Up Next
Andrew Wilson Dismantles Candace Owens' Claims About Charlie Kirk's Death in Heated Debate
18:57
Warren Smith Breaks Down How Andrew Wilson Challenges Candace Owens' Evidence Claims on Air
10:52
James Li Breaks Down the Candace Owens vs Andrew Wilson Debate on Charlie Kirk's Assassination
18:48
Andrew Wilson and Candace Owens Clash Over Tyler Robinson and Charlie Kirk Assassination Evidence
Andrew Wilson and Candace Owens sit down for a heated debate about the evidence surrounding Charlie Kirk's assassination and whether Tyler Robinson acted alone or was set up as a patsy. Wilson argues the state's case is overwhelming, citing confessions, text messages, and physical evidence. Owens counters that degraded fingerprints, unexplained forensic gaps, and suspicious actions by authorities point to a broader conspiracy. Both defend their positions on Israel's involvement, Erika Kirk's role, and alternative theories, including the explosive mic claim. Moderated by Patrick Bet-David, this live debate reveals deep divisions over what really happened on September 10th, 2025.
Opening Statements and Core Debate Claims
Andrew Wilson opens by stating he believes there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. He cites never-before-seen text messages from Charlie to his security team on September 9th, 2025, in which Charlie said he was worried the left was trying to kill him. Wilson argues that the state's case is supported by compelling witness testimony, physical evidence, and multiple confessions. He challenges Candace Owens to provide evidence that Robinson was set up as a patsy.
Candace Owens responds by questioning the narrative from the beginning. She points out that immediately after Charlie's death, there was a push to emphasize his love for Israel, with the Israeli Prime Minister making statements and influencers insisting Charlie never changed his views. Owens released a text message showing Charlie was reconsidering his pro-Israel stance, which Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly later confirmed. She argues the lies and inconsistencies suggest a cover-up, and that the evidence against Robinson is far from overwhelming.
Fingerprint Evidence and DNA Degradation
Owens raises a key forensic issue: Tyler Robinson's fingerprints on the rifle were the most degraded among five sets of prints found on the weapon. She questions how his prints could be the most degraded if he had just fired the gun. The defense did not receive full discovery on the DNA evidence before the preliminary hearing, and the prosecution relied on hearsay under Utah Rule 1102.
Wilson concedes he does not have an explanation for the degraded prints but dismisses the significance. Owens argues this is critical evidence suggesting someone else handled the gun more recently than Robinson. She also notes that Samantha Carer, the forensic analyst, testified that with five or more DNA samples in a mixture, it becomes difficult to make definitive conclusions.
Text Messages and Confessions
Wilson points to Tyler Robinson's text messages to Lance Twiggs as one of the strongest pieces of evidence. In the messages, Robinson allegedly confessed to the shooting and said he could be seen on surveillance footage. However, Owens challenges the authenticity of these messages. She notes that the defense did not receive full discovery on Robinson's phone, and Kathy Nester, Robinson's attorney, stated she had not even been given access to her client's phone.
Owens suggests the messages could have been sent by someone else logged into Robinson's accounts. She points out that Robinson's boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, had access to his devices and that the FBI delayed providing critical discovery until after the preliminary hearing. Wilson argues the messages are valid unless proven otherwise, but Owens maintains they should be treated with skepticism until the defense has the opportunity to challenge them at trial.
The 306 Rifle and Ballistics Evidence
Wilson defends the state's claim that Robinson fired a 30-06 rifle from the rooftop of the Loy Center. He argues that a 150-grain Remington core-lokt round could have shattered upon impact, explaining the injuries to Charlie Kirk's neck. The medical examiner's summary states that the bullet perforated the left side of Kirk's neck, severed the cervical spinal cord, and caused severe internal injuries.
Owens disputes this, arguing that a 30-06 fired from 15 yards would have caused far more catastrophic damage. She references testimony from the preliminary hearing about dust and debris found in the gun barrel, which she argues suggests the weapon had not been recently fired. She also raises the possibility of a smaller caliber weapon or an alternative method of attack, such as a shaped charge explosive.
The Explosive Mic Theory
Owens discusses the theory that Charlie Kirk was killed by a shaped charge explosive concealed in a road microphone. She references the work of investigator Jon Aaron Bray, who analyzed photos of the car used to transport Kirk to the hospital. The photos show shattered microphone equipment, which some believe is evidence of an explosion.
Wilson dismisses the theory, arguing there is no visible explosion in any of the available footage. He explains that the movement of Charlie's shirt could be explained by air dispersal from the bullet. Owens counters by citing Rob O'Neill, the Navy SEAL who killed Osama bin Laden, who stated publicly that the footage looked like an explosion under Charlie's shirt. She argues this is a viable alternative theory that deserves further investigation.
The Steakhouse Receipt and Timeline
Wilson challenges Owens on her claim that Tyler Robinson drove to a steakhouse in Panguitch, Utah, hours before the shooting. Owens says she spoke to the owner of the restaurant, who confirmed Robinson was there and showed her a receipt. However, the receipt has not been independently verified, and the identifying information has been redacted in published versions.
Wilson argues this is unconfirmed evidence that should not be included in an "official timeline." Owens responds that she is following the same standard used by the state in the preliminary hearing, which relied heavily on hearsay. She says if the evidence is later debunked, she will remove it from her timeline, but for now, she believes it is credible enough to include.
Israel and Foreign Legion Involvement
Wilson presses Owens on her claim that she believes with "full confidence" that Israel and France were involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination. Owens explains that she reported credible information to the offices of Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump, stating that a high-ranking French government official told her the French Foreign Legion was on the ground the day of the shooting.
She also points to 12 Israeli cell phones reportedly detected at the scene and the unusual public statements by the Israeli Prime Minister denying involvement. Owens argues the immediate push to emphasize Charlie's support for Israel, combined with the lies about his changing views, suggests a motive. Wilson asks for "positive evidence" of Israeli or French involvement, and Owens says she cannot provide more details without compromising her sources.
Erika Kirk and Turning Point USA
Wilson shows clips of Owens saying Erika Kirk is "complicit" and should be questioned by investigators. Owens clarifies that she believes Erika was complicit in pushing the narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty without sufficient evidence. She recounts a four-hour meeting with Erika in which she expected to hear evidence supporting the state's case, but Erika had nothing beyond what had been publicly released.
Owens argues that Erika's decision to return to work immediately after Charlie's death, rather than staying home with her children, raised suspicions. She also questions why key pieces of evidence—such as the backpack found near the crime scene, the car used to transport Charlie, and artifacts Charlie was wearing—were returned to Erika or destroyed before the trial. Wilson defends Erika, saying she was protecting Charlie's legacy and that Owens is engaging in baseless character attacks.
Closing Arguments and Final Thoughts
Wilson concludes by arguing that Owens failed to provide any evidence that Tyler Robinson was a patsy. He says her arguments rely on intuition, speculation, and unverified claims rather than hard evidence. He accuses her of flooding the zone with conspiracy theories and harming the right in an election year.
Owens counters that Wilson avoided debating the actual evidence and instead tried to attack her credibility with out-of-context clips. She says the forensic evidence, the lack of transparency from Turning Point USA, and the suspicious actions of law enforcement all support the theory that Robinson was set up. She thanks Patrick Bet-David for moderating and says she is confident the audience can judge the debate for themselves.
Video Transcript
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 uh 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.
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 uh
truly for three different people. Number
one is anybody out there that loves
Charlie, respects Charlie, his legacy,
what he did. Uh we have a lot of love
and admiration for what he did. He
changed the lives of many people uh uh
young men, young women. You work 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 take place.
And kudos for Andrew for coming out and
saying hey I want to have this
conversation and for Candace to accept
it. Uh so you 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 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.
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
factecking. 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."
So it is a very fair conversation that
we're having here. And so with that
being said, u 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 uh this format that we have here
today. So with that being said, Andrew,
your claim is overwhelming evidence that
Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk.
Opening statements, opening comments.
>> 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 Tik Tok
invasions, debates, posts on social
media, destruction of memorials, and
things like this. Within weeks of Kirk's
death, a cottage industry began to form,
pedalling 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.
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." 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
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.
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.
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
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
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
they are there for one person's security
only because I'm somewhat worried the
left is trying to kill me.
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. 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 ghoullish 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. too. 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 Kansas's theory
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
trying. She uses her considerable
platform to relentlessly attack one of
the most influential conservative
outreach organizations for young people.
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
cost me $300,000. But today, I hope that
she finally answers for some of that.
>> 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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
strangely to to state that I did not
kill Charlie Kirk when nobody um was
having that thought that I can remember.
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
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
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.
>> 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.
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,
"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,
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
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
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.
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
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.
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,
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?
>> Based on the evidence right now, um I
don't know. I'd say 75 85%.
>> Candace,
>> 0%.
>> 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
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%.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> Do you think he was shot?
>> I I do not think that Charlie was shot
from a 30 six from
>> just shot at all.
>> 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
branch to each other if maybe we can
establish what we consider the facts of
the case to be first?
>> Yeah, sure.
>> Okay.
>> So, you don't you you're not sure if he
was actually shot. You're open to
alternative theories.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
>> 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
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?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And what's the compelling evidence
that you think you have there?
>> I spoke to the owner of the restaurant.
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
in Panguage which is near his
grandparents home.
>> Did he give you an unedited copy of that
receipt?
>> 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
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
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
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
that's absurd. 150 grain Remington
corlocked. absolutely could shatter when
it hits the neck of any human being.
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?
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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
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
the science of
>> Yes, I recall. You're talking about
>> the bullet analysis.
>> Yeah. When they went into the DNA.
>> 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.
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
not convincing evidence to me.
>> I concur I concur with the fact that
that's a possibility.
>> So you I think have said on a platform
that you were a gunsmith.
>> Mhm.
>> Okay. And for how many years?
>> Many many years.
>> For many years. You also said that you
were an army sniper.
>> 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.
>> Yeah. I don't know. Like 15 years ago,
she said something.
>> Does it change 15 years later?
>> She said that it was colloquial. So
>> Army sniper is a colloquial term.
>> Yeah. I'm not an I was never an army
sniper.
>> Okay. Um what did you do in the army?
Did you teach She then I corrected and
said you taught rifles in the army?
>> Not. No, I didn't teach rifle. No, I
taught rifles as a private citizen.
>> Okay.
Uh,
>> and I was an NRA instructor for many,
many, many years alongside my my gun
show.
>> As with your expertise, when
>> she uh gave testimony on the stand,
Samantha Carer, that there was dust and
there was debris.
>> 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.
>> 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?
>> 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.
I want I want you to start with two
points. Okay.
>> Dust and debris in the gun barrel.
>> 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,
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
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."
And to get DNA degradation, we've
they've looked at pieces um items 20, 40
years on that don't have degradation.
Yet, Tyler Robinson's prints amongst
five plus other prints were the most
degraded on that weapon.
>> 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.
>> Okay. That I I
>> You think there could be debris? Uh I'm
sorry. Debris and dust.
>> Yeah.
>> He just fired the weapon.
>> Okay.
>> Not only that, he left it in a forest.
>> 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
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
fire it. You'll often look down the
board and there's still dust.
>> Okay.
>> Happens all the time.
>> Okay. And the prince?
>> Yeah. So, the prince we don't know all
of the details on just yet.
>> 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
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
about the degraded prince? She testified
and this is the person who who took the
prince.
>> 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?
>> 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
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.
>> You should grant it because it's a fact.
>> So now So now So now it's granted. So
what?
>> 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
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.
>> 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?
>> So, your answer is I don't know. You can
just say you don't know. You don't have
to.
>> 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
theory that people who had stronger
prints on the gun may have used it more
recently.
>> 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
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?
>> Would you like me to finish my
statement?
>> I just want to make sure I'm clarifying.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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,
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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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.
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
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
So the problem the problem that you have
here is that this is pure conjecture.
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
parents finger dad's fingerprints on
gun.
>> Describe how this actually links in to
Robinson being a psy.
>> 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
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
are doing the exact same thing that I am
doing. This is the state. You said
you're here to represent the state.
Well, did you watch the preliminary
hearing?
>> I didn't say I was here to represent the
state.
>> 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
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
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
majority of it is is not going to be
allowed at the trial. They're allowed to
present when it's this appropriate
hearing.
>> I don't think all the evidence that was
that was put in was hearsay. [laughter]
>> Okay. You didn't watch this case.
>> 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.
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
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?
>> Yeah.
>> So, I'll read this.
>> Just what are we looking at? Just so we
know.
>> 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
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.
Mr. Kirk suffered from other severe
injuries including bilateral apical and
posterior intercausal hemorrhages,
pulmonary apical hemorrhages, multiple
disruptions to the thyroid, etc., etc.
So there the summary of the examination
is that he was shot. Okay,
>> that was what they were pulling that up
for.
>> Okay. And I don't I'm not disputing that
he could have been hit with a
projectile. I we're not disputing that.
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.
>> 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.
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.
>> No, I didn't. I'm just saying from your
inference, how do we get to Paty?
>> 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
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.
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.
>> 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
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.
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
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.
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
could have been a py you're just
literally making stuff up. So here's
what the position is. I'm not rule 112.
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
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
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
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
have inferred. So you are allowed to
take a piece of evidence and then you
are allowed to infer off of that
evidence. Okay.
>> 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.
And from that, what I am inferring is
that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson
was set up.
>> That doesn't that's the point in
contention.
>> That's not a point in contention. That's
>> the point in contention.
>> 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
to argue his case is all based on
inference, not fact.
>> Inference, not fact. what they are
inferring off of the facts.
>> 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
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.
Okay. They are inferring that that's
Tyler Robinson.
>> Can you walk walk me through the
inference
>> so that I understand?
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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.
Okay, it is plausible that somebody just
took his gun and put it there. That's
it.
>> Is there equally that's how it works?
>> And is there equally 100 other plausible
explanations?
>> 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.
>> If there's 100 other possible
explanations, then Candace, why is it
that we should go with this idea that it
was a pathy?
>> 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.
>> My whole claim was that there is more
evidence that he has set up that he is
set up as a psy.
>> 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.
>> 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
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.
>> This never happened.
>> Can we get a fact check on that? Can we
pull up his tweet where he goes over?
>> 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
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.
You did. Go ahead. Um, you said the
blurry images coming up the steps quite
literally when Officer Bagley testified.
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
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?
>> That's how you decided these two are the
same people. Oh, wow. What a scientific.
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.
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
the same shoes on, wouldn't you utilize
the shoes to try to track that person?
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
just concede that point. Obviously, it's
absurd to say I know these are the same
people because they're both wearing
Converse.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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?
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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.
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> Zero gaslighting.
>> I didn't say you couldn't have said
more. But I would like to address the
what you said.
>> Your time if this is how you want to
spend it interrogating my position. You
can do it that way.
>> I'm just addressing what you asserted on
your Twitter was like the hard evidence
that convinced you was overwhelming.
That's literally your debate.
>> That's not what you said.
>> That's not actually in fact what
happened in that exchange.
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> I and I never said it was exhaustive,
even though you said I did.
>> Sure. Whatever you want.
>> 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?
>> 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.
>> 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
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?
>> 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.
>> Why are you calling him Tyler Robinson
in the staircase? That's what I want to
get to.
>> 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.
>> But why do you think it is? Cuz you make
everybody literally what I'm trying to
explain to you. Okay.
>> 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.
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.
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,
but it sure looked like Tyler Robinson
inside of this various uh surveillance
footage that he saw.
>> 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.
>> Did you have a dream?
>> Just kidding.
>> No, it's because I combined multitudes
of evidences.
>> 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.
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
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.
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
didn't call for the fact check saying
you're wrong. I literally said I don't
remember that from the time.
>> 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?
>> Yep. The 801. Uh Tyler messages saying
it's not hearsay. If you have that as
won't.
There you go.
>> Wait, what are we saying? It's not here.
>> Not hearsay. A statement that meets the
following conditions is not hearsay.
>> It was hearsay. They said it in the
trial.
>> Hang on. Hang on.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
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
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
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
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
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.
>> No, you didn't say that. You said most
of it was hearsay actually.
>> Yeah.
>> The overwhelming majority.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> Yeah. Nobody disputed that. What the
dispute was is whether or not most of it
was overwhelmingly hearsay. Is that the
case?
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> Well, overwhelming just means
>> you can't consider another option that
there could have been another white guy
wearing Converses on campus.
>> Yeah. Do you agree with me that I said
that? What overwhelming means to me is
that it's just very convincing to me.
>> 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.
>> These aren't the evidences that I find
the most convincing.
>> Well, you said that in your Twitter.
>> 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.
What What did you find? This is not an
exhaustive list of all the things.
>> 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.
>> 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,
is what informs my position for why I'm
convinced on the case. That's bizarre to
me.
>> 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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> Okay. We should discuss the text message
confessions when uh we get back if you'd
like to.
>> Okay. I think that's a good idea. Folks,
we're going to take a quick uh ad break.
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
Crusades, the Ottoman Empire, and
countless changes of power. Today, that
Christian presence is in serious danger.
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
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
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
protecting vulnerable families and
communities on the ground. If preserving
a living Christian presence in the Holy
Land matters to you, visit
vulnerablepeoplepro.com.
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
payments aren't designed to get you out
of debt. They're designed to actually
keep you stuck. But PDS debt can help.
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.
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.
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.
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
>> 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
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
COVID vaccine is running out, feels like
it's coming out too fast and there's too
many celebrities telling me to do it.
I'd like to take a pause, that's good.
That is you are allowed to do that. I
believe in intuition.
>> 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
bring up the COVID vaccine, not trusting
the COVID vaccine in mass was the
science. That wasn't just intuition.
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
when you're talking about intuition
though when you say trust your intuition
I'm actually giving a different message.
>> 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.
>> That's why we're parking it aside.
Intuition is the first step. Something
feels off right.
>> Okay. That was my first step with COVID.
I don't like the way it's being pushed.
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
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.
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?
>> 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
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.
>> 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,
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
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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,
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
FBI would not FBI combined with the SBI,
it was not the prosecution's fault. They
made that clear during that hearing.
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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
didn't pass a sniff test for me.
>> You have kids and you love them more
than anything. I do.
>> 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,
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?
>> 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
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
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?
>> You got to you got to watch the show,
right?
>> Yeah. No, how do you know that?
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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?
>> Well, no, no, no. I didn't say that. I
said mainstream media.
>> I said with um a sheriff friend. Yes.
>> 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
documents, do you mean you saw this on
CNN or you saw this play out in the
hearing?
>> No, this was one of the things that I
went through and fact check pre-debate.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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,
"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.
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
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
document. So he's basically saying we
all spoke to a bunch of people and
here's the information that we got.
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.
>> 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
parents were the ones who said I'm
turning my son in because he's guilty.
>> I didn't say they turned him in.
>> 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
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
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
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
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.
>> We don't know that the parents
>> I never I didn't say that they did ever.
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.
>> Yes.
>> And I'm telling you that we have not
seen any evidence that that is true.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
pull the data off the text messages. Do
you think the prosecution would go to
court with fabricated text messages?
>> 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.
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
correct.
>> What are we looking at here?
>> Robinson's mother explained uh that over
the last year or so I'm sorry.
>> 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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
very shady that they decided to bring.
>> Why aren't the parents disputing that?
Well, first off,
>> that's the question.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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."
>> 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
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
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
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
time to present that evidence.
>> That would also be a good time for the
defense to say that's just totally
fabricated.
>> 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
information.
>> No, no, they just received the text
messages. But in order to
>> That's not the text messages.
>> The probative information.
>> Yeah, we're talking about the
information that we just reviewed.
That's not the text messages.
>> They never presented it. The state never
never put it on.
>> Yeah, they didn't. The defense could
easily still have presented this. Yeah.
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.
They did not put this on as evidence.
Brian Davis was up there. Uh
>> so they're not allowed to present
anything.
>> 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
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
actual evidence that there was
fabrications by the feds,
>> that's exactly when you would introduce
that.
>> 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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
take the same standard for the evidence
that you present? You're just waiting
for trial.
>> 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?
>> 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?
>> 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
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
overwhelming evidence. And and by the
way, I want to be clear
>> that which convinces me. What? Yeah.
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
>> it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's
just what I find convincing is what I
find overwhelming.
>> 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
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
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
laws about conspiracies. They see them
everywhere. we both know this, right?
That's never the what the problem is.
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
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
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,
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
who are convinced too. That's never been
my problem. My problem is the claims
which are external to that.
>> 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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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,
>> 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
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
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
showing defense had full discovery by
April 1st.
>> They did not. That's not true.
>> Wait a second.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
hearsay. That was bizarre to me.
>> You told me that I could take as much
time as I wanted to question.
>> 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
>> and you can hold me to those things, but
I would like to get into the things we
should discuss the screwdriver as well.
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
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.
You should have to answer for the claims
that you've made in regards to the
assassination itself. You should. Yeah.
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.
>> 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
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,
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
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,
>> 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
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
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
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.
>> 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?
>> 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.
That's the purpose of this hearing,
right? The state is using hearsay, but
they're also putting on their evidence.
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
can definitely show you a picture that
it's going to be beyond a reasonable
doubt before we even get to the trial.
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
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
somehow. Um I I find Lance to be more uh
suspicious if I'm being honest with you.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
had already been dug up for him to lay
down pavers. That is what people are
looking at and going, "This is weird.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> Most most of this doesn't take place on
a college campus that has surveillance
everywhere.
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Yeah.
>> You want to get into it?
>> Would you guys like to take an ad break?
>> 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.
Folks, we'll take a three and a half
minute break break and we'll be back
soon.
>> 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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
That's a savings of up to $150. I
recommend making a switch today because
his offer is extremely short-lived.
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
>> 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
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,
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
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
to make it clear to viewers that
for whatever reason you think that you
have a right to sort of depose me.
>> I'm not deposing you. I just want to ask
you,
>> but you literally said that I want to be
able to question.
>> 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
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
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
going to answer as I have issues with it
because I'm not
>> I get it. Yeah. Just so we're clear.
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
transcendental
>> actually. Yeah. Okay. Anyway, so direct
question super easy. Was Lance Twigs DNA
on the rifle as far as you know?
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> So that would be no as far as you know.
We can't say that for certainty.
>> 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.
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.
I I'm I'm familiar with this debate
strategy. Yes. Yes or no? Yes or no?
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.
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.
>> You're not going to go like we're you're
you're sitting and I'm on trial. I'm not
on trial.
>> 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?
>> 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.
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
the information that I got from who I
got it to the right body of people." And
that's what I did.
>> 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.
>> 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
embarrass her. I reported exactly.
>> I'm not trying to embarrass you. I just
want to make sure that I get your
positions clear.
>> 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.
>> Can you give me
>> Yes, we can pull up the clip.
>> I'm sorry. I'm just saying.
>> 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?
>> Okay. Where's your question?
>> Yeah. Do you have any positive evidence
whatsoever that Israel killed Charlie
Kirk?
>> Well, I couldn't say Israel was on the
ground and shot and killed Charlie Kirk.
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,
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
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?
>> 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.
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
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
is not true, you would probably have
people that just go, "Eh, that's life.
People change their opinions." I
understand.
>> 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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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,
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
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
it is definitively, I think, a threat
that a lot of us would like to see.
>> 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.
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
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
feel right. Do you have any evidence
that Erica Kirk or TPUSA participated in
the murder of Charlie Kirk?
>> 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?
>> 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.
Your team is sending messages in the
back saying they have a video they want
to play.
>> 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.
>> Yep.
>> Yeah. You said evidence that I that they
killed him. I said they're This is why
people think they're involvement.
Involvement.
>> If they have the clip, they can play the
clip. They're they're referring to a
clip.
>> 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.
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.
>> Okay.
>> I also involvement
>> I understand.
>> Yeah.
>> So you think you you with full
confidence you think that
>> Yeah. I think
Israel.
>> 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
information that I handed over. I can't
do that. I'm not the
>> You don't have any positive evidence of
that?
>> 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.
>> 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
think and you're thinking
I have tons of positive evidence that
I'm allowed to think.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
you had confidence. Let me tell you
something. Hang on. Let me finish. Let
me finish. Let me finish.
>> 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
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.
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.
>> 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
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
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?
>> 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
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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?
>> 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
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?
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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.
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.
>> 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
you'll give us. Well, the high I I
already did tell you where it came from.
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?
>> They said that the French Foreign Legion
was involved and on the ground that day.
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.
>> 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
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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
no
>> and if you do say that and they contact
that individual obviously you don't have
to leak your sources here.
>> Is there enough credibility where that
person would be willing to talk to them
and explain to them exactly what their
sources are?
>> 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.
Why are they not reaching out to you?
>> I've asked that many times on my
podcast.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> Yeah. But I mean, we don't know who the
source is. We don't know any of this.
>> 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?
>> There's no guarantee they didn't look
into it. How do we know? We don't know.
How could they come the information?
>> More of the information because it was a
long file.
>> 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
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
they wanted to explore every possible
lead with I even texted Dan Bonino. So,
actually, it was three it was three
offices.
>> 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.
>> If they contact you to say, is that
specifically to the French government or
Israel's involvement in the killing of
Char?
>> 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
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
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
I'm seeing it now.
>> The full I'm full confidence I believe
that Israel French was involved.
>> 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?
>> 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
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
not satisfied that Tyler Robinson did
this in any way, then every alternative
theory should be explored. Other
evidence should be brought forward.
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,
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
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.
>> But do you see how you say my sources?
>> You're not allowed to have sources. The
thing is CNN allowed to have sources.
Hang
>> on. I have sources if I said I have
sources that claim none of that's true.
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
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
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
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
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
going I don't think these are just
vibes. It seems like Canada sources are
legit. So, I've proven myself in the
market.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
>> 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?
>> 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
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.
Doesn't it seem totally fair that you
answer back the questions people have
for you?
>> Well, they're not answering our
questions. So, it's also fair that they
don't answer them.
>> 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?
>> 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.
>> 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?
>> 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
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.
>> 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.
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.
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
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,
I would I would seat them all and I
would ask questions. I would at this
phase. I would.
>> 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.
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.
>> 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.
>> Well, I mean it shows that the police
trusted everybody and didn't just hold
things up for a second.
>> 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.
>> What I'm saying is his organization like
it had grown to I think it was hundred
million
>> plus per year.
>> 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
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.
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.
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
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.
>> Would it then follow that somehow she's
complicit in his death?
>> I didn't say implicit in death. You
added those two words.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
conversation.
>> How would that make her complicit?
>> Complicit.
Again, you said complicit in the death
of Charlie. in what? Yeah.
>> 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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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
that confidence to the public as opposed
to just being like, "We don't know yet.
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?
>> 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.
>> 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?
>> 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.
>> Right. But so when you just say
complicit, you just mean she believes
that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk?
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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,
Candace, you and Charlie always say to
go with your intuition. You won't
address this how we all feel about her.
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.
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
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.
>> 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
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
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?
>> 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
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
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.
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?
>> 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
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,
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
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
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.
>> Yeah. So when I say Erica's complicit,
that's my opinion. When you tweeted
Erica's too to kill her
husband.
>> 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.
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.
>> You don't think calling somebody too
>> No. Come on. That's like normal
tongue-in-cheek stuff for me online.
>> Oh, you're being tongue tongue and
cheek.
>> Yeah. Usually when I call someone
I'm being tongue and cheek.
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.
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?
>> Do you think still think she's too
>> No, no, no, no. I didn't know Erica
Kirk. I'd never met her before.
>> 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.
>> You come you go into the headquarters
now all of a sudden you've got text
messages that you're sharing with them.
You say that your you and your wife are
getting involved with management.
>> No, no, no. I'm not involved in any
management attorney.
>> 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
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.
>> Uh on recommendation. So, I went down
and did some debate. That's the first
time I ever met anybody at TPUSA.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> Okay. So, at what point did you start
receiving text messages from that you
cited in your opening statement?
>> 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
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
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
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
called Erica too in June.
>> So what?
>> Yeah. I just think it kind of shows that
Turning Point is sending you as their
horse.
>> 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.
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
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?
>> 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
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
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
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
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
half about everything about critical of
somebody that you hadn't met and then
you meet him and you're less critical of
them.
>> 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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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,
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> You want to protect your husband's
legacy, right? And you're trying to find
some new
>> legacy is his children, not the
organization.
>> 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.
>> This is why people think she's sus and
his children. Now, for you though to say
that anybody's a girl boss, right?
That's like the calling the kettle
black.
>> That came out of your mouth.
>> No, that was you. You brought up girl
boss.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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.
>> I don't I don't have to keep answering
the same question.
Your team is asking to how it's
complicit.
>> 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
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
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
got eaten by Charlie. much more
reasonably obviously than saying that
the chicken bones in his neck stopped it
because he ate vegetables.
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
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.
It was crazy. And but he acknowledged
that he spoke to Erica immediately. Why
did you speak to Erica immediately?
>> 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?
>> 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.
>> 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
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.
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,
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
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
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
insert what we are actually observing
with the evidence that we're taking a
look at and what took place that day.
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.
>> 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
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.
>> Okay. Do you Do you think that Charlie
Kirk was killed with an explosive?
>> I think I think that that is a
possibility. Yes.
>> 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
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.
>> 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,
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.
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
and then fire it near the muzzle and
that box will actually blow off the
table.
>> Okay. So, question for you. Does that
box go sideways off a table?
>> It can.
>> 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.
>> 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
1500 and 2,000. I'm pretty sure pounds
of energy coming at you and you just go
upward and to the side.
>> 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.
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.
>> And well, because he's actually shot and
killed people. Why would that have
anything to do with anything?
>> Well, because
>> did he slow down all the videos of the
people he shot to see if their clothes
moved?
>> 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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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
something with a lot of confidence and
it's you can fact check it.
>> It's your bullets displace air.
>> If a not about whether it displace air,
it's where it dispersed the air
underneath his shirt here.
>> 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
backwards.
>> Yeah,
>> that's not true.
>> It's not and we obviously can't show
that clip. I disagree with you.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
is a good time to do so.
>> And good to see, General Hull. A lot of
things bother um bothers me about this.
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.
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
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.
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
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
questions. Yeah, I'm I'm a SEAL team 6
sniper. I'm asking a lot of questions.
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
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
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
arguing that it was because the bullet
carried air. Now you're saying you don't
see the shirt move at all.
>> 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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
>> 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,
um the two other clips I do want to play
the Twigs clip. That one is important to
me. The Twigs DNA clip.
>> 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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
case,
>> but in this case, you were very adamant
that his DNA was on the gun itself.
>> 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
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
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
commented beneath this show that if the
situations were reversed and there were
this many verifiable lies
>> straight straight to jail.
>> Yeah. So that's the show intro and
straight to jail. Straight to jail is a
monopoly term.
>> 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
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.
>> 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.
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
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,
>> that's strange, right?
>> Do you know if they have been?
>> No, I have no idea.
>> 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
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
should be happening because something's
wrong here when you actually don't have
the knowledge that anything's wrong at
all.
>> I just think that my opinion is that she
should be sat down and questioned.
>> 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
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
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
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
to people as very fair. We did not take
out of context clips of Andrew to try to
repeat.
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
in this trial in this hearing. And I I
do think that he fell I think he fell
short of that.
>> There's nothing out of Hang on. There's
nothing here except holding you to
account for your claim. Say yes or no.
Well, we were supposed to be dating uh
be debating the case and whether or not
there was overwhelming evidence.
>> 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
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?
>> 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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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.
>> Yes, sure. I That's me responding to
your criticism of the claim. That's all
I'm doing here.
>> 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.
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.
>> They want to hit [snorts] the minimum of
four clips you were saying with Erica.
No, 100%. [laughter]
>> This is absurd.
>> Okay.
And this is the one you're saying from 7
days ago.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> Totally fair with me. So, are you good
with her asking the question or no?
>> You said no.
>> Waiting for the clip.
>> Okay. So, you want to wait for the clip
first?
>> Okay.
>> You guys have it in the back.
>> Okay. Beautiful.
>> Team told me they had it. So that's what
I heard.
>> Okay, there we go.
>> Come on, guys.
>> Did this crime, okay? Because Lance
Twigs has
>> DNA on the fine.
>> 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.
>> 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
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.
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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
Which one of the charges against or or
all of them do you think Tyler Robinson
is guilty of?
>> Um, the specific charge.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, I think what I think is that
um Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
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
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.
So, please just answer the question.
>> Fair. Name all seven since you've been
following the case.
>> Okay, sure. You name You name one.
>> Yeah, you name all seven.
>> I'm happy to do that, but can you name
one?
>> Uh, I think he's I think he's been
charged with murder.
>> That's actually incorrect.
>> Okay, great. Now, name all seven.
>> He doesn't even This is like
>> Name all seven.
>> And And And I I
>> Can you name all seven?
>> I I can.
>> Then do it.
>> Sure. You don't have to
>> do it. No, do it. I'll count them. Go
ahead.
>> You don't have to put your fingers up. I
can name them.
>> Yeah, sure.
>> Name them.
>> Uh, the first charge is aggravated
murder because that's what carries a
death sentence in the state of youth.
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
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.
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.
>> 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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> I got one.
>> Great. The second charge is the felony
discharge of a weapon. Uh the next two
charges are for obstruction of justice.
>> Okay.
>> The next two charges are for witness
temp tampering. And the final
>> What's the specific charges though?
>> That is them. Obstruction of justice.
Obstruction of justice. Witness
tampering. Witness tampering.
>> Okay. W and there's no other specifics
to them.
>> Well, we I can tell you why he's being
charged.
>> No, no, no. Just the the charges and
then seven.
>> Yeah. See, the bad thing is when you try
to be an a-hole and it doesn't work.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
question. Did somebody by chance text
you that question?
>> You can check my phone. I'm just
curious.
>> 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
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.
PBD, you're the moderator. Take it.
Let's see.
>> See if anyone was texted at all during
this debate.
>> 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.
>> So, the last one has nothing to do with
it. It's just a compliment.
>> Mhm.
>> 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.
>> Any other texts? Could have been
Telegram. Could have been something.
>> All I have is Signal. You can check
that, too.
>> I only have signal.
>> Telegram I used in Russia and that was
it. I downloaded
>> I'll take your word for it.
>> 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.
>> 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?
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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.
>> Okay. So to be clear, there's no
receipt. You
>> I just said the opposite. I said there
there is.
>> Well, you don't have a copy of the
receipt.
>> I The receipt was published online.
>> 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
was he interviewed the actual server.
>> So there's no evidence that Tyler was at
that steakhouse.
>> I I would say the receipt with his debit
card number it would be some hard
evidence if that is I agree with that.
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.
>> No. No. Is there proof that that was
actually his debit card that he paid
with?
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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?"
>> 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
it gets debunked, I'm happy to take it
off if that's what you mean. That's how
an investigation works.
>> 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.
>> Well, yeah, beyond that because they
didn't even have receipts. They were
like Bob told me.
>> But the question but the question is the
receipt itself. It has not been verified
to have been Tyler.
>> I just want to say you're holding me to
a higher standard than you are.
>> 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
>> 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
to be Tyler Robinson?
>> Yes, you should. If we're trying to
build a timeline, you should. Yeah.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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?
>> 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.
>> Well, he talked a lot about that during
the preliminary.
>> His camera died. Yeah.
>> Do you think that he planted that
screwdriver up there?
>> No.
>> No. Who do you think planted it?
>> I if we're just going on my Am I allowed
to have an opinion?
>> 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
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
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
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
standard than you do unconfirmed
evidence to an official timeline that
I'm putting out either.
>> What do you mean official timeline? This
is my timeline. I made it at home.
>> 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.
>> Well, yeah, it hasn't even been
discussed by the prosecution. So it's
it's not like you're debunking that it
happened.
>> 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
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
following it very closely because Wait,
you think
>> I'm calling owners of state houses and
having a conversation you're following?
>> 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
didn't know any of the charges. No,
that's not splitting. It means you
didn't follow the preliminary hearing at
all.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
I could to confirm this when it came in.
I spoke to the owner of the restaurant.
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.
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
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
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
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.
>> Okay. Thank you. I think
>> no hard evidence anyway. Yeah, we're I'm
fine with closing.
>> 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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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.
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
over to zero.com/candis
and use code candace at checkout for $50
off your ghost phone. That's
zeroost.com/candis.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
with promo code Candace 10 at checkout.
Again, that's nekincare.com.
Promo code candace 10 at checkout.
>> 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
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
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
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,
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.
>> 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
then I said, "Great. Let's do this." And
so before we wrap up, final thoughts.
I'll come to you first.
>> Yeah. She had nothing. Just nothing. Any
for all of her claims of Paty, nothing.
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.
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
or answer some questions, but you know
what? Um I don't even know if she has.
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
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
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.
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.
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
involved and never shows any evidence.
We're just asking questions. It's my
It's again, like I said, my opening.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Whereas on her show, much more likely to
be making those claims. So, she just had
nothing the entire debate. Zero.
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
I don't need to sit here and pretend
that I didn't misspeak on a Lance thing.
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.
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
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
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
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.
>> 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
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
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
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.
With that being said, take care
everybody. God bless. Have a great
weekend.
>> Bye.
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
