Benny Johnson on Candace Owens Accepting Turning Point USA's Challenge Over Charlie Kirk's Death
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Tucker Carlson Breaks Silence on Charlie Kirk Investigation: Demands FBI Transparency and Answers
15:48
Frank Turek Was There When Charlie Kirk Was Murdered: Death Threats, Candace Owens, and the Truth About That Horrible Day
50:36
Brandi and Billie Expose Shocking Conflicts of Interest in Charlie Kirk Investigation
1:38:44
Benny Johnson on Candace Owens Accepting Turning Point USA's Challenge Over Charlie Kirk's Death
Benny Johnson addresses Candace Owens' explosive allegations against Turning Point USA leadership regarding Charlie Kirk's death and her acceptance of their public debate challenge. After Owens posted claims that Kirk was "betrayed by leadership" and promised to name names, Turning Point producer Blake Neff issued a formal invitation for Owens to defend her statements live on December 15th. While Owens initially accepted, scheduling conflicts emerged around the in-person versus virtual format. Johnson, who worked with both Kirk and Owens, emphasizes the importance of this confrontation for clearing names and seeking truth, comparing it to the unresolved Owens-Shapiro debate that never materialized due to legal restrictions.
Benny Johnson opens by reflecting on the failed debate between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro following their acrimonious split from The Daily Wire. After their very public breakup went "thermonuclear" with back-and-forth accusations and debates about whether "Christ is king," the anticipated confrontation never materialized. Just as the debate was scheduled to occur, Owens was hit with a gag order from a judge, preventing her from discussing the matter further.
Johnson expresses his disappointment with this outcome, believing both parties and their audiences would have benefited from the exchange. "Something magical happens when you're in a room with somebody one-on-one," Johnson explains. "When you're in person, you end up seeing the other person as a lot more human." Instead of productive dialogue, the situation devolved into lawsuits and legal maneuvering—a pattern that seems to be repeating itself sixteen months later.
Candace Owens' Explosive Allegations Against Turning Point USA
Fast forward to the present, and Owens has turned her attention to Turning Point USA and the circumstances surrounding Charlie Kirk's death. Taking advantage of public frustration over the lack of transparency regarding Kirk's murder, Owens posted a statement that has been viewed by 15 million people.
In her December 2nd post, Owens declared: "I received information, final pieces together for me. I can say with full confidence that Charlie Kirk was betrayed by the leadership at Turning Point USA, some very powerful people who eulogized him on stage. Yes, I will be naming names and providing evidence for my claims, and I'll be making a personal plea to every well-meaning person who donated to this godforsaken organization to request a refund. You were all lied to and leadership knew."
The implication was clear and shocking—that people running Kirk's own organization had involvement in his death. Johnson acknowledges the gravity of such claims while noting the complete absence of supporting evidence presented thus far.
The Public's Frustration With Lack of Information
Johnson shares the widespread frustration about the information vacuum surrounding Kirk's death. Independent reporters from corporate media outlets have confirmed they cannot access security footage, police recordings, or any substantive documentation. Making matters worse, a judge has reportedly considered banning all cameras from the courthouse, which Johnson calls "the biggest insult to the American public."
"I'm enraged about it," Johnson states. "I'm doing everything I possibly can to make sure that doesn't happen because we deserve to know." He emphasizes that the desire for answers among those who loved and worked with Kirk is natural and justified, but cautions against making unfounded allegations that can cause enormous damage to innocent people.
Turning Point Issues a Public Challenge
Seventy-two hours after Owens' explosive post, Turning Point USA responded through Blake Neff, a writer and producer who worked for Kirk and previously for Tucker Carlson. Neff issued a formal challenge on the Charlie Kirk Show, addressing what he characterized as "theories or lies" that Owens had spread about the organization.
The response included a specific invitation: a live stream scheduled for 4:00 PM Eastern (2:00 PM local time) on Monday, December 15th, featuring a collection of Kirk's friends responding to Owens' statements "to set the record straight once and for all" prior to the opening of AmericaFest, Turning Point's major conference. The event would be streamed from Kirk's own studio, and Owens was explicitly invited to participate in person in Phoenix if she wished.
Owens Initially Accepts the Challenge
Owens quickly accepted the invitation, stating in a video response: "Well, tonight has had enough with the nonresponse, trying to move on, trying to gaslight us on answering basic details. So, we just went for it. And guess what? Turning Point has moved to formally respond to all the things that we have said."
She continued: "Quite literally, all we have ever asked for were sensible answers to our basic questions about what transpired on September 10th. And it looks like we're going to get those things. So major major win. I am excited."
The internet erupted with anticipation. Owens posted multiple times expressing her willingness to participate, even joking, "my only ground rule is no assassinations. You can't pretend you're going to do it. And then Candace dies in a mysterious accident."
Scheduling Complications Emerge
However, complications quickly arose. Owens questioned why she learned about the confirmed date and time through a midnight tweet rather than through direct communication. She pointed out that December 15th didn't work for an in-person appearance and that 2 PM was precisely when she records her daily podcast—a fact she claimed Turning Point knew.
Owens proposed an alternative: "We're happy to cancel the daily podcast. I'll join you guys virtually instead for the live stream on the 15th. Is that work on your end? Let's lock it in." She added that she was willing to appear virtually on shorter notice since it would be "easier to move things around the kids and find somebody to sub for my morning homeschooling."
Virtual Versus In-Person: Does It Matter?
Johnson weighs in on the emerging dispute over format, noting that many successful shows, including his own, operate primarily or entirely virtually. He mentions Pat McAfee as another example of successful digital-first content.
"I do a virtual show. We rarely have in-person guests," Johnson explains. "That's a shame. I wish that we could. It's just sometimes it's hard to get people to travel. It would be a lot harder to book the show because we have to fly a bunch of people in every single day. It'd be a lot more expensive and so it's just easier."
While acknowledging that an in-person confrontation would have more "kinetic energy," Johnson argues that the format shouldn't become a sticking point that prevents the conversation from happening at all. He expresses hope that Turning Point will accommodate a virtual appearance rather than let logistics derail what could be an important moment of truth-seeking.
However, Johnson also notes the counterargument: "They invited you to participate. They didn't say that they would make it the Candace Owens show and work around your schedule. These are your allegations. It's incumbent upon you to make the schedule work."
Johnson's Personal Perspective and Call for Truth
Johnson emphasizes his unique position in this conflict. He has worked with both Owens and Kirk but wasn't part of either's core business operations. He appeared on Owens' show and collaborated with Kirk at Turning Point for nearly a decade, but wasn't present on the day of Kirk's death and has access to the same limited information as the general public.
"I'm frustrated with the amount of access that I have and the questions that still remain about Charlie's death. I'm angry about it. I'm frustrated about it," Johnson admits. "But also there are a lot of people who deserve to have their names cleared that are part of Charlie's team and the best way to do that is to just like freaking clear your name."
He draws a parallel to the aborted Owens-Shapiro debate, emphasizing his belief that more conversation and debate—not less—serves everyone's interests. Personal lives have been "set on fire" because of Owens' allegations, Johnson notes, and those individuals deserve their opportunity to respond publicly.
Is This a Prelude to a Defamation Lawsuit?
Johnson speculates that Turning Point's approach may be laying groundwork for a potential defamation lawsuit. In such cases, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they publicly presented the truth and that the defendant continued spreading falsehoods despite having access to accurate information—establishing malice, which is required in defamation cases involving public figures.
"Seems like it's a setup for a potential lawsuit because what you do in a defamation lawsuit like this is you have to publicly say that you have to publicly air the truth. You have to give demonstrable evidence to the truth so that you can prove malice," Johnson explains.
Whether or not litigation follows, Johnson sees the public confrontation as essential for getting to the bottom of what actually happened and clearing the names of those who've been accused without evidence.
The Broader Demand for Transparency
Beyond the Owens-Turning Point confrontation, Johnson expresses his broader frustration with the lack of official transparency regarding Kirk's death. He advocates for regular public briefings from law enforcement—local, state, and federal—about the investigation.
"I think that the public frankly deserves public briefings on the Charlie Kirk assassination every week. That would be my preference," Johnson states.
The combination of limited official information and inflammatory public accusations has created a toxic information environment where speculation runs rampant and reputations are damaged. Johnson sees the scheduled confrontation, whatever format it ultimately takes, as a necessary step toward establishing facts and providing the accountability that Kirk's memory deserves.
What Happens Next?
As of Johnson's commentary, the situation remains fluid. Owens has accepted the challenge but proposed modifications to the format and timing. Turning Point has issued their invitation with specific parameters. The question now is whether both parties can find common ground that allows this public reckoning to actually occur.
Johnson concludes by reiterating his hope that the debate happens, regardless of format complications. "Hopefully you join me in thinking that this would be an extreme positive good," he tells his audience. "I don't know how else to approach it other than I want the truth, right? Like everybody just wants the truth on this and this is the way to get there."
The eyes of a frustrated public will be watching to see if this confrontation materializes or if it follows the same path as the Owens-Shapiro debate—derailed by logistics, legal complications, or unwillingness to follow through when the moment of accountability arrives.
