. Well, I feel like I'm answering your questions and his questions about I I mean, I'm I'm talking about Andrew Kobat. He is his position is he's a spokesperson for Turning Point USA. So when the crowd turns against Turning

Speaker A

Point USA on the basis of a lack of information or because there has been I don't know seeds sewn of distrust, I would imagine uh and forget answering my questions because I doesn't need to be made.

Speaker A

Aren't you sewing a lot of those seeds of distrust? Well, I I think they're doing a pretty good job themselves if I'm being honest.

Speaker A

Uh you can blame it on Candace all you want. The thing is funny is people act like I'm I'm ground [clears throat] zero of people not trusting Turning Point USA. I think there was some PR there. I think there was some PR there.

Speaker A

Sure. They could have done better. Absolutely. I'm not disputing any of that. One thing though that I am I I want to just directly ask you is do you actually believe that anybody in TPUSA or Erica Kirk or Erica actually participated had

Speaker A

Ford knowledge of or uh facilitated the murder of Charlie Kirk? I'm not going to get myself into a legal pickle here. Everything I've said is on my podcast. I I I I think firmly that if if I was the investigating officers,

Speaker A

I would I would seat them all and I would ask questions. I would at this phase. I would.

Speaker A

Okay. Hypothetical. Um does that mean that you do think so? I I think it was not a sufficient investigation in into what is what we know to be true of 80% of uh homicides.

Speaker A

It's usually conducted by someone, you know, right? And the fact that that was never even considered that the like I said earlier the backpack was returned.

Speaker A

How do you know that was never considered? Because they gave back the backpack as as just one example. Uh they gave back the backpack. They gave back the um that doesn't show a conspiracy.

Speaker A

Well, I mean it shows that the police trusted everybody and didn't just hold things up for a second.

Speaker A

Yeah. They ruled them out as suspects that quickly. I I I'm not comfortable with that investigation. It's a pretty big organization. There's a hund00 million incentive. people. This is $100 million incentive.

Speaker A

What I'm saying is his organization like it had grown to I think it was hundred million plus per year.

Speaker A

Yeah. Per year. We if that's something you want to factor. Your team wants to play video if you don't mind. There's a there's a video they want to play of uh Candace said it's impossible to not believe Erica's complicit. If you guys

Speaker A

want to play that video. Yeah. Could also just ask. So right now their guys are going out and they're going to look for evidence and then by May, which is fortunately around the corner, then she'll see what they found.

Speaker A

So what the f is that performance? How could you sit up there and say I I Yes, I 100% believe Tyler Robinson did it.

Speaker A

That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erica Kirk is not complicit somehow. cuz what that those two thoughts actually don't even follow. How would it be the case that even if Erica Kirk did believe that

Speaker A

Tyler Robinson was 100% responsible for the death of Charlie Kirk, let's say she believed it with every fiber of her being, believed all the evidence, cuz she did. She just actually did.

Speaker A

Would it then follow that somehow she's complicit in his death? I didn't say implicit in death. You added those two words.

Speaker A

Okay. So, what's she complicit in? Yes. So sewing this narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty. So you're chopping up clips like I said you didn't have the confidence coming up.

Speaker A

We are showing a clip of her on Barry Weiss which I can't remember the date that she did that interview. Uh and Erica when she is asked are you know do you do you feel with 100% certainty that

Speaker A

Tyler Robinson did did this and she says I do. Then again context matters. I sit down with Erica for four hours under the assumption that she had some evidence, right? Like like I'm like I actually this is why I did not engage in any like

Speaker A

Erica everyone's questioning what she's wearing and all this stuff. I was like I'm going to wait here because I don't know just it feels weird to think that do I did I think that some of her mannerisms were weird and stuff like

Speaker A

that? Yeah, but that's not you can't convict somebody on weird mannerisms. And then when I sat down with her and I was expecting for her to say, "Well, you know, I'm obviously the victim on the case and we got to see the shot, you

Speaker A

know, taken or this or that, whatever it is." Great. You know, that's why she's being that's why she has that much confidence two months ago. And when I sat down with her, it was nothing. It was nothing. Okay. So, this is a

Speaker A

conversation. How would that make her complicit? Complicit. Again, you said complicit in the death of Charlie. in what? Yeah.

Speaker A

Well, if you let me finish my sentence, I could tell you that. But my point being is that then you take a look at this and you go, "Okay, well, this is weird. Why Why would you have this

Speaker A

confidence?" And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, "Okay, great. I want to go out there and defend you now. I want people to know that you can't say this stuff publicly, but you know more things." And she just blanks.

Speaker A

And then she says, "Well, I'm going to call the lawyer." And she called the lawyer. Again, all this is on my show, so out of context clips is not going to work because I know what I say on my

Speaker A

show. So, we call her lawyer and her lawyer says to us, "Uh, she calls him on the phone, pardon me, and uh it's me, her, and Justin Strife." And he I'm like, "Okay, great. What do you guys have?" He goes, "Well, we don't have

Speaker A

anything yet. That's not we're not at that phase yet." And I'm like, "What do you mean you don't have anything?" And he says, "Well, don't you know how it works? It's a probable cause hearing." So, basically, the state says that

Speaker A

they're going to bring this forward. And now our people go out and they look for the evidence to uh assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty. And so I asked her directly, her lawyer directly, the phone's in between us. I'm like, wait,

Speaker A

so just so I'm clear, you haven't seen anything that the public hasn't seen? And he says, no. So I'm going back in my head, I'm going, okay, so why is Erica saying with such a degree of certainty, like she was sent

Speaker A

out to convince the public and and people bit, by the way. I remember even Megan Kelly was like, uh, you know, let's wait. She's going to have access to things. I did think she had access to things that we didn't have. Why express

Speaker A

that confidence to the public as opposed to just being like, "We don't know yet.

Speaker A

I'm I feel confident he's probably he's involved. They made an arrest." I don't understand. How would any of this make her complicit in what?

Speaker A

Well, I've already told you she was she she's complicit in in trying to fool the public into thinking this is some open and shut case.

Speaker A

How is she trying to fool the public into this? If she believes, if she believes that Charlotte that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk, if she believes that, how would that be complicit in anything?

Speaker A

I I I do. Are you saying that you think she doesn't believe it? I I don't believe that at that stage when she sat down with Barry Weiss that that's what she believes. No, but that's my opinion.

Speaker A

Right. But so when you just say complicit, you just mean she believes that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk?

Speaker A

That's it. That's what we were talking about. That's why I said if your strategy was to dice up clips and take it out of context and make it seem like I said everything.

Speaker A

Yeah. But then why not just play the full thing? Like why? Because we don't have like infinite amounts of time. I'm guessing you probably don't want to watch. I I I'm going to go back to my theory that you

Speaker A

didn't feel confident that you could defend your your claim that it was overwhelming evidence. So now you're trying to move towards doctorred clips and getting there's no doctor anything. I'm just making sure that we got this right. That

Speaker A

what you're actually saying is that Erica is just complicit in belieing when I reexamine her actions backward because I did not have this perspective of her at the beginning. Which is why it's so funny to me that you guys make it seem

Speaker A

like I'm ground zero. People thought Erica was sus from day I forgive him. And I was not a part of that. I did not lean into that. I did not contribute to that. I was getting actually terrible messages from my fans being like,

Speaker A

Candace, you and Charlie always say to go with your intuition. You won't address this how we all feel about her.

Speaker A

Things changed for me when I saw that Zoom call. I will tell you that. Um for sure. And the fact that she lied to me.

Speaker A

So, I sat across from her and, you know, got to I wanted to have that conversation publicly, but they're probably grateful they didn't do it publicly. Uh, she told me some lies. And so, the next thing that happens

Speaker A

naturally when somebody lies to you, you go, when any person lies to you, whether it's a toddler, people only lie when they're trying to obscure something else.

Speaker A

Have you addressed what that lie was? Yeah, I've talked about we have a list of lies that we've been told by we can find that in the meeting with her. Well, no. I I didn't want her to cage up. I did I

Speaker A

didn't want to do this and because I I didn't know what to expect. Like I I didn't I didn't know if she was going to be like, I'm so overwhelmed with everything, you know, and I don't know who to trust at the organization and I I

Speaker A

don't know what I'm do. Like I didn't know I didn't want to just out of curiosity before anything happened with Charlie, how close were you and Erica?

Speaker A

Not very close. So there's not a relationship? No. There I mean there I like I would say it's totally normal. Like it's not like there was any issues at all. Uh she was always we were always nice to each

Speaker A

other. It just is our life went to a different phase, right? So Charlie and I hitting the ground running around traveling 4 days a week. Now I get married. I I find love of my life. I get married and I get pregnant. I've been I

Speaker A

haven't stopped being pregnant. And what you want out of life changes. You don't want to be running around for 4 days a week and traveling on a plane non-stop.

Speaker A

You suddenly want to start building at home and live. I was desiring that suburban life. Did you guys ever do the double dates? You, George, her, and Charlie. Was there ever double dates between the four?

Speaker A

Oh, I I was uh, you know, engaged to George quickly. We were planning our wedding. I was kind of in my bubble with George. George traveled with me and Charlie, but Erica and him were just starting to date at the beginning of

Speaker A

2019. George and I were planning our marriage. So, George really got to know Charlie. I wouldn't say that I really got to know Erica. I was just rooting for them because I knew how much Charlie wanted to, you know, find love. And so,

Speaker A

I was kind of his wingwoman throughout that phase. and I was just happy and I never was under the impression obviously that they were going to get married when they were dating. So it wasn't like I would have was consciously I didn't

Speaker A

really need to get to know this person and so it was just kind of normal that by that time because of where I was in my life that I wasn't spending any time getting to know Erica so the complicit part about Erica to you

Speaker A

is that a gut feeling do you think it transformed when she lied? You can take the lead. I'm just asking questions if you want to go forward. I actually don't I still don't understand what she's you think she's complicit in.

Speaker A

Yeah. So when I say Erica's complicit, that's my opinion. When you tweeted Erica's too to kill her husband.

Speaker A

Yeah. Would you like to explain how you developed your evidence, your positive evidence for the fact that Erica was Um yeah, sure. So I just think all women are Oh, so you're allowed to just say stuff.

Speaker A

Who knew? So, and and by the way, and what dramatically transformed your opinion of Erica after uh going to the headquarters because you were pretty hostile uh about I wasn't hostile towards him.

Speaker A

You don't think calling somebody too No. Come on. That's like normal tongue-in-cheek stuff for me online.

Speaker A

Oh, you're being tongue tongue and cheek. Yeah. Usually when I call someone I'm being tongue and cheek.

Speaker A

Yeah. Like for instance, you got supporters. I mean, if you were if you want to use the same exact argument, you would take a supporter like Owen Benjamin, he called you bad names and one and called your husband bad names.

Speaker A

Are you just like, well, that's no biggie. I've never answered him on anything that he said. I'm saying that you now are her her biggest defender. So, do you still think she's not her biggest defender?

Speaker A

Do you think still think she's too No, no, no, no. I didn't know Erica Kirk. I'd never met her before.

Speaker A

Okay. But you had an issue with Turning Point being led u by a bunch of femb bots saying talking about the feminist angle and then suddenly you go to the headquarters.

Speaker A

You come you go into the headquarters now all of a sudden you've got text messages that you're sharing with them.

Speaker A

You say that your you and your wife are getting involved with management. No, no, no. I'm not involved in any management attorney.

Speaker A

Well, I'm pretty sure there is a clip of you where you say that your wife went to their recent conference and sat down and then when you were on your ro No, no, no, no. Hang on. I'll explain

Speaker A

what happened just so that you understand. Yeah. So, I was invited there to do some debate training. That's literally what I was invited there to do.

Speaker A

Uh on recommendation. So, I went down and did some debate. That's the first time I ever met anybody at TPUSA.

Speaker A

Okay. And then you said you sat down with Erica. Well, I didn't sit down to her. I talked to her in a hallway.

Speaker A

So, you didn't sit down and speak with Erica? No, I didn't have like some sit down long conversation. We We talked in a hallway.

Speaker A

Okay. For Is that when you gave her the hug? Yeah. gave her the hug right there. My and my wife did too. We were both very sorry for what happened.

Speaker A

Okay. So, at what point did you start receiving text messages from that you cited in your opening statement?

Speaker A

Well, I just reached out to TPUSA and said, "I'm prepping for a debate. Is there anything that's pertinent that I can use here?" Do you find it interesting that people have been asking for, you know, basic answers to questions and you're saying

Speaker A

that you walked into their headquarters and reached out and they in It's amazing, isn't it? if you reach out in good faith and you're not demonizing them and saying that they're complicit in the murder of people's deaths that

Speaker A

that perhaps they're actually willing to release things to you that are pertinent other than thinking that you know perhaps you're diabolical I feel like if I was going to release that information I didn't I didn't demand that it be released to me um I

Speaker A

actually never demanded that it be released I just simply said that this is what was going on in the last 48 hours maybe to the media they could release it they could release it to PBD they decided to release it to a guy that

Speaker A

called Erica too in June. So what? Yeah. I just think it kind of shows that Turning Point is sending you as their horse.

Speaker A

Well, I don't know. They just don't have they don't have the courage to have the conversation. If they were just releasing something in good faith to answer questions never demanded.

Speaker A

It's not evidence that you're sharing your opinion that she's too I can't share my opinion that I think it's going to register as really obvious to the public that rather than presenting that throughout the course of everybody wanting to know what Charlie was going

Speaker A

through through his last days, they decided to give it to you to come to my house as some sort of a surprise. Do you think the public's not smart enough to do that?

Speaker A

Do you think that if you talking about terrible PR? If you know that there's a huge debate that's coming up that's going to be probably one of the most viewed that year and one of the debaters calls you

Speaker A

and says, "I'm taking this position. this is the position that I feel like there's the most evidence for. And Candace also agreed to answer many of my questions in regards to this. So, if you got pertinent evidence here that I can

Speaker A

use, I'd definitely like take a look. It was actually amazing to me. It really was actually amazing to me how if you approach people in good faith and just say, "Hey, I'd actually like to know what the facts and details are

Speaker A

around this." They actually do talk to you. [laughter] It's amazing. Yeah. I I I just do not believe a that you that they are doing this in good faith. I don't believe that anything you have done has demonstrated that's in

Speaker A

good faith. It demonstrates that you walked into Turning Point USA headquarters and came out a different man because you were critical of the organization. You were critical of Erica and now you're sitting here going I want to interrogate you for an hour and a

Speaker A

half about everything about critical of somebody that you hadn't met and then you meet him and you're less critical of them.

Speaker A

Uh and the inverse has happened too. I was critical about Erica and now I'm more critical you but I'm asking you isn't it the case that there's people you've been critical of and then you've met them and you're less critical after

Speaker A

you meet them. uh too I I I feel like if you think that she's dumb and you Let's just talk about your record. I mean, you're a person that has spent time in what most people would term to be the manosphere talking about

Speaker A

feminis Well, yeah. I debate against the the feminist and red pillars and a lot of the actual So, I'm a Christian ethicist. I always You go on to Joe Rogan and you're like like soft explaining away Erica had to

Speaker A

take over Charlie's company when they don't have a parent at home. So now you're a feminist icon. Like you just go into the headquarters and you just shift all of your perspective.

Speaker A

That's a bizarre criticism. Like nobody's in the bigger girl boss position than you. I'm actually No, you're in the biggest of the girl boss positions. Like you don't have to do this. You just do do this. You could

Speaker A

definitely not do it at all and be fine, right? But you still do. I I I would say that you are making a comparison that cannot be compared because because Erica's husband was just assassinated in front of the world,

Speaker A

which makes sense why she would take the organization away. No, that it makes sense why you would go home to your kids, just so you know.

Speaker A

Wait a second. That's that's bizarre. They don't have a parent. They don't have a parent and they've just suffered a trauma. You don't go into the office.

Speaker A

You want to protect your husband's legacy, right? And you're trying to find some new legacy is his children, not the organization.

Speaker A

It's it's both. No, it it Yes, it is both. It's totally rational and reasonable to believe that it would be both Turning Point USA that is part of Charlie Kirk's legacy. He worked his whole life for it.

Speaker A

This is why people think she's sus and his children. Now, for you though to say that anybody's a girl boss, right?

Speaker A

That's like the calling the kettle black. That came out of your mouth. No, that was you. You brought up girl boss.

Speaker A

Girl boss came out of your mouth. Yeah. I'm just I'm telling you that you brought up this idea that I'm defending some feminist nonsense. I'm not. I'm pointing out that there there, by the way, she's not qualified to take over his

Speaker A

company. There's always objective outliers to each situation. In fact, it's the exception that proves the rule. And the interesting thing here is like I'm still just as critical of feminism inside of TPUSA as I've always been. And I'm just

Speaker A

as critical of any pro-Zionist position as I've ever been. None of that's ever changed. By the way, I would think it's the most rational, reasonable thing on planet earth to do if you wanted to actually see an organization change to

Speaker A

try to work with leadership or reach out to leadership to try to do so. Doesn't that make the most amount of sense? I would like to state for the record that I think Erica is underqualified from uh to that to run

Speaker A

the organization. And on on the more emotional aspects, I agree with the what seems to be a majority opinion, cuz I'm not going to say it's scientific, that any woman that would leave her kids and go right into the office after their

Speaker A

husband was publicly assassinated does not have their priorities straight. Okay. Well, I understand that you can have those criticisms, but I'm not understanding still how that would make her complicit.

Speaker A

I don't I don't have to keep answering the same question. Your team is asking to how it's complicit.

Speaker A

Your team is asking to play a clip. So, if we want to play this clip to just finish this segment on the Erica Kirk topic, we can spend some time on that as well. So, if you guys are

Speaker A

ready in the back, we're ready and causing that 30 six diameter as would happen with a patent explosives as as we've demonstrated to you in the past. It accidentally because of how Charlie was crouched went up and hit his

Speaker A

neck and that ruined everything. That ruined everything. It was problematic. It's the reason why Teraldin had to scramble to get the cameras down because they were never supposed to see it. They they could have said reasonably that a 306

Speaker A

got eaten by Charlie. much more reasonably obviously than saying that the chicken bones in his neck stopped it because he ate vegetables.

Speaker A

They panicked. That was what then that's why Terrell Zer was on the phone with me. Again, this is my theory and I am now very much sticking to it. Okay, they panicked. It's the reason Erica had to step out once. That's why she would have

Speaker A

got gotten on the phone with Terl so quickly because I was going, "Why is Terl saying, "Well, I didn't want Erica to relive. That's why I did it. He didn't have an answer. He was nervous.

Speaker A

It was crazy. And but he acknowledged that he spoke to Erica immediately. Why did you speak to Erica immediately?

Speaker A

So, do you believe that there was a shape charge that killed Charlie? Hey, can I ask you why you keep starting clips mid-sentence?

Speaker A

Probably to get to where the clip is? No, it doesn't seem that way cuz you can always start a clip at the beginning of a sentence. Like, you're just start of like it's completely out of context.

Speaker A

Wait, I didn't I didn't prepare the clips, but I think I didn't. But it's fine to ask it to back up. I said this this the I don't need to say what's happening here because the internet will clock it. But

Speaker A

uh in this episode we are now going and that's why I said we're now going to look at some alternative theories. I made it very clear that this was a theory that I didn't want to look at.

Speaker A

This is I believe because I don't have every episode on my head and but I'm pretty sure this is an episode where we presented the evidence that was in the car, the photos of what was in the car,

Speaker A

right? And so we are now inferring off of what we see in the car that this very much does look like uh that we are see a bunch of shattered road microphone which was an early theory that I was actually

Speaker A

interested in but couldn't really wrap my head around what was uh the shape charge explosive as I say at the beginning episode like I just it was just not my expertise and I was concerning myself with timelines and

Speaker A

stories and St. statements. It didn't make sense without question. Cheryl Farnsworth uh is is someone who made me think that we were missing a big part of the story. So, I'm walking them through uh John Bray's theory. If we started to

Speaker A

insert what we are actually observing with the evidence that we're taking a look at and what took place that day.

Speaker A

So, we're completely in the hypothetical right here. Uh and you're now introducing this. If that's if that's the case, if you're just hypothetically exploring it, that's why I'm just asking directly.

Speaker A

Yes. But if you But that's obvious when you watch this episode. So that's why it feels like I'm in the middle of an interview with CNN when they like pull up random clips and they're like, "What's this? What's this?" You watch

Speaker A

the episode, you know. Just trying to make sure. Do you think that your alternative theory? Do you think I think John Gray's theory should be explored? Yes.

Speaker A

Okay. Do you Do you think that Charlie Kirk was killed with an explosive? I think I think that that is a possibility. Yes.

Speaker A

Okay. And it should be explored. He's done a lot of work on it. John Bray has done good work and I think that that's why that uh theory is now starting to gain steam since we released the second set

Speaker A

of the photos of what was in the car. I think it's viable. So, this was the big thing I wanted to get into with you on the explosives, too.

Speaker A

What What is it about that theory that's actually compelling to you? So, I looked into the explosive mic theory multiple times, and the biggest thing that stood out to me is there's no explosion. There's there's literally no explosion. In fact,

Speaker A

there's videos when the shot rings out um that kills Charlie, at least it sounds like a shot to me, people are actually like looking up towards where the uh the gun is being fired. They're looking away for where the sound is.

Speaker A

Like, where's the actual explosion? Well, for every person that you say looks away, there's going to be a person that was looking forward. Uh we have former Marines that have gotten on and said, I it looks to me like there's an

Speaker A

explosion under his shirt. Right. You obviously saw um uh Rob O'Neal go on to I'm forgetting which platform it was where he said the first thing I thought was that Rob O'Neal is the man that killed Osama.

Speaker A

Yeah. And I think he's qualified to say what he believes he saw. Uh we we should actually since they're pulling clips, we should run that clip of Rob O'Neal and what he said and what he observed and his experience.

Speaker A

So I'm going to take that. And also there were people who tested [clears throat] like immediately spoke to the media that day who said the same thing that they thought that something happened under his shirt. That was actually if you go back to like my first

Speaker A

episode when I was just observing what I saw with my eyes. I was asking the serious question. I was seriously saying why is it like somebody shot him from underneath? Why is his shirt moving first? It doesn't make sense to me. And

Speaker A

uh I'm that's because of air dispersal from the bullet. So when a when whenever a bullet is shot, a projectile shot, you can actually run this experiment yourself if you have a rifle. take like an empty box of ammunition and put it on the table

Speaker A

and then fire it near the muzzle and that box will actually blow off the table.

Speaker A

Okay. So, question for you. Does that box go sideways off a table? It can.

Speaker A

It It can. Yeah, it can. It depends on the dispersal. You 3,000 lbs of energy or 2,000 lbs of energy coming at you. That's how much it carries.

Speaker A

2,000 pounds of energy. I We can fact check that. How many How many How many pounds of energy is it a 30 six uh being shot? 15 yards away. That's a great question for Grock. I'm going to say when we looked at it, it was between

Speaker A

1500 and 2,000. I'm pretty sure pounds of energy coming at you and you just go upward and to the side.

Speaker A

I don't really buy that. I mean, and I'm going to just say I just think that that's not right. But possible. It doesn't go through on top of that. So, there's another miracle.

Speaker A

You didn't get blown backwards. You didn't It didn't go through. But I also want to say that you're saying this can happen and Rob O'Neal is infinitely more qualified, I think, to speak on that.

Speaker A

And well, because he's actually shot and killed people. Why would that have anything to do with anything?

Speaker A

Well, because did he slow down all the videos of the people he shot to see if their clothes moved?

Speaker A

Well, why are you able to assert your pos? Because I'm going to I'm going to tell you how projectiles were. He's not even going to dis I guarantee you this guy is not even going to disagree with what I'm

Speaker A

about to say. If it is the case that you have energy and you have mass and the mass is moving in the air, the air has to go somewhere. It doesn't have a choice.

Speaker A

I think you're like totally BSing right now man. Not only am I not BSing, I'm telling you the truth. If a bullet is moving in air, air has to move out of way of bullet.

Speaker A

Well, maybe not at the bottom of a shirt here. I don't know. I I just I disagree with that. I'd like to say for the record, I've watched some of you do these sorts of things where you assert

Speaker A

something with a lot of confidence and it's you can fact check it. It's your bullets displace air.

Speaker A

If a not about whether it displace air, it's where it dispersed the air underneath his shirt here.

Speaker A

It's not underneath his shirt. The bullet's this big and you're telling me it's going to hit his neck and then it's not underneath the shirt. It starts up here and the collar's moving and then you see the wave here as he's moving

Speaker A

backwards. Yeah, that's not true. It's not and we obviously can't show that clip. I disagree with you.

Speaker A

Okay, I understand you can't show it for purposes. Exactly. Uh I disagree with you. People can go watch and make up their own minds. We don't need to debate it whether or not it was the first thing I

Speaker A

said was why is his shirt moving first? That didn't make sense to me. It it it almost looks just like this. It goes across. His necklace breaks first before Charlie even reacts. If you watch it in slow, his necklace breaks first, which I

Speaker A

thought was very odd, and then you see a puff here and the next thing you know, there's a there's the uh entry wound on his neck. I I would not confidently assert that I see smoke. I've never said

Speaker A

it on my platform. You think that an explosion generally has smoke? I don't think that there's any quality version of video that would get us to be able to answer that question other than Terl's 4K footage that he has from the

Speaker A

front. So there's a lot of um if you look at the Israeli pagers, it's assumed that they it's a similar if not the same type of explosive that was used inside the pagers that would have been used inside

Speaker A

of this road mic. I think that you should since you love debating, you should debate someone like John Bray who's worked on that theory for 11 months and ask those sorts of questions of how a shape charge would

Speaker A

work. Uh, I presented the evidence of what was in the car and I also at that episode that you're clipping said John Bray has done an unbelievable amount of work on this and I think he has debated a ton of people actually regarding this

Speaker A

topic. So that's the route that I would send you on purpose. Yeah, for the purpose of my show I I do believe to answer your question that it is a hypothetical. I mean that it is a a theory that should

Speaker A

be thoroughly explored. There's two clips uh your team wants to show. One of them is the rival clip since we're on it. So, if you guys are ready in the back before we go to ad break, if you want to pull it up, this

Speaker A

is a good time to do so. And good to see, General Hull. A lot of things bother um bothers me about this.

Speaker A

Um nothing in particular, and it's not like I'm out there saying big lie or conspiracy or someone did it. I'm just saying I've been in a lot of shootings.

Speaker A

I've killed more than a handful of people, and this thing looked shady off the bat. I mean, just I've killed people closer than I saw the camera, and I've never seen a shirt move like that. That looks like an explosion to me. The uh

Speaker A

just the fact that no one started doing uh first aid to Charlie Kirk, they were more concerned about getting SIM cards out of cameras, removing cameras, and then uh getting him off the X somehow.

Speaker A

There didn't seem a lot of concern for for his life. It seemed like just cleaning up. And then, I mean, I've been told they paved it over a couple days later. And then you get Erica Kirk uh behind all the razledazzle and she's

Speaker A

really quick to forgive the alleged shooter which technically says uh that was him cuz I forgive him. But then you can't forgive Candace Owens for having an opinion or asking questions and they mock people by saying oh I'm just asking

Speaker A

questions. Yeah, I'm I'm a SEAL team 6 sniper. I'm asking a lot of questions.

Speaker A

No one wants to answer them. And you're able to ask? He's actually said very little about the explosive there. So he say he observed he said he's shot people up close and he's never seen a shirt move like that

Speaker A

and it looked to him like an explosive. That's what he dispute. But when I play that video at full speed, I can't see a shirt moving. I can only see a shirt moving when we slow it way down. So if I'm in real time, I'm just

Speaker A

assuming this, right? I'm in if I'm was in real time and I was in like a close quarters combat, you kill somebody situation and I shot them, would you even see the shirt move? Well, I just feel like five minutes ago you were

Speaker A

arguing that it was because the bullet carried air. Now you're saying you don't see the shirt move at all.

Speaker A

Yeah, but that's if you slow it down, the dispersement of air, that's where you're going to see it, right? It's going to be very quick. Very, very, very, very fast. And then that's not what I saw and clearly it's

Speaker A

not what he saw and he thinks that there could be an explosive. So, I'm just saying to you when you people disagree with you, your your opinions on a fact. That's all.

Speaker A

I understand. I think that's a good place for us to if you if we have another a break and then we can keep answer answering your questions.

Speaker A

Yeah, I mean I think um yeah, sounds good. Perfect. We'll do a quick three and a half minute ad break. We'll be back for the last segment.

Speaker A

Cool. All right, thank you. All right, you guys. I want to tell you about ethos because life has a way of changing your priorities when you least expect it. One day you're focused on what's next for you, the next you're

Speaker A

thinking about a home, a family, and how to build a future that feels secure. As your world grows, so does your perspective. That shift in mindset is what led me to make life insurance a priority. It's one of those things

Speaker A

that's easy to put off, but having it in place gives me peace of mind. Knowing that the people that I care about would have financial support if the unexpected ever happened. Getting covered today is simpler, faster, and more affordable

Speaker A

than many people realize. That's why I love Ethos, because with Ethos, you can apply online in just minutes. No medical exams, no waiting rooms. Just answer a few health questions and you could be covered the very same day. Ethos has 4.9

Speaker A

out of five stars on Trustpilot with over 5,500 reviews. What really stands out to me is that Ethos helps match you with coverage that actually fits your life, your goals, and your budget. With up to $3 million in coverage and plans

Speaker A

starting around $30 a month, protecting your family can feel a whole lot more doable. Peace of mind should not be complicated. So take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote at

Speaker A

ethos.com/candis. That's Ethos.com/candis. Application times and rates may vary. And I want to remind you guys about Tax Network USA because I know a lot of people owe back taxes. Maybe you have years of unfiled returns. Maybe you file

Speaker A

every year and you still can't get ahead because the balance keeps growing. Or maybe you withdrew money from a 401k or IRA and suddenly got hit with a tax bill that you didn't expect. Whatever caused the problem, one thing is certain. The

Speaker A

IRS penalties and interest keep adding up every single month. If you don't have a plan now, you could end up owing even more next tax season. Before the IRS starts sending more letters, garnishing wages, or freezing your bank account,

Speaker A

call Tax Network USA. They've been helping taxpayers nationwide for more than 15 years, resolving back taxes, unfiled returns, and serious IRS problems. So whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, their team has resolved over $1 billion in tax debt. Right now,

Speaker A

they're offering a free IRS investigative call to find out exactly what you owe and what options you have to fix it. So call 866861651 or visit tnusa.com/candis.

Speaker A

Again, that's tnusa.com/candis. I also want to tell you guys about Field of Greens because I am always looking past the headlines and asking one simple question. What is really in the product that I'm putting into my body? Think

Speaker A

about it. When you buy a steak or a bag of vegetables, you see nutrition facts label. When companies take fruits and vegetables and turn them into a formula, you'll often see a supplemental fax label instead. That makes me want to

Speaker A

know more. Where do the ingredients come from? How are they processed? And can I trust what's actually inside? That's one reason I love Field of Greens because their focus is on quality, transparency, and bringing together fruits and vegetables in a convenient daily

Speaker A

formula. And it actually tastes good. Wild Berry is my favorite, but strawberry lemonade is a popular choice as well. No complicated routine, just one scoop mixed with water. If you want to try it, use code Candace at checkout

Speaker A

for 20% off your first order by visiting fieldof greens.com. That's code candacefield greens.com. All right. Fantastic. So, Andrew, if you want to go with your last couple thoughts.

Speaker A

Yeah. So, I just have two two more clips to play. Okay. Right. And then I uh we can do final thoughts, I'm guessing. Um I Yeah, I feel like uh we got where we were trying to go or at least for the most part. So,

Speaker A

um the two other clips I do want to play the Twigs clip. That one is important to me. The Twigs DNA clip.

Speaker A

Yeah. and they're gonna pull it up just to have you respond to. Well, you don't have to play it because like if if you're saying that when I initially watched it, I thought that Lance Twigs's DNA like he was directly

Speaker A

responding to that because the testimony was a bit confusing. They started by saying that they were going to um uh like explaining how they got the samples and they said Lance, Matt, and Amber uh sorry, Lance, Matt, and Amber Robinson,

Speaker A

how they got their uh DNA samples. And then they started speaking about the gun and said, you know, multiple prints were found on them. And then they moved and they said Lance Twigs's DNA was found on the screwdriver. Uh when I went back and

Speaker A

rewatched it, I realized well they haven't officially said that Lance or Amber are on the gun. So I think I've already conceded that we don't know that. So I think like but if you're if you want No, this is directly you saying it is on

Speaker A

the gun. Twig is I'm saying that I feel like I've already said to you like I've made that concession. Just to be clear, whenever I make a mistake, I just correct it. So that's why when you were asking me three

Speaker A

times, I've already said we don't know yet and I've corrected that mistake. So if the purpose of you showing this is to demonstrate that Candace makes mistakes sometimes uh when she's taking in a lot of information and she's reading through

Speaker A

legal documents and she's trying to remember testimony. It's to demonstrate something else. It is in fact the case we're all going to make mistakes. I'm going to make mistakes and I've already I've already You're going to make mistakes in the

Speaker A

case, but in this case, you were very adamant that his DNA was on the gun itself.

Speaker A

Yeah. So, I'm just saying that it's not ruled out. We know that there's five plus prints. I've said this so many times. I had to rewatch the testimony again. It's like nine hours a day. It got very scientific when they were

Speaker A

speaking about this. And I think I wrongly extrapolated that they meant all three of them were on the prints when the only person they officially named was Matt Robinson. So, we don't know yet if um Lance Twigs has his DNA on the

Speaker A

Prince offic DNA on the gun officially just yet. Okay. I've already conceded that. So, that's fine. And then the last one is one with Erica Kirk.

Speaker A

Sure. This is like the Erica Kirk like All right. You could just sit down with me, Erica, but we could do it this way.

Speaker A

This goes back to a previous claim that you made by bringing it up. Straight to jail. Straight to jail for questioning. At least Erica, I don't care who's mad. I really do not care who wants to be upset after this episode.

Speaker A

Really, you will be wasting your breath. You can spend a billion dollars on influencers because this is all becoming increasingly inexplicable. You are asking me to be an idiot actually and I cannot do that for you. Someone once

Speaker A

commented beneath this show that if the situations were reversed and there were this many verifiable lies straight straight to jail.

Speaker A

Yeah. So that's the show intro and straight to jail. Straight to jail is a monopoly term.

Speaker A

Okay. So do not pass go. Yeah. Do not collect $200. Yes. It's it's obviously tongue and cheek. And then we explained that actually I think that she should be brought in for questioning because of inconsistencies. So, this is the exact

Speaker A

episode when I started to think that she should be [clears throat] sat down and questioned. Uh, and I I still believe that. I still hold the perspective that Erica should be sat down and she should be properly questioned.

Speaker A

Do you know that she hasn't been? Um, no. Actually, that would be a great thing for the spokesperson of Turning Point USA to say that she's already I mean, my guess would be she hasn't because they returned everything to her.

Speaker A

But I Why do they owe you that though? Why do they They don't owe me anything. That's my show you're watching. Just, you know, the clips that you're pulling are from my show. So, if I want to say something

Speaker A

on my show, I can say that. I didn't say they owe me something. I don't think that's ever unless you have But if you say like you need to be sat down for questioning and you don't even know if they haven't been,

Speaker A

that's strange, right? Do you know if they have been? No, I have no idea.

Speaker A

So, you're just saying what if they haven't been? Yeah. If you're if your entire filling the If your entire thing is junk, if you're No, it's not junk. If if the query is why is it that Erica Kirk's not

Speaker A

being sat down for questioning, but you have absolutely no knowledge whether or not she's been sat down for questioning or not, what that does is it creates an innuendo. It creates an inference. It creates out to the ethos that this

Speaker A

should be happening because something's wrong here when you actually don't have the knowledge that anything's wrong at all.

Speaker A

I just think that my opinion is that she should be sat down and questioned.

Speaker A

But you're not sure if she hasn't been. Yeah. And you're not sure if she has been either. M so like I said I feel like now you're just kind of filling the air during points like we want to make

Speaker A

sure that you go in there and you defend Erica and I have to say I don't think you've done an extraordinary job with that but I'm not here to defend Erica. The thing is though that since four out of five of the clips

Speaker A

that you had on the ready when we asked you guys ahead of time I mean I want to just assert how professionally we have dealt with this debate. As you can see we have not planned any gotcha clips for

Speaker A

Andrew. I expressed to him that what we were going to do was just to use people for fact checks and it because I might not remember something um or I do remember something and you're saying no and that is what I think will register

Speaker A

to people as very fair. We did not take out of context clips of Andrew to try to repeat.

Speaker A

No, when you said you were going to bring claims that you would want me to speak to, you didn't say, I intend on sitting you down with out of contexted clips to which we said to you before in

Speaker A

an email, any clips that you want to share with us, send it over. Let's assert a debate claim so that we can both be ready to respond to it. This just that's not really what happened.

Speaker A

Well, that what's not what didn't happen. Yeah, this this uh the way that you're framing the exchange, that's not that's not actually what happened. We were negotiating it is true. We negotiated out uh the claim itself, right? Which one's going to take

Speaker A

which position? I wanted to make sure that I had at least an hour and a half on mine and you got the time for yours to question me. We did. We got through your hour and a half on mine. Roughly an

Speaker A

hour and a half now on mine. That's basically how this went. But in the beginning, I did not take an hour and a half to just pull out of context list with Andrew. I actually debated the substance of what's going on

Speaker A

in this trial in this hearing. And I I do think that he fell I think he fell short of that.

Speaker A

There's nothing out of Hang on. There's nothing here except holding you to account for your claim. Say yes or no.

Speaker A

Well, we were supposed to be dating uh be debating the case and whether or not there was overwhelming evidence.

Speaker A

These are your claims about the case. No, you then admitted that that now you're getting into another sphere and you're you want to talk about the transcendentals and things that I said and like four out of five of your clips

Speaker A

are about Erica Kirk. So, the general perception out of five even is your turning points horse? I think quite a few of them were. Was there three or four?

Speaker A

So you're just making stuff up. Can we get a count of how many were about Erica? I feel like I think it was three.

Speaker A

Three. Okay. Three. I said four. [clears throat] But those are extraordinary claims, which is why you're asked about Well, okay. But the point being is now you're veering into trying to get me to defend my opinions and then you

Speaker A

completely sherk responsibility when I point out yours. No, they're not claims. When you think Erica is too you go that's just whatever. And then you move on.

Speaker A

That's a claim that I and I'm responsible for the claim. Well, earlier when I brought it up, you said that it was tongue and cheek.

Speaker A

Yes, sure. I That's me responding to your criticism of the claim. That's all I'm doing here.

Speaker A

I was interested and um and I'm happy to get into also the psy stuff now if you would like to. The team has one more clip.

Speaker A

They got one. We were getting into the py stuff and you stopped it and I was explaining to you. Oh, they have one more clip. Okay, let's go.

Speaker A

They want to hit [snorts] the minimum of four clips you were saying with Erica.

Speaker A

No, 100%. [laughter] This is absurd. Okay. And this is the one you're saying from 7 days ago.

Speaker A

Okay. While they're looking for that, do you want to continue? Yeah. I I mean, can I ask a question? I know it's been or or like can I ask a question? Are we Not really. We're I'm just going to

Speaker A

we're going to hold to the actual contract itself. The contract is does not say that you are allowed to just question me without me being able to respond to you.

Speaker A

I've never said you can't or have a conversation. You've been able to respond to every question I've asked you. And by the way, the the other thing is is like let's have it your way. I want it to

Speaker A

look like we've done everything Andrew wanted to so that people can fairly assess the situation. So you have it your way. I will not ask a question.

Speaker A

Totally fair with me. So, are you good with her asking the question or no?

Speaker A

You said no. Waiting for the clip. Okay. So, you want to wait for the clip first?

Speaker A

Okay. You guys have it in the back. Okay. Beautiful. Team told me they had it. So that's what I heard.

Speaker A

Okay, there we go. Come on, guys. Did this crime, okay? Because Lance Twigs has DNA on the fine.

Speaker A

Lance Twigs has his DNA on the rifle. And to be clear, Lance Twigs DNA four times was not as degraded as Tyler Robinson's DNA was on Tyler's rifle. It's Tyler's rifle.

Speaker A

No, you also said, yeah, it's not as degraded on the rifle. Yeah, cuz I thought he was one of the things. But I I've already That that's what I mean when I say that like it just seems like

Speaker A

you're not actually here trying to engage because I even before you got to this and I knew that you had some secret clip planned. I said to you when I rewatched the testimony, I realized that they didn't explicitly say Lance Twigs.

Speaker A

They said five other profiles were on it and that his was the most degraded. So I hope your team feels fulfilled in playing that. Uh is there any more? I'm happy to play every clip that he has on

Speaker A

the ready. Anybody? You said you said you had some new evidence at the beginning of the Yeah, we should show that text message that you read just because I think that's important for the public. You shared it out of context.

Speaker A

I'll do it on my show. I'll share the uh the text. So, you're going to read it on my show but not show it.

Speaker A

Correct. Okay. So, I'll show it on my show. But that's that's what I'll do. I'll show it on my show.

Speaker A

Can I ask why? Well, because I want to drip out the evidence. You know, it's that's got to drip out that evidence. Keep people coming back for the show, right? I don't know if Snark serves you so well.

Speaker A

I'm just saying like um yeah, I'll I'll I'll release it there. Um yeah, that's that's my intention, but yeah, I'm fine with closings if you want to do closings.

Speaker A

Well, I also would just if if I may ask a question, is is that a permitted? Go ahead. Um, just so I also have clarity since your basis has been evidentiary, you keep saying that you have evidence or like you are following evidence.

Speaker A

Which one of the charges against or or all of them do you think Tyler Robinson is guilty of?

Speaker A

Um, the specific charge. Yeah. Yeah. So, I think what I think is that um Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.

Speaker A

Yeah. of the seven charges that he's he's being charged with. Yeah. Can we list them real quick? I'll tell you exactly which ones. We'll pull them up.

Speaker A

Well, do do you know any of the charges he's up for right now? Yeah, of course. But I want to make sure that we have them listed.

Speaker A

Yeah, but but like that's Can you name one? Because my my general perspective is that you don't actually care about this case. You're not following it.

Speaker A

That's the That's the question. You're just not following it. It seems pretty like if you're going to engage and you're going to say the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson is guilty. I just think that you should like Can you tell me one

Speaker A

Let's do the counter. You can really hang out. This is a great gotcha. No, no. You just got to ask me, play clips out of context, [clears throat] put me in the hot seat.

Speaker A

So, please just answer the question. Fair. Name all seven since you've been following the case.

Speaker A

Okay, sure. You name You name one. Yeah, you name all seven. I'm happy to do that, but can you name one?

Speaker A

Uh, I think he's I think he's been charged with murder. That's actually incorrect. Okay, great. Now, name all seven.

Speaker A

He doesn't even This is like Name all seven. And And And I I Can you name all seven?

Speaker A

I I can. Then do it. Sure. You don't have to do it. No, do it. I'll count them. Go ahead.

Speaker A

You don't have to put your fingers up. I can name them. Yeah, sure. Name them.

Speaker A

Uh, the first charge is aggravated murder because that's what carries a death sentence in the state of youth.

Speaker A

No, that's not that is literally not murder. Okay. And so, just so people No, don't I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on and just to explain to people the difference of why that really matters

Speaker A

and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all is because aggravated murder uh it's it's narrowly defined and because it carries a death sentence. I'm not I'm going to answer the question.

Speaker A

You're just going to recognize that your strategy of thinking that people are intimidated when you try to put a time constraint doesn't work and you'll be better the next time you debate.

Speaker A

I got it. I got it. Give me Give me the other ones. The more you cut me off, the longer I'll take. Do you want to just wait for me to finish of why that's a big difference so

Speaker A

that people don't want you to list the charges? Yeah, I'm going to do that. You just don't get to pretend that there's a time constraint for me to do that.

Speaker A

Well, how how long does it take you to list seven charges? I'm cuz I'm speaking. You just got to It sounds like you're just delaying it cuz you don't know them.

Speaker A

I I know all seven of them. And I'm going to say again cuz you're going to get embarrassed. I you don't have to rush this. I'm also showing an example of a very flawed debate strategy. I actually am under no time constraint.

Speaker A

I got one. Great. The second charge is the felony discharge of a weapon. Uh the next two charges are for obstruction of justice.

Speaker A

Okay. The next two charges are for witness temp tampering. And the final What's the specific charges though?

Speaker A

That is them. Obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice. Witness tampering. Witness tampering. Okay. W and there's no other specifics to them.

Speaker A

Well, we I can tell you why he's being charged. No, no, no. Just the the charges and then seven.

Speaker A

Yeah. See, the bad thing is when you try to be an a-hole and it doesn't work.

Speaker A

What's the seventh? The last charge is uh violence in front of a minor. Okay, got it. So, then he's being charged with murder. You just say aggravated murder.

Speaker A

That's the distinction. You just want to It's a It's a massive It's like you can't even You cannot say murder versus aggravated murder. This gets to the entire crux of why him being up up for the death sentence. And I actually find

Speaker A

the defense's filing about why this is not aggravated to be uh very compelling of why it's not aggravated murder. I actually think that the state was going to even try to pull this off, they should have charged him

Speaker A

with just murder. Um, and then I do also again want to stress to audiences that that debate strategy of thinking that you have to speak faster or somebody puts your hand up and they try to pretend like it's some sport. I think he

Speaker A

thinks it's a blood sport. It's not. It's about being right and being principled when you're engaging. And you can make mistakes. I make mistakes all the time. But at least be genuine and pretending that you care about this case

Speaker A

enough to know one of the seven charges that are up against Tyler Robinson when you say the evidence is overwhelming, that he's guilty. Um, if you would like to move to final statements, I'm fine. I want to make sure Andrew has had the

Speaker A

time that he has requested. I think your team would like to pull up the seven charges that he just asked you about. If you guys want to pull that up just to confirm the seven you went through.

Speaker A

Can you guys zoom in a little bit for me? Aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, uh obstruction of obstruction, the obstruction of justice, which is counts three and four, five and six, tampering with a witness, and count

Speaker A

violent offense in the presence of a minor. Child. Yeah. Yeah. So, five, six, tampering witness, thirdderee felony. Now, I did notice something I just was curious about if I'm just wondering when you pulled out your phone just before you asked that

Speaker A

question. Did somebody by chance text you that question? You can check my phone. I'm just curious.

Speaker A

No, you can absolutely not. I didn't I have not had one communication with a single person. Not even my producers who are in there this whole time we were here. You want to check my phone? I'm happy to do it because you're just going

Speaker A

to get double embarrassed. Where's my phone? You want to see it? I'm just curious. Yeah, you can literally do that. Here you go.

Speaker A

PBD, you're the moderator. Take it. Let's see. See if anyone was texted at all during this debate.

Speaker A

All right. About the violent charges or anything. I'm looking through this. You give me permission. So, I'm looking at to go through my phone. I don't need to cheat.

Speaker A

So, the last one has nothing to do with it. It's just a compliment. Mhm.

Speaker A

I haven't even read my text message. That's a compliment. He's reading them. You're okay. You're giving me permission. I'm just going to read three of them. So, 11:32 cuz after that, I don't need to read it.

Speaker A

Any other texts? Could have been Telegram. Could have been something. All I have is Signal. You can check that too.

Speaker A

I only have signal. Telegram I used in Russia and that was it. I downloaded I'll take your word for it.

Speaker A

Yeah. I don't I don't need to [clears throat] like I deeply care about this case. I don't need to pretend to know stuff. care about the case. I just, you know, I have my other question is about the steakhouse receipt.

Speaker A

You just said that you were done asking all your questions. So, you know, nothing there there. I don't Yeah. Do you have the steakhouse receipt is my question?

Speaker A

Um, I have said several times that I have I have never said I have the receipt for the steakhouse. I have said the person who's working on that story is going to be forthcoming with the receipt and that was what I was

Speaker A

responding to and he then dropped the receipt. He redacted elements of it and I said stay tuned. He's the one working on that story.

Speaker A

Okay. So you you haven't actually confirmed that Robinson was at that steakhouse. All I did, as I said earlier in this conversation, was I spoke to the owner when when I broke that story. I think it was back in January. I spoke to the

Speaker A

owner, understood what had happened um and that there was a receipt. That's it. That's the extent of what I shared is what happened.

Speaker A

Okay. So to be clear, there's no receipt. You I just said the opposite. I said there there is.

Speaker A

Well, you don't have a copy of the receipt. I The receipt was published online.

Speaker A

Yeah. Right. right with blurred out the person working on this story. Yeah, that blurred that out is what I was referring to when I said stay tuned and keep following his stuff because he went to go which do what I hadn't done which

Speaker A

was he interviewed the actual server. So there's no evidence that Tyler was at that steakhouse.

Speaker A

I I would say the receipt with his debit card number it would be some hard evidence if that is I agree with that.

Speaker A

So that's it. But you're questioning me. But is there as of right now he paid if you're asking me did he pay with a credit or debit card? The answer is yes.

Speaker A

No. No. Is there proof that that was actually his debit card that he paid with?

Speaker A

I think you should follow the person that um is behind that story. Well, the reason I'm asking you is because you always include it in your timeline that he traveled to the steakhouse.

Speaker A

Yeah, we've been building a timeline with things that we feel are But is there any actual 1102 approved? I think speaking to the owner knowing that there's a receipt, seeing the receipt uh is good enough to put on our timeline.

Speaker A

But the receipt itself, the question I always had about it is couldn't you just call the merchant? Like if I've ever had a merchant account, I just call the merchant account processor and say, "What's the name on this?"

Speaker A

Yeah, I would I would stay tuned. I I feel that the haven't spoken to the owner that the evidence is compelling enough to put onto my personal timeline of what took place on that day. Uh that's where it's going to stay. And if

Speaker A

it gets debunked, I'm happy to take it off if that's what you mean. That's how an investigation works.

Speaker A

Um like I said, I did more than enough. It would definitely pass the test by the Utah 1102 rule for sure. For certain [laughter] to be submitted as hearsay.

Speaker A

Well, yeah, beyond that because they didn't even have receipts. They were like Bob told me.

Speaker A

But the question but the question is the receipt itself. It has not been verified to have been Tyler.

Speaker A

I just want to say you're holding me to a higher standard than you are.

Speaker A

I'm not even holding I'm asking specifically. Yeah. I I I've been very forthcoming. I've told exactly what happened. I spoke to the owner. I got the tip and I So, should that be added in an official timeline that you

Speaker A

It's in my timeline. It's my show and we can add and subtract what we want and we do if we can do what you want. Sure. But I'm asking should you include a thing that you know hasn't actually been verified

Speaker A

to be Tyler Robinson? Yes, you should. If we're trying to build a timeline, you should. Yeah.

Speaker A

You don't think that that falls? You should remove it if you if someone somehow debunks it. But I think that the there is very strong evidence that that is where he was and that What's the strong evidence? Just the two

Speaker A

people who said that they saw him. You know, I'm I'm actually all good with being I I I feel like I've sufficiently answered your question about how I got the information, what happened next.

Speaker A

Uh with the next stage of this investigation being somebody accessing his knowing what his debit card was and confirming it. Yes. And I do believe that that will happen. If it does not happen and it gets debunked, I'll remove

Speaker A

it from my personal timeline that I share on my show. That officer, the first officer that was up on the roof, do you remember his name?

Speaker A

Officer Bagley. Yeah. What was his first name? Christopher. Christopher. Um, when Christopher got up on the roof, you talk a lot about how his camera died.

Speaker A

Well, he talked a lot about that during the preliminary. His camera died. Yeah. Do you think that he planted that screwdriver up there?

Speaker A

No. No. Who do you think planted it? I if we're just going on my Am I allowed to have an opinion?

Speaker A

Of course. Uh, at this stage, I would say that I I don't buy his um assertion on the stand that he didn't check to see if anybody went onto the rooftop before um he got up there. I I do think that

Speaker A

it's possible. It's at least plausible that the the uh screwdriver was planted. I don't believe him. What I can say strongly is that his uh cam died at just the right time. His body cam died at just the right time. I think that as you

Speaker A

were just grilling me about whether or not it's got the merchant receipt for a debit card, that kind of makes difficult that we just have to sort of trust that a screwdriver was found and we don't have any should be evidence of a police

Speaker A

body cam. But like I said, you accept that stuff and then are like, "Did you call the merchant and get like it just seems like you Well, I'm not adding like I said, you hold the prosecution to a to a a higher

Speaker A

standard than you do unconfirmed evidence to an official timeline that I'm putting out either.

Speaker A

What do you mean official timeline? This is my timeline. I made it at home.

Speaker A

So then it would be official to your show. Sure. Yeah. Okay, great. So then the your your official timeline, Candace Owen's official timeline includes a steakhouse stop that has not actually been confirmed at all.

Speaker A

Well, yeah, it hasn't even been discussed by the prosecution. So it's it's not like you're debunking that it happened.

Speaker A

Well, there's no there's no evidence for it. There's no good evidence for it at all. There's no camera there. And the steakhouse receipt itself has never been confirmed to be Tyler Robinson's. I'm assuming this is just like a talking

Speaker A

point they gave you and you got to like keep pushing this or like I've been following it very closely on X the receipt. You didn't you weren't even following the charges of Tyler Robinson but you really wanted to know because

Speaker A

following it very closely because Wait, you think I'm calling owners of state houses and having a conversation you're following?

Speaker A

I literally followed the entire trial or the preliminary live. I was live with an attorney. We covered all of it. You think because I have a momentary or lapse where I'm like, "Oh, it's murder." No, it's aggravated murder. Come on. you

Speaker A

didn't know any of the charges. No, that's not splitting. It means you didn't follow the preliminary hearing at all.

Speaker A

No, it doesn't mean that you don't know any of the charges that are against him when this is like the this is like getting literally to the crux aggravated murder versus murder.

Speaker A

It's a it's ridiculous. And not only that, let's point this out. U one of the major things here is that this is your official timeline.

Speaker A

It's mine. Yes. Who else could it be? Who else? It would be Candace. I just don't know what his issue is with my timeline.

Speaker A

What's your issue with that? Well, so the issue is is that the entirety of the evidence revolves around two people who claim that he was there and supposedly [clears throat] a receipt. There's supposedly a receipt where Tyler Robinson paid for his steak

Speaker A

and his soft drink. No alcohol, right? No alcohol, right? You know nothing about the case. But um anyway, this particular receipt, they could have called the merchant account, confirmed it, this type of thing. To date, this receipt has only the blurred information

Speaker A

on it that would actually give you the information to confirm whose receipt it is. We have to date, nobody has confirmed that this was actually Tyler Robinson's receipt. And yet inside of Candace Owen's timeline, which she states over and over again when she

Speaker A

says, "This is the longest 13 hours. This is 13 and a half hours." The requirement for about what roughly five and a half or 6 hours of that is that he went to the steakhouse.

Speaker A

And so, and that's not been confirmed at all. Not even a little bit. I feel like saying that I spoke to the owner of the steakhouse is me like not just being on X looking at opinions, but actually doing the leg work. Um, and

Speaker A

that's why I, like I said, if you think this builds up a rapport with your audience and makes you seem like a serious person, I we don't have to keep belaboring the point here. I feel like I've demonstrated that I did as much as

Speaker A

I could to confirm this when it came in. I spoke to the owner of the restaurant.

Speaker A

Um, you know, obviously took down everything he said, noted that there was in fact a receipt that he pulled. Um, that receipt that was published is real.

Speaker A

Uh, a debit card and a credit card was used. If for some reason somebody misidentified something down the line or we find out it's a different Tyler Robinson, uh, I'm happy to remove it from my timeline, but for right now, I I

Speaker A

think that there's enough under the Utah 1102 rule for me to keep it there. I don't really think we need to keep going into circles about this receipt. It's it's my timeline. I don't I don't know why the 1102 rule would apply here for

Speaker A

year because you were constantly cite things that are said in that courtroom that have less evidentiary support than me contacting and speaking with the the um the owner of the restaurant. It's not like I dreamed it as to use your

Speaker A

expression. So, it's in my timeline and I'm going to keep it there if that's Sure, you can keep whatever you want there. I'm just saying that there's no evidence he was ever there.

Speaker A

Okay. Thank you. I think no hard evidence anyway. Yeah, we're I'm fine with closing.

Speaker A

Okay. So, the last thing we're going to do before we go into ad break right after this will be final thoughts. I'll be asking both of you if anything if if anything on your opinion, thoughts changed on the case, uh, and then we'll

Speaker A

finish it up from there. So, with that being said, a three and a half minute break and we'll come back for final thoughts.

Speaker A

All right. All right, you guys. If someone followed you everywhere that you went, recorded what you searched, and studied your habits, you'd call the police. When your smartphone does it, we call it convenience. At Zero Ghost, they believe

Speaker A

that you shouldn't have to trade your privacy for convenience. That's why they created the Ghost Phone. A smartphone built to give you more control over your personal information without giving up the things that you actually need a smartphone to do. The Ghost Phone has

Speaker A

been professionally hardened to minimize unnecessary tracking and make your phone substantially more difficult to hack or compromise. And considering what some of you have been searching lately, such as what does it mean to be yanking and banking? Maybe your smartphone doesn't

Speaker A

need to know quite so much about you. Best part is that you don't have to become a cyber security expert to use it. You can keep your phone number and keep your carrier. You can use your normal apps, call, text, take pictures.

Speaker A

You get a normal smartphone experience, but with the privacy and security at the center of it all. The difference is the phone is built around your privacy rather than building a business around your data. So, yank and bank your way

Speaker A

over to zero.com/candis and use code candace at checkout for $50 off your ghost phone. That's zeroost.com/candis.

Speaker A

Installment plans are available at checkout. I also want to remind you guys about American financing because it is no secret that everything is starting to feel a lot more expensive. If your daily essentials are ending up on a credit

Speaker A

card, those double-digit interest rates are quietly draining your bank account. If that debt is starting to feel heavy, you should know that you're not alone.

Speaker A

If you're a homeowner, you've likely looked at your mortgage rate and thought, "I shouldn't touch that." But American Financing offers a smart equity loan so that you don't have to. It allows you to wipe out high interest debt and lower your monthly overhead

Speaker A

while keeping your primary mortgage intact. It's a surgical strike against debt. Unlike a fluctuating heliloc, the smart equity loan is a fixed rate loan, giving you a predictable monthly payment. At American Financing, there are never any upfront fees to find out

Speaker A

what you qualify for. So talk to a salarybased consultant today. These experts who are paid to help you save, not to sell you more than you need. Can help you if you call 8007951210.

Speaker A

Again, that's 8007951210 or visit americanfancing.net/owens. Again, that's American financing.net/owens. I have to tell you guys about Nimi Skincare. You know, I love them. They make the best tallow skincare products I've ever used. Their tallow comes from grass-fed, grass-finished cattle raised

Speaker A

on a Montana farm. And in a world where so many companies hide where their ingredients are coming from, that really matters. Everyone seems to be talking about tallow these days, but not allow created equally. Nimi has focused on

Speaker A

sourcing exceptional ingredients and creating products that people genuinely love to use. That's why I've been using Nimi's Sunshine Tallow Cream and their buzzing tallow balm. The Sunshine Tallow Cream has become one of Nimi's most popular products. It's rich, nourishing,

Speaker A

and made with tallow, aloe vera, avocado oil, and shea butter to deeply moisturize the skin while it's feeling lightweight and comfortable. It leaves your skin looking soft, hydrated, and healthy without that greasy feeling.

Speaker A

When my skin needs a little extra support, I reach for the Buzz Talib. It's a richer formula that helps lock in moisture and leave skin feeling deeply nourished and cared for. What I appreciate most is that these products

Speaker A

are rooted in simplicity, high quality ingredients, American sourcing, American manufacturing, and skincare that simply works. So, if you've been curious about Tallow Skincare, now is the perfect time to try it. Visit neimieskincare.com to save an additional 10% off your order

Speaker A

with promo code Candace 10 at checkout. Again, that's nekincare.com. Promo code candace 10 at checkout.

Speaker A

All right, we are finally at the end. For those of you that are watching it, maybe a good commentary for you would be the following on if you're a Andrew fan and you still are still saying, you know

Speaker A

what, Andrew's arguments were solid. Great. Candace, great. But did anything change your mind? Did you watch and say, you know what, I had this position over here. This would be an interesting commentary to hear. And of course, for

Speaker A

all the people that are watching, I was just whispering to them here uh before we wrap it up. I think whether you're a fan of Andrew or not, whether you're a fan of Candace or not, nobody can dispute the fact that these guys agree

Speaker A

to sit down and talk live. Others were thinking this was pre-recorded. This is not pre-recorded. Just so everybody knows, this is purely live. This is a little bit scarier than pre-recorded because pre-recorded can do edits. So whether you agree with them or not,

Speaker A

let's make sure we respect both of them for having this sit down. And before the final thoughts, I want to make sure you guys hear that from me as well for inviting inviting me here as well.

Speaker A

Of course, I do know one day uh uh I think it was last week you sent a message on one of our accounts. She said, "Can I talk to Patrick?" We got on the call. You said, "Patrick, can you moderate this?" And

Speaker A

then I said, "Great. Let's do this." And so before we wrap up, final thoughts.

Speaker A

I'll come to you first. Yeah. She had nothing. Just nothing. Any for all of her claims of Paty, nothing.

Speaker A

She didn't have a single claim. She didn't have a single solid piece of evidence. She had no positive evidence Israel's involved in anything. No positive evidence that um France is involved in anything. No positive evidence TPUSA is involved in anything.

Speaker A

No positive evidence that Erica Kirk is involved in anything. When I ask her about her claims about Erica Kirk, yeah, it's just funing. It's just funing, you know. or yeah, I do think that she needs to sit down, ask some questions, but uh

Speaker A

or answer some questions, but you know what? Um I don't even know if she has.

Speaker A

Like maybe she has. I have no idea. Yes, I'm going to have an official timeline with unconfirmed evidence. That's just fine. Hey, it's it's hearsay. If that's good enough for the state, it's good enough for me. But my biggest problem

Speaker A

with the state is that they're ad admitting all this hearsay. It's like it's she's a contradiction machine. On top of all of this, the thing that I wanted to get out of this more than anything else was to just demonstrate

Speaker A

one thing. Yes, it's true. I'm not perfect on the case. I'm not going to ever pretend that I am and never did.

Speaker A

But what has been very made very clear to me is that there's nobody with an alternative theory that has any evidence for it at all. None. Zero. and the continuous uh kind of expression, we're running an investigation.

Speaker A

What kind of investigation builds a timeline out on on a receipt that they they don't even confirm? What kind of investigation uh tries to make these bold claims that Israel's involved and France is involved and all these different players are

Speaker A

involved and never shows any evidence. We're just asking questions. It's my It's again, like I said, my opening.

Speaker A

It's always intuition, my feelings, how I feel about things, how I think about things. You, Andrew, how many times you hear this today, Andrew, you can't tell me how I'm supposed to think. Yeah, nobody's trying to tell you how to

Speaker A

think, but you should rationally come to your conclusions based on evidence and facts. And the truth is is that 90% of what you're saying is simply intuitionbased.

Speaker A

It's it did it came to me in a dream. It's intuition. Almost none of it has any evidence at all. just I'm skeptical cuz these people over here said things and that makes me skeptical. It's like but no evidence. Note this to the

Speaker A

audience, to everybody watching. You might hate my guts. That's fair enough. I get that. I'm not the most likable man. I understand that too. But there was nothing, I mean, no evidence at all that Tyler Robinson was a pathy that was

Speaker A

ever uh put forward by Candace this entire debate. Now, maybe you could say that we stalemated when it came to whether or not Robinson did it. She says, "I found the evidence convincing." I unconvincing. Andrew says he found the

Speaker A

evidence convincing. Okay, fair enough. Maybe you can't do too much about that. But there was nothing. She had nothing for Robinson being a pathy. Nothing for any of her conspiracies. Not a zero zilch. And she backed away on a bunch of

Speaker A

them. This is the first time I think she's ever really backed away from the twigs thing. First time I've heard her back away from the Erica thing, back away from TPUSA, being very cautious about making any of those claims now.

Speaker A

Whereas on her show, much more likely to be making those claims. So, she just had nothing the entire debate. Zero.

Speaker A

Candace. Uh, well, I think that is quite a conclusion admitting somewhere. Maybe we stalemated. It probably signifies what I've been saying from the beginning that you didn't feel that you were strong on the actual facts and the ev evidence

Speaker A

which I was willing to engage with you. I wanted to go over the screwdriver. I wanted to go over the tal and things that you've mentioned and you wanted to then move the conversation into a defense of Erica Kirk and her character

Speaker A

um and what I've said about Erica which is my opinion and I have not edited that opinion after discussing with you. Um, I would like to extend a compliment to you for being willing to sit down and to

Speaker A

have the conversation. I still walk away feeling that the people who are jumping on the bandwagon about this case don't care about this case. They don't care about Erica Kirk. It tends to be follow that they take a meeting with Turning

Speaker A

Point USA and they come out and suddenly have a lot of junk to say about Candace Owens. And I do want to also stress that Turning Point USA tried to pepper him with something as a surprise. He showed

Speaker A

clips that were meant to be a surprise. I did no such thing. I stressed to PBD from the beginning that I was grateful he was taking and that I wanted this to be a clean debate because I believe I

Speaker A

can win this on the merits and I believe that I did win this fully on the merits by engaging the evidence of what has happened. Um, I do still believe that there is more evidence which supports that there are more people involved and

Speaker A

that Tyler Robinson has been set up. Uh, and that none of the evidence that was presented was in any way overwhelming, which is why I think you wanted to move to end that discussion quickly and to speak to me about France and uh, to talk

Speaker A

about this panguage receipt and my timeline. I I want to remind people that a lot of the athome investigators, which you were open to, as you called them, internet sleuths, I think it was on a show that you did right after Charlie was

Speaker A

assassinated, that internet sloohs would solve this. Uh, this is the reason why Charlie a year on is still a conversation every single day trending on Twitter. I knew Charlie. I cared about Charlie. I care about um finding out what the truth is here. My heart is

Speaker A

in the right place. I think anybody who watches my show or even just watched this debate knows that if I get something wrong, I'll instantly correct it and own it. I don't I'm not arrogant.

Speaker A

I don't need to sit here and pretend that I didn't misspeak on a Lance thing.

Speaker A

It hasn't been ruled out. Uh but you saw that he just really wanted to hammer that point. You know, part of being a well-meaning person is to concede when you are wrong, to take something off a timeline when you know it's not right.

Speaker A

And I would like to think that that is why I have earned the audience that continues to follow me because they know my heart's in the right place that I deeply cared about Charlie and I deeply care about the answers. Um I want to

Speaker A

thank Andrew's team who are providing the fact checks. It's a very small room that they're in. Um I want to as always thank my team who worked really hard to make this happen and flip the set and for to you uh PBD just for being a great

Speaker A

moderator. I think very fair letting us both speak and making sure that Andrew got out of this what he wanted, which is a little more than what I wanted, but um I'm very content with how I dealt with

Speaker A

this and I I will let I trust I don't need to convince the audiences with the magic trick of what they need to think about this debate. They can watch it and draw their own conclusions.

Speaker A

Beautiful. Fair from both of you. I think the audience won and again uh from the beginning uh all of this is because of how much love and respect we have for Charlie Kirk, a great man that's no longer here with us. is one of your

Speaker A

anniversaries coming up here. I can't believe it's that quick that it's here. The audience, I think you also want if you did support the Crucible, support the Candace show, support the PBD podcast, subscribe the channel. This is how you help these voices get out even

Speaker A

more, especially going into future when this happens. You want a lot of independent creators to have these types of discussions. And last but not least, the two of you. I uh respect you guys again for having this conversation. It

Speaker A

is not easy to do so. Hopefully this will lead to more discussions. A lot of different things we talked about. I'm sure there will be a lot of followup.

Speaker A

With that being said, take care everybody. God bless. Have a great weekend. Bye.

Topics:Candace OwensAndrew WilsonCharlie KirkTyler Robinsondebateconspiracy theoriesJoe Roganevidencepsy-oppolitical discussion

Get More with the SozAI App

Transcribe recordings, audio files, and YouTube videos — with AI summaries, speaker detection, and unlimited transcriptions.

App Store Google Play

Or transcribe another YouTube video here →

Free tools: TXT to SRT · SRT Validator · Merge SRT · Subtitle to Text · All tools