Candace Owens Exposes NCRI Report Labeling Her a 'Digital Assassin' Targeting Erika Kirk
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Candace Owens Reveals What Erika Kirk Said During Four-Hour Meeting About Charlie Kirk Investigation
1:14:01
Candace Owens Reveals Federal Agents Blocked Surgeon Access to Charlie Kirk's Body at Hospital
1:03:09
Candace Owens Uncovers French Connections to FBI Founding and Charlie Kirk's Assassination Investigation
59:43
Candace Owens Exposes NCRI Report Labeling Her a 'Digital Assassin' Targeting Erika Kirk
Candace Owens dismantles the NCRI's 'Permission to Kill' report that accuses her of creating a 'digital assassination culture' against Erika Kirk. She reveals how Andrew Kolvet's recent admission confirms her account of Benjamin Netanyahu's phone call to Charlie Kirk, exposes the hypocrisy of selective outrage over online criticism, and questions whether this coordinated attack is setting the stage for speech restrictions. Owens maintains she has never called for violence and argues that clinical observations about behavior shouldn't be weaponized to silence independent journalists.
The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) released a report titled 'Permission to Kill: How Candace Owens Built a Digital Assassination Culture Targeting Erika Kirk.' The same organization previously claimed that the phrase 'Christ is King' was anti-Semitic, a position that backfired and drew criticism from Charlie Kirk himself at the time. The NCRI board includes Johnny Moore, Andrew Kolvet's former partner.
The report, released during the first day of the Tyler Robinson trial, features dramatic imagery including the word 'kill' in red text, a target with a gunshot, and a scope graphic. Multiple media organizations, including Politico, reached out requesting comment on the report's allegations.
Allegations of Inciting Violence Through Speech
The report specifically cited Owens calling Erika Kirk a 'psychopath' on the Shawn Ryan Show as contributing to threats against Kirk. Owens questions the logic behind this claim, asking why using clinical terminology to describe observed behavior would constitute incitement to violence.
She points out the double standard, noting that Blake Neff referred to her as a 'knife-wielding psychopath on the subway,' yet no similar report was created suggesting this language put her at risk. Numerous influencers have called Owens 'sociopathic,' 'crazy,' and a 'grifter,' but these attacks are not characterized as creating a culture of violence.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Protection
Owens emphasizes that she faces constant online attacks, with tens of millions of dollars being spent against her and Tucker Carlson according to documents she references. Despite this documented targeting, no organization has created reports calling her critics 'digital assassins' or placing them in metaphorical scopes.
She notes that she has never called for harm against Kirk or told people to avoid Kirk's events. In contrast, she alleges that Kirk made personal phone calls to priests instructing them not to attend events where Owens would be present.
Concerns About a Larger Plot
Owens expresses concern that the coordinated attacks and this report might be laying groundwork for restricting speech under the guise of safety. She draws a parallel to post-9/11 restrictions on freedom justified by security concerns, suggesting that a significant event could be manufactured or exploited to justify crackdowns on independent journalists and influencers.
The intensity of the attacks against her, combined with the delusional claims that her audience is shrinking when evidence suggests otherwise, makes her question whether something more sinister is being planned. She notes how various individuals are being brought forward to attack her credibility, no matter how trivial their connection.
Andrew Kolvet's Admission
In what Owens characterizes as a significant development, Andrew Kolvet recently made admissions that confirm key elements of her account regarding Benjamin Netanyahu's contact with Charlie Kirk. According to Owens, Kolvet called her months earlier and told her that Netanyahu called Kirk at Bill Ackman's house offering to take Turning Point USA to the next level, which Kirk declined.
Kolvet also informed her that Kirk had declined to have Netanyahu on his show and that the Hampton Summit was described as an intervention. Owens maintains she could not have known these details unless Kolvet told her, as she was not present at the Hampton Summit.
Kolvet's Partial Confirmation
In a recent statement, Kolvet confirmed that Kirk 'politely declined having Netanyahu on the show' and that 'months later CK took a call from him after he wrote him a letter.' However, Kolvet denied telling Owens that Netanyahu offered to take TPUSA to the next level or that he lost out on millions or billions when Kirk declined.
Owens argues that this partial admission proves she has been telling the truth consistently since September or October. She has never changed her story about what Kolvet told her. Additionally, she claims a family friend of Kolvet confirmed that he said he 'lost out on millions' when Charlie said no.
Questions About Kolvet's Silence
Owens challenges Kolvet's credibility by asking why he didn't confirm her account earlier if she was telling the truth about most of it. She questions why he remained silent while Netanyahu portrayed his relationship with Kirk as entirely positive, when Kolvet knew Kirk had declined to host him and had expressed frustration with pro-Israel pressure.
She accuses Kolvet of cowardice for his silence, stating that after ten months, his admission of the majority of her claims while still denying the final detail lacks credibility. According to Owens, Kolvet did tell her that Netanyahu offered to take Turning Point to the next level, just as Kirk declined him for the show.
Charlie Kirk's Evolving Position on Israel
Owens describes Kirk's growing frustration with what she characterizes as Zionist pressure regarding who could speak at his events and on his platforms. She references a text Kirk sent the night before his death stating he was 'done with Israel,' which she says people close to him knew was part of ongoing discussions throughout the previous year.
The fact that Kirk declined to host the Prime Minister of Israel on his podcast, relegating him to smaller influencers instead, demonstrates the state of Kirk's mind regarding Israel at that time, according to Owens. She argues this context is crucial to understanding the situation but was deliberately withheld from the public by those closest to Kirk.
The Broader Implications
Owens maintains that investigating actual violence should not be characterized as violence itself. She argues that the attempt to conflate her speech with incitement to violence, when she has never called for harm, represents a dangerous precedent that could be used to silence independent journalism and investigation.
The coordination between various actors to attack her credibility, combined with reports like the NCRI's 'Permission to Kill,' suggests to Owens a larger effort to discredit and potentially silence voices that question powerful interests. She sees her experience as part of a broader pattern affecting independent media figures who challenge establishment narratives.
