Candace Owens Claims Erika Kirk Was Promised Vice Presidency and Directs Behind-the-Scenes Campaign Against Critics
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Candace Owens Reveals Mikey McCoy Warned Her To Investigate Andrew Kolvet In Erika Kirk Case
9:04
Candace Owens Exposes Erika Kirk's Flight from Women's Leadership Summit and Demands Turning Point USA Answer FOIA Questions
58:31
Turning Point Producer's Racist Meltdown Against Candace Owens Over Deleted Charlie Kirk Episodes Exposed
31:50
Candace Owens Claims Erika Kirk Was Promised Vice Presidency and Directs Behind-the-Scenes Campaign Against Critics
Candace Owens alleges that Erika Kirk was promised the vice presidency in 2028 and operates through oligarchic power rather than authentic public support. Owens claims Kirk personally contacted priests and bishops to discourage attendance at her Catholic event, directed spokesperson Andrew Kolvet to misrepresent Charlie Kirk's church attendance, and refuses to confirm whether a video showing Charlie appointing Erika to lead Turning Point USA is authentic or doctored. Owens has sent multiple formal requests to Turning Point USA executives demanding confirmation about the video's authenticity, but claims they are using legal loopholes to avoid providing an official response. She argues that Kirk lacks the character and communication skills necessary for public life and is protected only by powerful interests behind the scenes.
Candace Owens shares her belief that Erika Kirk was promised she would become vice president of the United States in 2028. According to Owens, this promise explains Kirk's approach to everything as though it were a coronation rather than something earned through public life. In a traditional aristocracy, Owens notes, you don't care about the voice of the people and you don't need to answer questions because you're simply born into power.
Owens argues that the idea of someone being installed into a position of power represents the truest form of the United States today and yesterday, describing it as an oligarchy where a few powerful people control everything. This oligarchy, she claims, has guaranteed Erika Kirk power.
The Price of Inauthentic Power
What Erika Kirk has discovered, according to Owens, is that while she enjoys the benefits from the power of the oligarchy, she never considered what it would feel like if she only had the oligarchy on her side. Kirk wants both the power of the few pulling strings behind the scenes and the authentic affection of the many. She wants the many to genuinely like her through enough ad spend, tears, the right outfits, and the right speeches written for her.
The high that Kirk is chasing, Owens explains, is the feeling she experienced when she came out at the memorial event and everyone genuinely loved her, embraced her, cried for her, and cheered for her. Erika is chasing that feeling of being truly desired, which only works if the people are unaware of the puppet masters in the background.
The Barack Obama Comparison
Owens offers Barack Obama as an example of someone whose rise was not authentic and who was groomed from childhood for the position he eventually held. However, back in 2008, most people were asleep to this plausibility, so they genuinely loved him and thought he would bring change. Owens adds that Obama, for all his flaws, was articulate and convincing—two things that Erika Kirk lacks. Kirk also lacks character, making it more difficult to give her to the public and demand acceptance.
Behind-the-Scenes Manipulation
Owens states that Erika Kirk is not who she is pretending to be, describing her as nasty behind the scenes and directing hits against people who question the authority that's been handed to her. Owens reveals that Kirk personally made phone calls to priests, bishops, and attendees telling them not to attend the Catholics for Catholics event that Owens organized in March. Kirk made these calls despite denying being Catholic, and the event was a prayer event, not a political one.
While publicly pretending to be an innocent victim trying to carry on her husband's vision, Owens argues that Kirk operates contrary to Charlie Kirk's beliefs. Charlie believed in free markets and didn't believe in power phone calls behind the scenes. Erika directs everything from behind the scenes because she's a coward, according to Owens.
The Catholic Church Controversy
It was Erika who directed Andrew Kolvet to lie about Charlie's attendance at the Catholic Church, claiming he just likes the architecture. Andrew Kolvet was live texting with Erika during his interview with Alex Clark to make sure he had permission, because they wanted to protect their evangelical Zionist base of donors. They cared about the money, not the truth, Owens claims.
Owens emphasizes that she is not a coward and spends zero dollars on ads or influencer networks. She has never told people not to attend Erika Kirk events and in fact encourages the opposite, believing more debate is necessary. People should ask and answer questions publicly, something Turning Point USA is not willing to do unless it's an easy slam dunk. They wait for somebody to make a mistake and then pounce and pretend they're open to having a conversation.
The Doctored Video Question
Owens raises a critical question that Turning Point USA has refused to answer: whether the video they presented of Erika being named by Charlie Kirk, where he says he appoints his wife to a position, is doctored. She notes that no person who works for Turning Point USA has answered this question.
Having learned about legal loopholes from being sued frequently, Owens understands that if they lie about the video, there could be real costly legal ramifications. She intentionally addressed her email asking if the video was doctored to Justin Streiff (the COO), Andrew Kolvet (the official spokesperson of Turning Point USA), and their lawyer. Yet they declined to respond officially.
Instead, the TPUSA account, which is run by unknown individuals and has previously gone rogue according to the organization, responded by not actually answering whether the video was doctored. When Owens saw that tweet go out instead of receiving an email response, even though they shared her email, she understood they were using a legal loophole.
Formal Requests for Confirmation
Owens has since written Turning Point USA twice by email, politely insisting upon a written response from an identifiable executive. In her first email yesterday, she wrote that while they saw the tweet response from Turning Point USA's X account, they were seeking an on-record statement from someone identifiable at the company. She asked two questions: Can you confirm that the video shared is entirely authentic and has not been doctored in any way, with a simple yes or no answer? And is the video shared within its proper context, meaning Charlie was not speaking in jest?
She received no response. She followed up again this morning to Justin Streiff and Andrew Kolvet, who has the legal means to respond but has declined to do so as the official spokesperson. She requested a clean statement from somebody identifiable at Turning Point USA to confirm that the video released has not been doctored in any way and that Charlie's statements are properly contextualized. She noted that they have expressed publicly that they would like this obsession with the video to end, and she was coming to them directly to provide the means to formally end this discussion, as no person from the organization has yet confirmed the video has not been intentionally doctored or modified using AI tools.
The Donor Barrier Removed
Owens points out that Blake Neff does not work for Turning Point USA and Graham Allen does not work for Turning Point USA, yet they keep going out to their soldiers when the people who could just come out and show the entire video—Erika Kirk, Andrew Kolvet, and Justin Streiff—could simply clarify the situation.
One of Turning Point USA's hang-ups was that they were trying to protect the donor who asked the question. Owens asks why they would have to protect the donor from asking a reasonable question. If Charlie gives a presentation about what he's going to do, someone might reasonably ask what would happen if he weren't there, since he's just one guy.
Owens reveals that the donor who asked the question was Julie Fields and Arthur Fields from North Carolina. That barrier has now been removed for Turning Point USA. They are now free to share the entire video in its context because the world now knows which donors asked the question. Owens clarifies that this is not an invitation for harassment, as the donors did nothing wrong by asking a question after a presentation.
In fact, the donor who told Owens that the video is doctored and is willing to go very far on this claim said they similarly thought the same thing—Charlie, you're one guy. That's why they had a secondary dinner with him after this and spoke to him about succession. Charlie never once said anything about Erika to them about his plans. He simply reiterated that the board would figure it out. He talked about Steve Jobs and people like him who lost their lives but whose companies carried on. He did not elect Erika Kirk to take his spot legally in any documents outside of private conversations that no one will ever hear.
Owens helped remove the barrier so Turning Point USA is free to share the entire video. She reiterates that the donors did nothing wrong and there's no need to look into them, especially since they're not even on camera.
Legal Literacy and Lying by Omission
Having become legally literate due to many frivolous lawsuits against her, Owens observes that Andrew Kolvet is very clearly being advised to lie by omission or to bring on people who are willing to lie explicitly, like Graham Allen, to have other people make claims while he refrains from making them himself.
The most notorious example, according to Owens, is when Kolvet hosted Graham Allen to claim that the White House correspondent's internal email that she shared was fake. Andrew Kolvet knows that email is not fake. When they receive their FOIA response officially regarding the email, Andrew Kolvet is going to look like the liar that he is, Owens concludes.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.