Up Next
Dave Smith and Candace Owens Discuss the Charlie Kirk Assassination Investigation and the Israel Lobby's Influence
1:10:40
Candace Owens Reveals Charlie Kirk Turned Against Israel 48 Hours Before His Assassination With Explosive Group Chat Proof
27:38
Candace Owens Exposes Josh Hammer's Lies About Charlie Kirk and Explores Military Flight Evidence
27:58
Candace Owens Debates Andrew Kolvet on Charlie Kirk Assassination Evidence and Tyler Robinson's Guilt
Candace Owens sits down with Andrew Kolvet to debate the evidence surrounding Charlie Kirk's assassination and whether Tyler Robinson acted alone. The conversation covers forensic evidence, DNA analysis, fingerprint degradation, witness testimony, and the competing narratives about what really happened. Owens challenges the official story while Kolvet defends the state's case, leading to heated exchanges over evidentiary standards, Israeli involvement theories, and Erika Kirk's public statements.
The Debate Setup and Opening Positions
Candace Owens begins by explaining her perspective on the Charlie Kirk assassination case, emphasizing that she had a personal friendship with Charlie and has been following the investigation closely. She criticizes the approach of sending influencers to debate her rather than having direct conversations with Turning Point USA leadership, specifically mentioning that either Erika Kirk or Andrew Kolvet, the spokesperson, should be present instead of another influencer.
Andrew Kolvet comes to defend the state's position that Tyler Robinson is responsible for Charlie Kirk's death. The debate becomes contentious from the start, with fundamental disagreements about what constitutes evidence and how to evaluate the information presented during the preliminary hearing.
The Israeli Connection and Text Message Evidence
Owens addresses how Israel became part of the conversation, explaining that immediately after Charlie died, there was a coordinated push to emphasize his love for Israel. She found it strange that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu felt compelled to publicly deny involvement when nobody had suggested such a thing. She presents a text message showing Charlie's changing views on Israel, which was initially denied by various influencers who claimed Charlie never wavered in his support.
Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly later confirmed they had private conversations with Charlie about his evolving perspective on Israel, particularly after October 7th. Owens argues that the dishonesty about Charlie's changing views raises reasonable questions about why people would lie about this if there wasn't something to hide.
Forensic Evidence: The Gun, DNA, and Fingerprints
Kolvet points to Tyler Robinson's rifle being found near the crime scene as compelling evidence. However, Owens counters that a gun can be planted and doesn't prove who fired it. The discussion then moves to forensic testimony from the preliminary hearing, specifically focusing on:
- Dust and debris found inside the gun barrel, which Owens suggests indicates the weapon hadn't been recently fired
- DNA evidence showing five or more contributors on the trigger and trigger guard
- Tyler Robinson's fingerprints being the most degraded among all the prints found
- Testimony from FBI forensics analysts stating that samples with more than two contributors cannot be scientifically analyzed for source attribution
Owens argues that if Tyler had recently fired the weapon, his fingerprints should be the freshest, not the most degraded. She suggests this supports the theory that someone else used the gun more recently and planted it at the scene.
The Preliminary Hearing and Hearsay Evidence
A significant portion of the debate centers on Utah Rule 1102, which governs preliminary hearings. Owens explains that under this rule, the state can present hearsay evidence that wouldn't be admissible at trial. The magistrate's role is simply to determine if there's enough to proceed to trial, not to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Owens challenges Kolvet's claim that there is "overwhelming evidence" by pointing out that he's basing this conclusion on a preliminary hearing conducted under evidentiary standards that allow hearsay. She argues that she's using the same inferential reasoning the state used, but when she does it to suggest alternative theories, she's criticized for speculation.
The Bullet and Ballistics Questions
The debate touches on whether a .30-06 rifle could have caused the wound pattern observed. Kolvet argues that a 150-grain Remington Core-Lokt soft point round could fragment and cause the injuries described. Owens disputes this and references the medical examiner's testimony, though she questions various aspects of the ballistics evidence.
There's discussion about whether the shirt movement visible in the video is consistent with a bullet strike or possibly an explosive device. Owens mentions theories about a shaped charge, referencing work done by investigator Jon Aaron Bray who has studied this possibility extensively.
Witness Testimony and Lance Twiggs
Testimony from Lance Twiggs, who lived with Tyler Robinson, becomes a point of contention. Twiggs testified that Tyler never discussed Charlie Kirk specifically, nor did they have conversations about LGBTQ issues—the supposed motive for the shooting. Owens finds it suspicious that someone allegedly motivated by political ideology would stop at Chick-fil-A before committing an act of violence related to LGBTQ activism, given that restaurant's controversial stance on those issues.
The debate also covers elimination DNA samples taken from the Robinson home, including samples from Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson, and Lance Twiggs. The presence of multiple people's DNA on the weapon raises questions about who had access to it and when.
Erika Kirk's Role and Public Statements
Owens addresses her evolving perspective on Erika Kirk, Charlie's widow. Initially, she didn't participate in early speculation about Erica's behavior, but her views changed after sitting down with Erica for a four-hour conversation. Owens expected Erica to share evidence that explained her certainty about Tyler Robinson's guilt, but instead found that Erica had no information beyond what was publicly available.
When Owens called Erica's lawyer during their meeting, he confirmed they were still in the evidence-gathering phase and hadn't seen anything the public hadn't seen. This contradicted Erica's public statements expressing absolute certainty about Robinson's guilt, including her appearance on a show where she stated unequivocally that she believed Tyler Robinson murdered her husband.
Owens presents footage of Erica appearing on a Zoom call discussing memorial event attendance numbers, merchandise sales, and new chapter requests in what Owens characterizes as an inappropriately upbeat manner given the circumstances.
The Charges Against Tyler Robinson
In a tense exchange, Kolvet challenges Owens to name the charges against Robinson, and she challenges him to do the same. When he cannot name even one correctly (saying "murder" when the charge is "aggravated murder"), Owens lists all seven:
- Aggravated murder (which carries a potential death sentence)
- Felony discharge of a firearm
- Obstruction of justice (count three)
- Obstruction of justice (count four)
- Witness tampering (count five)
- Witness tampering (count six)
- Violence in the presence of a minor child
Owens emphasizes the significance of the aggravated murder charge versus a standard murder charge, noting that the defense has filed compelling arguments about why this shouldn't qualify as aggravated murder.
Andrew Kolvet's Background and Turning Point Connection
The debate reveals that Kolvet visited Turning Point USA headquarters for "debate training" and met with Erika Kirk in a hallway, where he and his wife hugged her and expressed condolences. He later reached out to TPUSA requesting any pertinent information for the debate, and they provided him with text messages and other materials that had not been publicly released.
Owens questions why these materials would be given to someone who had recently called Erika Kirk names online (Kolvet had tweeted calling her certain things in a "tongue-in-cheek" manner), rather than being released to the public or media in good faith. She suggests this demonstrates that Turning Point USA is using influencers as proxies rather than addressing questions directly.
The Patsy Theory and Supporting Evidence
Throughout the debate, Owens maintains that the evidence better supports Tyler Robinson being set up as a patsy rather than being the actual shooter. She points to several factors:
- The gun being a family heirloom that Tyler inherited but rarely used
- Robinson family members describing Tyler as "not much of a shooter"
- The degraded nature of his fingerprints compared to others on the weapon
- The presence of multiple people's DNA on the trigger mechanism
- Dust and debris in the barrel suggesting the gun hadn't been recently fired
- Lack of clear motive, given Tyler's apparent lack of political engagement
Owens argues that someone could have taken the gun from Tyler's residence and planted it at the scene, which would explain why his prints are degraded while others are fresher.
Israeli Involvement Theories
Owens discusses why some investigators have explored possible Israeli connections to the assassination. She references:
- Joe Kent's testimony about 12 Israeli cell phones being detected at the scene
- Charlie Kirk's private conversations with Tucker Carlson about preventing war with Iran
- Charlie being in the West Wing and Oval Office advocating against military action
- Pressure from pro-Israel donors on Charlie and Turning Point USA
- The unusual public denial by Netanyahu when no one had directly accused Israel
- A phone call in the Hamptons around August 5th or 6th that raised questions
She emphasizes that these are threads being explored, not definitive claims, but argues that the coordinated effort to dismiss any Israeli angle as conspiracy theory is itself suspicious.
Video Evidence and the Explosive Theory
The debate touches on analysis of the video showing Charlie Kirk being shot. Owens mentions observing the shirt movement pattern, the necklace breaking before visible reaction, and what she describes as a "puff" that some have interpreted as evidence of an explosive device rather than a gunshot.
She references the testimony of a Navy SEAL Team 6 sniper who stated he had killed people at close range and never seen a shirt move in the manner visible in the video. The theory compares the potential device to those used in the Israeli pager explosions, suggesting a similar small shaped charge could have been used.
Owens acknowledges these are theories requiring further investigation and suggests Kolvet should debate researchers like Jon Aaron Bray who have spent months analyzing the explosive device hypothesis.
The Standard of Evidence Debate
A fundamental disagreement emerges about evidentiary standards. Kolvet repeatedly asks Owens how her inferences lead to the patsy conclusion, while Owens counters that he's applying a double standard—accepting inferential reasoning from the state while demanding absolute proof for alternative theories.
Owens argues that in any investigation, especially one where the government narrative doesn't make sense, multiple plausible explanations should be explored. She points out that the preliminary hearing itself is based on plausibility, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, so questioning that plausibility is entirely appropriate.
Personal Attacks and Debate Tactics
The conversation becomes heated at several points, with accusations of "gaslighting," "doctored clips," and bad faith argumentation. Kolvet attempts to create time pressure and uses confrontational tactics, while Owens maintains she won't be rushed and carefully addresses each point.
When Kolvet suggests Owens might have received text messages prompting her questions, she immediately offers her phone for inspection. The moderator reviews it and confirms no such communications occurred.
The Relationship Between Candace and Charlie
Owens describes her friendship with Charlie Kirk, explaining how they traveled together extensively, with Charlie being on the road four days a week. She characterizes it as a close working relationship and genuine friendship. However, she notes that her relationship with Erica was more distant, as they were in different life phases—Candace was getting married and starting a family while Charlie and Erica were just beginning to date in early 2019.
She explains that she never expected Charlie and Erica would marry when they started dating, so she didn't make an effort to develop a close relationship with Erica. By the time they did marry, Candace's life had shifted toward wanting a more settled suburban existence rather than constant travel.
What Changed Candace's Perspective
Owens reveals that her suspicions about the official narrative grew significantly after seeing a particular Zoom call where Erica discussed event metrics and organizational growth in what Owens felt was an inappropriately cheerful manner. The lies Erica told during their four-hour private meeting further cemented Owens's concerns.
She emphasizes that she initially defended Erica against early speculation and criticism from her own audience, who were sending messages saying Owens wasn't following her own advice to trust intuition. It was only after direct interaction and observing contradictions that her position evolved.
The Complicity Question
When Kolvet accuses Owens of calling Erica "complicit" in Charlie's death, Owens clarifies that she believes Erica is complicit in pushing a false narrative about Tyler Robinson's guilt, not complicit in the murder itself. She bases this on:
- Erica's public certainty about Robinson's guilt despite having no special evidence
- The lies told during their private conversation
- The lawyer's admission that they were still gathering evidence
- The coordinated messaging campaign immediately after Charlie's death
Owens argues that if someone genuinely believed Robinson was guilty, that wouldn't make them complicit in anything—but expressing absolute certainty while possessing no evidence beyond public information suggests a different agenda.
Internet Investigators and Public Engagement
Owens defends the role of independent researchers and "internet sleuths" in investigating the case, noting that Kolvet himself had previously said such investigators would likely solve the case. She points out that Charlie Kirk's assassination remains a trending topic on Twitter nearly a year later precisely because dedicated individuals continue asking questions and sharing research.
She positions her own investigation as part of this broader citizen journalism effort, emphasizing that when mistakes are made, she corrects them publicly and updates her information—as demonstrated when she acknowledged the Lance Twiggs timeline issue during the debate.
Closing Arguments and Debate Assessment
In her closing statement, Owens argues that Kolvet didn't want to engage with the actual evidence and instead tried to defend Erika Kirk's character and attack Owens's methodology. She maintains that she won the debate on the merits by thoroughly engaging with forensic evidence, witness testimony, and logical analysis.
She expresses gratitude to Kolvet for being willing to have the conversation, to the production teams on both sides, and to the moderator for maintaining fairness. However, she reiterates her belief that people jumping on the bandwagon to defend the official narrative don't genuinely care about the case or about Erika Kirk—they simply have interests aligned with Turning Point USA.
Owens concludes by stating she believes there is more evidence supporting multiple people being involved and Tyler Robinson being set up than there is evidence for the lone gunman theory. She trusts the audience to watch the full debate and draw their own conclusions rather than needing to be convinced through rhetorical tricks.
Video Transcript
Well, do do you know any of the charges
these these up for right now?
>> Yeah, of course. But I want to make sure
that we have them list. Name all seven
since you've been following the case.
>> Okay, sure. You name you name one.
>> Yeah, you named all seven.
>> I 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 incredible. Totally
BSing right now. I can explain it to
you, but I can't understand it for you.
So, I'm going to move on from that.
Would you like to explain how you
developed your evidence, your positive
evidence for the fact that Erica was
>> I just think all women are
>> Oh, so you're allowed to just say it
shouldn't be you in that chair. It
should be the person that took Charlie's
place. Maybe Erica Kirk, maybe Andrew
Kbat. He's a spokesperson. And rather
than doing that, they send us another
influencer. So, let's see how it goes.
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,
it's 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 go. 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 [clears throat] 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, that's just a small jacket that
goes around the actual lead piece. These
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?
>> I 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.
>> 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 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 are 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 this? She then I corrected
it and said you taught rifles in the
army.
>> Not no I didn't teach rifle. No, I
taught rifles as a private citizen.
>> Okay.
>> Mhm.
>> Uh
>> and I was an NRA instructor for many
many many years [music] alongside my my
gun shop
>> as with your expertise when
>> she uh gave testimony on the stander
that there was dust and there was
debris.
>> Mhm.
>> That was found in the gun barrel. Yep.
>> Um, did you inspect the interior of this
barrel?
>> I did. Yes.
>> And did you notice uh whether it had any
debris or dust in it?
>> I believe my notes state that debris and
dust was observed in the inside of the
barrel. Yes.
>> 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 the 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.
>> From a scientific standpoint, you
couldn't read the paragraph that sets
out the likelihood ratio in your report,
whatever the number, and then blast a
headline in the media, Mr. Robinson's
DNA is found on this item. That's a
source attribution, is it not?
>> Correct. Yes.
>> And that would not be scientifically
defensible, would it?
>> Correct.
>> And you can't tell us anything about
when
the DNA was deposited on the trigger
guard or the trigger. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> You can't tell us anything about
whether when you say it's at least four,
it could be five, six, or seven people
with DNA on that trigger or trigger
guard. Correct.
>> Correct. which is why we have the major
contributor that is suitable for
comparison and the minor contributor is
not suitable for comparison due to that
complexity.
>> The 1.3 sample
is described as swabs of trigger and
trigger guard, right?
>> Correct. You didn't do the swabs, but um
am I correct that you have no way of
knowing which part was from the trigger
and which part was from the trigger
guard?
>> Correct. So, they were swabbed together.
So, I wouldn't be able to say um where
the DNA came from.
>> Um and that's one of the samples that
was degraded. Correct.
>> Uh there were signs of degradation
present in that sample. Yes. And you
said with regard to that sample that
that was a sample
consistent with at least four
contributors,
>> correct?
>> Correct.
>> And did the what you term the major
profile
have the largest amount of degradation
in that sample?
>> There was. Yes. 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 of
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 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
>> 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,
[clears throat] you're the you're the
gunsmith.
>> Well, 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. So,
those were the three names they named.
So, are you saying that twigs?
>> Would you like me to finish my
statement?
>> I just want to make sure I'm clarifying.
[clears throat]
>> 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 psy
>> that wouldn't prove anything about him
being a psy. It 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 pathy.
>> 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 patchy gun?
>> 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? What?
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 to?
>> 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 were the most degraded.
somebody else's prints 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.
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 all right you guys
you have probably seen all the buzz
around red light therapy lately but 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. 5 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 Life 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
purgemy pararasitesenow.com/candis.
Buy your detox and gut renewal
restoration bundle today and get your
free redife therapy belt plus your
in-depth protocol. That's purgemy
pararasitenow.com/candis.
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? 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 said in your opening
statement based on the evidence
presented so far by the state.
>> The state has presented it 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 just appropriate
hearing.
>> I don't think all the evidence that was
that was put in was hearsay.
>> 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 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. Dr. 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 was brought up
as a fact check. Uh, could you bring up
1102 Utah rule? Because 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 PY?
This is how you got to shooter her. The
Tyler Robinson did it the same way that
you got to Tyler. Yes, you did. You You
again, we This is something important.
So, we should pull up a f 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 for them. But
no, no, that's why the entire hearing
was basically hearsay. Officer back
>> and 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, please don't cut
me off though.
>> Outside of No, that is what's in
dispute. It means that your entire brand
of saying you don't have evidence,
[clears throat] you don't have evidence
falls apart when the entire preliminary
hearing is based off of hearay. In fact,
Lance's testimony before 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
I'm not 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, I'm not saying off of
that that Tyler could have been a pathy.
I am just literally making stuff up. So,
here's what the position is. I'm not
making this rule 112.
Pull that. Let's pull that up. I am
doing exactly what the state did. I'm
looking at a piece of evidence and I am
saying,
>> but you're not showing me how you get
there. Can you describe to the audience
what rule 112?
>> So, 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. [laughter]
>> 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.
>> 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 PY. 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
pathy. 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 a hundred 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 [clears throat]
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 to me.
>> My whole claim was that there is more
evidence that he has set up that he is
set up as a psych.
>> How does that equal evidence of patchy?
>> 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. The 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. 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 absurd, 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 deal. Why is it?
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 this
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
happened. 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 30 six. 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.
[clears throat] 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 5 seconds
ago. You should
>> 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
clip. C
>> Can you Can you check if that was said
or not? I did not hear her say you
[music] named I believe actually five.
>> 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
want to just 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.
>> You You named [music] I believe actually
five things
>> 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.
>> You wrote [music] the car pulling in,
Robinson getting out of it, the fact
that he is seen four other times on
camera, the DNA on the roof, and on
[music] the screwdriver that he left
behind. It's overwhelming, man.
>> 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. We 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 exhaustive. 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.
>> [laughter]
>> I'm just addressing what you asserted on
your Twitter was like the hard evidence
that convinced you was overwhelming.
That's literally
>> that's not what you said.
>> That's not actually in fact what
happened in that exchange.
>> You listed on your own Twitter that what
you found to be convincing [music] was
something that looked like his car
pulled into the driveway. A blurry
image. No, I didn't.
>> A standard [music] white guy coming up
the steps that could literally be
anyone.
>> This never happened.
>> You you named I believe actually five
things.
>> 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?
That's the only tweet you're going to
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 exhausted, 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.
>> Um, and I'm just going to 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
>> Now, you have stated multiple times that
you believe that Israel is 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 a 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?
>> Mhm.
>> 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
>> about Charlie Kirk? Did he ever talk
about Charlie Kirk? I I personally had
never heard him talk about Charlie Kirk
before specifically,
>> nor do I believe that he was, you know,
so into LGBTQ issues. Since Lance
testified, they never spoke about LGBTQ
issues.
>> How about um
political issues? So, did you ever talk
about gender identity issues and LGBTQ
rights?
>> Uh, no, not not really. 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 Israel 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.
>> You know, Charlie Kirk is killed
publicly in a very horrific way and
we're not really even allowed to look
into that at all. And Charlie Kirk was
one of President Trump's closest
adviserss and he also advocated heavily
against a war with Iran. He was in the
Oval Office in the leadup to the 12-day
war. I I wasn't particularly close with
Charlie. Uh he was very gracious to me
when I was running for Congress, very
very supportive. Uh so we knew each
other. And the last time I saw Charlie
Kirk on this earth was in in June um in
in the in the West Wing in the stairway.
and I said hi to him and he looked me in
the eye and he said very loudly and it's
a small you've been in the West Wing
it's it's small
>> uh it's a tight space and and he said
Joe stop us from getting into a war with
Iran
>> very loudly
>> he was single-minded
>> and he walked off and he went I believe
into the oval um so when one of
President Trump's closest advisers who
is vocally advocating for us to not go
to war with Iran and for us to rethink
at least our relationship with the
Israelis
um and then he suddenly publicly
assassinated and we're not allowed to
ask any questions about that. It's a
data point. It's a data point that we
need to look into.
>> What do you mean um when you say we're
not allowed to ask any questions about
that?
>> We we've we've been told that this
individual uh Robinson is a lone gunman
and maybe he is. Um but the
investigation that that I was a part of,
the National Counterterrorism Center was
a part of, we were stopped from
continuing to investigate. And the FBI
will say that that they stopped that
because they wanted to have turn every
turn everything over to the Utah state
authorities. Everything's going to
trial. It's very very sensitive. But
there was still a lot for us to look
into that I I I can't really get into.
But there was still linkage for us to
investigate that we needed to run down.
And I'm not making any conclusions. I'm
not saying like I don't think you are
>> because you know because of this this
happened. I'm not I'm not saying that at
all. I'm just saying there's unanswered
questions. We know the pressure because
of the text messages text messages that
have been made public that Charlie was
under a lot of pressure from a lot of
pro-Israel donors. And again, we know
Charlie was advocating to President
Trump against this war with Iran. And we
knew at the end of the 12-day war, at
the end of Midnight Hammer, that the
Israelis were going to come back and ask
us to go back to war again. 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.
>> Joseph Gerbles, the Nazi propaganda
minister, said that the bigger the lie,
the faster it will spread. while
somebody has fabricated a monstrous big
lie that Israel had something to do with
Charlie Kirk's horrific murder. This is
insane. It is false. It is outrageous.
Charlie Kirk was a giant. A once in a
century talent who defended freedom,
defended America, defended our common
Judeo-Christian civilization. Charlie
loved Israel. Now, some are peddling
these disgusting rumors, perhaps out of
obsession,
perhaps with Qatari funding. What I do
know is this. Charlie Kirk was a great
man, and a great man deserves honor, not
lies. Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk. May
your memory be a blessing. 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
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
say there's no positive evidence I I
Whatever you want to say, however,
positive, negative, however you want to
say it. I don't like 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 like
>> Could 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 just 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.
What does complicit mean?
>> 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 one,
you know, do you do you feel with 100%
certainty that Tyler Robinson did did
this? And she says, I do.
>> Do you believe that Tyler Robinson
murdered your husband?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Then, again, context matters. I sit down
with Erica for 4 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.
I don't know what I'm supposed to do. A
show on whether I like her hair, her
outfits. That that doesn't feel right.
And also keep in mind that is the mother
of Charlie Kirk's children. I had a real
relationship with Charlie Kirk, a real
friendship with Charlie Kirk. And what
is left of him in this world are his two
small children. So to just take a
baseless attack, if I catch her in a
lie, it's a little different. But to
just take a take an attack on her does
does not feel appropriate to me. I
haven't seen any reason to do that.
>> 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 Kirk.
>> Complicit 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 of this is on my
show, so out of context clips is not
going to work cuz 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, "Well,
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 direct 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 he's
involved." They made 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
openand 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 you 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 in anything. I'm just
making sure that we got this right. That
what you're actually saying is just in
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.
>> Hi everybody. I still love all these
emoji [laughter] Zoom
things. Um, wow.
I don't even know where to begin. The
fact that we were able to pull off
an event
of a century, like it's just insane. We
had over 275,000
people that attended and
stadium, overflow,
Westgate.
Insane you guys. And then you have was
it 100 million
>> over
>> you guys that heard the gospel and all
about Charlie and all about everything
that you guys do and the hard work of
Turning Point USA is insane. We had
thousands that were registered to vote.
I think we're at like over 200,000 for
merch sales. Don't quote me on that cuz
I think it just keeps like bumping up
like crazy. I mean since his
assassination uh we have 100,000
chapter 100,000 chapter requests uh we
have 300,000 new donors
that is a blessing in itself um again
not normal
god um I think we have 50,000 plus hat
orders to fulfill I mean I'm saying
these numbers because it puts puts into
perspective that we're not just sitting
and thinking and looking at the wall
being like what do we do like that there
is so much to do you have over 20,000
Afest registrations
>> 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 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
>> meeting with her.
>> Well, no, I I didn't want her to cage
up. I didn't 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
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 four 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 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. 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 thank all
women.
>> Oh, so you're allowed to just say stuff.
Who knew? So, 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
and cheek stuff for me online.
>> Oh, you're being tongue tongue and
cheek. Yeah,
>> usually when I call someone 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 you're just like, "Well,
that's no biggie."
>> I've never answered him on anything that
he said. But I'm saying that you now are
her her biggest defender. So, do you
still think she's
>> I'm 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 you're you and
your wife are getting involved with
management.
>> No, no, no. I'm not involved in any
management attorney, you
>> 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
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
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, 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, I've 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? I 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.
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 of different
>> 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. I
>> 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 and but 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 check. Well, it's 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 the 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 then 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
Terrell'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 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 purposes
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 Neil clip
since we're on it. So, if you guys are
ready in the back before we go to adb
break, if you want to pull it up, this
is a good time to do so.
>> And good to see you, General Hull. A lot
of things bother um it 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 clean
it 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
because 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 a I'm a SE 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 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 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
opinion is not a fact. That's all.
>> I understand.
>> 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 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.
>> 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. 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?
>> Then let's do the counter. You can
really Yeah, this is a great
>> No, no, no. You just got to ask me play
clips out of context. Put me in the hot
seat. So, please just answer the
question.
>> Fair. Can you name all seven since
you've been following the case?
>> Okay, sure. You name You name one.
>> Yeah, you named 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 put
>> it. No. Do it. I'll count them. Go
ahead.
>> You don't have to put your fingers up. I
>> Okay. Hang on. 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 No, that's not
that is literally not murder. Okay.
>> And so just 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.
>> If 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 because I'm speaking. You just got
to
>> It sounds like you're just delaying it
because you don't know them.
>> I I know all seven of them. And I'm
gonna [clears throat] 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 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. 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 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. 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 in
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
>> 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 seven, 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.
>> 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.
>> That's a compliment.
>> He's reading them. [laughter]
>> You're okay. You're giving me
permission. I'm just going to read three
of them. See 1132 cuz after that, I
don't need to read it.
>> Now, you know, they're texts. Could have
been Telegram. Could have been
>> all I have is signal. You can check
that, too.
>> I only have signal.
>> Telegram I used in Russia and that was a
download.
>> I'll take your word for it.
>> Yeah. I don't I don't need to like I
deeply care about this case. I don't
need to pretend to know stuff and I
don't know. 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 top and the 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 this 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
at home 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 sleuths
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 the 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 were 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
was 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.
[music]
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
