Candace Owens Receives Brian Harpole Lawsuit: The Path to Subpoena Power in Charlie Kirk Investigation

[00:00] Is this the only

[00:02] plausible path that we will have before

[00:05] us

[00:06] to get Erica Kirkus zippered?

[00:08] Deposition. I am getting the sense that

[00:10] there is something happening, something

[00:12] big happening. It feels like people are

[00:14] upping the crazy a little bit. Something

[00:17] is coming undone in the background.

[00:19] And on that note, the big news of the

[00:20] day is guess who crawled from under his

[00:22] rock, apparently, and sent me a

[00:25] full-blown lawsuit. Yes, Brian Harpole.

[00:29] Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that

[00:32] that would grant me, your girl, the

[00:35] power of subpoena. The lawsuit itself is

[00:37] 69 pages, and for some

[00:40] unknown reason, he begins the lawsuit,

[00:43] and I'm talking like the first few

[00:45] pages, with

[00:47] strong support for Israel. I guess

[00:48] that's mandatory. Candace is

[00:49] anti-Semitic,

[00:51] even though Brian Harpole is not Jewish.

[00:53] I am not Jewish. Charlie was not Jewish.

[00:56] He mentions this it just kind of

[00:58] sporadically in a paragraph where he's

[01:00] painting this picture that I'm a

[01:01] conspiracy theorist. They also mention,

[01:04] we can bring this up here

[01:06] on 0.19 that I I don't believe the moon

[01:09] landing.

[01:11] Guilty as charged.

[01:13] Guilty as charged. I think the moon

[01:14] landing was fake. I'm not sure what this

[01:15] has to do with anything. If I'm required

[01:17] to believe the moon landing is real, but

[01:19] he just kind of mentions that, and then,

[01:22] you know, you got to have that random

[01:23] strong support for Israel right at the

[01:25] top, which is why also embedded is the

[01:27] mandatory picture of Bibi Netanyahu. You

[01:29] got to let these people know where you

[01:31] stand on Israel before you even get into

[01:35] the substance of a lawsuit. So, I

[01:36] appreciate that preamble. That's just

[01:39] called our standard constitutional

[01:42] preamble.

[01:43] Um, you know,

[01:45] he's with Israel. Okay, cool. I'm going

[01:46] to do that when I when I respond. I'm

[01:48] going to say, I just want you to know, I

[01:49] love Israel. Just saying that.

[01:52] Um,

[01:53] I now want to draw your attention to the

[01:55] obscure argument that he is making. So,

[01:57] it's pages and pages of him just kind of

[01:58] painting a picture of who I am.

[02:00] But, he he comes out and kind of makes

[02:02] this obscure argument that he is a

[02:04] private citizen. Okay, that's point 29.

[02:07] He's trying to assert that he is a

[02:08] private citizen. Now,

[02:09] let's take a look at this. Des- Despite

[02:12] two podcast appearances, Harpole remains

[02:15] a private individual and not a

[02:17] limited-purpose public figure. He has

[02:20] social media accounts that he's he does

[02:21] not use for posting content. He has no

[02:23] public platforms to effectively rebut or

[02:25] counteract statements. And his

[02:27] involvement in the controversy is

[02:28] limited to two defensive appearances. He

[02:32] did not seek publicity or attempt to

[02:34] influence public debate.

[02:36] Huh?

[02:39] I'm sorry. First of all, why is he doing

[02:40] that? That's very important. Let's get

[02:41] Let's get to why he is trying to assert

[02:43] that I I I know I went on Sean Ryan, but

[02:45] I'm I'm a private citizen. That's

[02:47] because he doesn't want to have to meet

[02:49] the actual malice standard, right?

[02:51] You're a public figure, you have to meet

[02:53] the actual malice standard. You meaning

[02:54] you have to prove that I knowingly

[02:56] published something uh that was false

[03:00] and that I did it and acted in total

[03:02] disregard to the truth. I knew what the

[03:05] truth was and I said, "I don't care. I'm

[03:06] going to publish this." It's a hard

[03:08] standard to meet.

[03:09] Uh that would be in in my view for Brian

[03:12] to to assert that he's not a public

[03:13] figure here, that would be hard because

[03:17] Brian did actually go and pursue not

[03:20] just any podcast, okay? One of the top

[03:23] podcasts in the world, the Sean Ryan

[03:25] podcast, and he opened himself up.

[03:29] What is the law on the books when you do

[03:30] that? The rule is that private citizens

[03:32] can indeed become limited-purpose public

[03:35] figures when they voluntarily

[03:38] thrust themselves into the forefront of

[03:41] a particular public controversy to

[03:44] influence its outcome. In such cases,

[03:47] they are considered public figures only

[03:49] for the context of that specific issue

[03:51] and for a limited time. That's exactly

[03:55] what Brian Harpole did.

[03:57] Okay, he went and he's going to argue

[03:59] why I did it defensively.

[04:01] You went on a public platform and you

[04:04] gave information about what the security

[04:06] did. All these questions that were being

[04:08] asked and you're you're going to claim,

[04:11] which he does, this is wild, that the

[04:13] reason he went on Shawn Ryan, this is

[04:15] crazy to me. He is saying that the

[04:16] reason he went on Shawn Ryan

[04:19] was because of me.

[04:21] That is that is that is beyond, okay?

[04:23] Let's look at this point 28.

[04:25] On November 17th, after Owens and other

[04:27] conspiracy theorists had already

[04:30] implicated Harpole and his team in the

[04:31] assassination, Harpole appeared on the

[04:34] Shawn Ryan show solely to respond to and

[04:37] to rebut the defamatory statements.

[04:40] I'm sorry, what? That's going to be a

[04:42] tricky one to prove in court considered

[04:44] I never once mentioned Brian Harpole on

[04:47] my show until after he went on Shawn

[04:50] Ryan. Literally, not once did I mention

[04:52] Brian Harpole's name on my podcast.

[04:56] I mentioned his name 2 days after he

[04:58] went on Shawn Ryan and it was in direct

[05:00] response to his disastrous appearance on

[05:02] Shawn Ryan. His appearance was on

[05:03] November 17th. The first time I

[05:05] mentioned him on this show was on

[05:06] November 19th. In other words,

[05:09] uh you elected yourself as a

[05:11] spokesperson for the security team,

[05:13] thereby making yourself a public figure

[05:15] and I responded to it, okay?

[05:18] Here's where it gets even crazier

[05:19] though, him pretending that I was a part

[05:20] of the early against him.

[05:22] I did not believe the early conspiracies

[05:24] against Brian Harpole. Okay, not only

[05:26] that, I went through great lengths to

[05:28] defend both Brian Harpole and Dan Flood

[05:32] without mentioning their names cuz I

[05:33] didn't want the public to find them

[05:36] when all the early conspiracies started

[05:38] flying. Specifically, the conspiracies

[05:40] were about hand signals, remember? Frank

[05:42] Turk's doing hand signals, it looks like

[05:43] Dan Flood's doing hand signals, it looks

[05:45] like Brian Harpole is doing hand signals

[05:47] behind his back and they're all looped

[05:49] in. I didn't believe it. I genuinely

[05:50] didn't believe it. I didn't believe any

[05:52] of these people had anything to do with

[05:53] anything because I knew Turning Point.

[05:55] And so I spoke to Andrew Kolvet on the

[05:57] phone about how I did not believe any of

[05:58] that. And Andrew asked me if I would be

[06:01] willing to say something publicly on my

[06:02] podcast to that effect because they were

[06:04] getting hammered and I said of course I

[06:06] will. These are These are good guys.

[06:08] Here is the text message that I sent to

[06:10] Andrew Kolvet following that discussion

[06:13] on the phone. I said, "Also, yes, I will

[06:16] say something about the security. I know

[06:17] them well, which is why I never bought

[06:20] into people saying that he was making

[06:22] signals." And guess what I did guys on

[06:25] that very same day in September

[06:27] on this podcast I defended the security

[06:31] team and then Dan Flood and said that

[06:33] they were good people. Here are my

[06:35] words.

[06:37] I know there's a lot of conspiracy

[06:38] theories floating in about the security

[06:41] guard and people thinking he was making

[06:43] gestures. I know that security person.

[06:46] He's a good guy. It would shock me. I

[06:48] usually get a vibe about somebody.

[06:50] Not that guy. Not the guy that they say

[06:52] he's like rolling up he he tends to do

[06:54] that, roll up his sleeves. I don't I

[06:57] don't buy that one, okay? I don't buy

[06:58] that one.

[07:03] Wow.

[07:04] You're saying you went on you went on

[07:05] Sean Ryan because of things that I was

[07:07] saying and that's what I was saying.

[07:10] Again, it was because of his behavior

[07:12] and what he said on Sean Ryan's show,

[07:14] which I found to be unconvincing, which

[07:16] is he's suing me for saying about that

[07:17] interview was unconvincing,

[07:19] uh which made me feel weird and take a

[07:20] second look. This has been a very

[07:22] natural process for me. I did not come

[07:24] into this a guns a blazing so to speak

[07:26] against Turning Point USA.

[07:28] And uh to to get to this bigger part,

[07:32] uh

[07:33] this really feels to me like one big PR

[07:37] move, okay? It feels like he's kind of

[07:40] trying to pull the Blake Lively. He

[07:42] wants to make the claim uh that he's not

[07:44] a public figure and that's specifically

[07:47] because a large chunk of his claims are

[07:49] pertaining to Mitch Snow, who he is also

[07:51] suing, by the way.

[07:53] And what is not helpful to his claims

[07:56] to sue me and Mitch Snow is the fact

[07:59] that I reached out to Brian Harpole

[08:02] personally before

[08:04] I featured Mitch Snow on this podcast,

[08:08] okay?

[08:09] So, the story goes that on November 8th,

[08:12] I at first mentioned that there was

[08:13] someone

[08:15] who thought that they saw Brian Harpole

[08:16] at Fort Huachuca, that I, you know,

[08:18] examined the person's documents,

[08:19] whatever, I found him to be credible, as

[08:21] in I believed he said he was where he

[08:23] was where he said he was when when he

[08:25] said he was. It was a solo episode on

[08:26] December 9th. And if you recall, it

[08:29] caused mass panic. So, I was intending

[08:30] to interview Mitch Snow and then

[08:33] craziness started, right? Erica Kirk did

[08:35] her stop, just stop tour. She's out

[08:37] there saying stop, stop. Privately, I

[08:40] was effectively being threatened behind

[08:42] the scenes not to speak to Mitch Snow.

[08:44] They knew I wanted to interview him and

[08:46] someone reached out to me.

[08:49] And this was coming through Paramount

[08:50] Tactical and the Valhalla guy and they

[08:53] were saying, "If you do this if if you

[08:55] interview Mitch, Mitch wasn't even in

[08:56] the military. He like they're running

[08:58] different directions. He's a complete

[08:59] fraud. He's never been to Fort Huachuca.

[09:02] And if you actually interview Mitch,

[09:06] Brian Harpole, where he he's going to

[09:08] sue you." That's what came down the

[09:10] pipeline to me. So, before I even got to

[09:11] do the interview,

[09:13] Brian Harpole was telling people to say

[09:16] that if I interview this guy, "I'm going

[09:18] to sue you." I thought that was

[09:19] completely deranged. I said, "Look, this

[09:21] is crazy. Brian Harpole has my number.

[09:22] Why is he sending out these random

[09:23] YouTubers? Um I I he he knows who I am.

[09:27] I've defended him on his podcast." So, I

[09:28] reached out to him before we hosted

[09:30] Mitch Snow

[09:31] uh to get his fuller story and to say,

[09:33] "Hey, you are you are welcome to tell me

[09:34] that you just weren't there. Like what

[09:35] what's up? We don't have to like I don't

[09:36] I don't want to host this guy. Like why

[09:38] are you being all weird? I asked him

[09:41] then beyond that if he wanted to clarify

[09:42] anything. I sent Brian Harpole I think a

[09:45] total of four messages and I also sent

[09:49] Dan Flood a message.

[09:51] Again, from the day before I uh or two

[09:54] days before I interviewed Mitch Snow

[09:57] through to January trying to get him to

[09:59] just say yes or no. And he actually

[10:03] remarkably embeds these many messages to

[10:05] him um in the lawsuit. And that's going

[10:09] to be point 54 to 55. He just embeds

[10:12] these into the lawsuit.

[10:15] Hi Brian, this is Candace Owens. A lot

[10:17] of people are telling me that you're

[10:18] planting seeds regarding a lawsuit. I

[10:20] wanted to see if you wanted to have an

[10:22] off-record discussion with me about

[10:23] anything or if you'd like to simply

[10:25] clarify something that you think that I

[10:27] got wrong. You can see I followed up on

[10:29] December 19th. Um

[10:31] Hi Brian, just again reaching out in

[10:34] case you want to clarify your

[10:35] whereabouts on the morning of September

[10:36] 9th. I'm only interested in the truth.

[10:38] So I would be happy to debunk Mitch if

[10:40] he perhaps is misremembering the faces

[10:43] that he saw. No response. Um I think

[10:46] they also put a third message in there.

[10:48] I don't know if they've if he if you can

[10:49] scroll and see that um or if that's not

[10:51] attached yet, but we like I said I

[10:53] multiple messages that I sent him. He

[10:54] just didn't answer.

[10:56] So

[10:59] why?

[11:00] Why didn't Brian Harpole simply respond?

[11:02] Why didn't you send a cease and desist a

[11:04] long time ago? Why didn't you ask me for

[11:05] a retraction? Here's another one. Hey

[11:07] Brian, reaching out again to see if

[11:09] you'd be willing to speak about the

[11:10] morning of the 9th. I'm obviously not

[11:11] trying to do anything other than debunk

[11:13] Mitch

[11:14] so I can pivot and refocus the

[11:16] investigation, but I oddly cannot get

[11:18] you to confirm or deny if you were

[11:20] there.

[11:21] He's acknowledging he received these

[11:22] messages and he chose not to respond.

[11:26] Again, why? Oh, lucky for us he's going

[11:29] to explain it in the lawsuit and this is

[11:31] the wildest point of all. It's actually

[11:34] insane It's an insane reason.

[11:37] In my view, it's insane to assert that

[11:39] this is the reason that you did not

[11:41] respond to my three messages to you, one

[11:45] message to Dan Flood. This is his point

[11:47] number 50. Ready?

[11:49] Um sorry, point number 59, I think it

[11:51] is. Here we go.

[11:52] Owens soon texted Harpole a third time

[11:55] asking again if he would like to speak

[11:57] about the events that transpired on the

[11:58] morning of September 9th. Owens

[12:00] concluded concluded her text message by

[12:02] stating that she found it odd that she

[12:04] could not get Harpole to confirm or deny

[12:06] his location on the morning of September

[12:07] 9th.

[12:08] Owens already knew why Harpole didn't

[12:10] respond.

[12:12] Her repeated texts to Harpole to get him

[12:15] to respond to the defamatory conspiracy

[12:17] theories that she had been promoting

[12:19] present a cynical attempt to profit from

[12:22] a situation

[12:24] that she had manufactured. By spreading

[12:26] defamatory lies about Harpole and then

[12:29] coddling him to give her the exclusive

[12:32] content of a response, she stood to

[12:35] profit from increased attention and

[12:38] viewership to her platform

[12:40] at Harpole's expense.

[12:45] So, he didn't reply with a yes or no

[12:48] because he didn't want to give me an

[12:49] exclusive yes or no

[12:52] because then I would have made money on

[12:53] my platform. Um I didn't ask you for an

[12:55] exclusive.

[12:57] It would have uh put an end to me

[12:59] covering the story beyond. So, actually

[13:01] by not responding before I hosted Mitch,

[13:03] it didn't allow me

[13:05] didn't stop me from hosting Mitch. Um

[13:08] you also could have told Sean Ryan

[13:12] you could have said, "Hey, Sean Ryan,

[13:13] I'm going to come on your platform cuz I

[13:15] don't want Candace to to make any money

[13:17] saying yes or no. I don't want to give

[13:18] her this exclusive content."

[13:22] We're supposed to believe that's the

[13:23] reason?

[13:25] Were we born yesterday? That's the

[13:27] reason?

[13:28] You didn't want me to make money, so you

[13:30] said I'm just going to be so stressed

[13:31] out I'm never going to say anything to

[13:33] her.

[13:34] This is in December. I'm actually going

[13:35] to wait until April.

[13:38] And then in April, I'm going to say I'm

[13:41] not I'm just filing a lawsuit. I'm just

[13:43] filing a lawsuit.

[13:46] That doesn't seem that doesn't ring

[13:48] true. That does not ring very true. Now,

[13:50] another interesting point of the lawsuit

[13:53] is he repeatedly claims that he's upset

[13:56] that I described him as having lied.

[13:58] Okay, well,

[14:00] you certainly lied by severe omission by

[14:03] not letting the viewers know that the

[14:04] text messages that you were presenting

[14:05] on Sean Ryan were not between you and

[14:10] the UVU police chief Long, right? Like

[14:12] when people were going, "Why didn't you

[14:13] secure the rooftops?" You presented this

[14:15] text chain as if it was yours. In fact,

[14:17] you explicitly say, "I"

[14:19] in the implication being that this is

[14:21] the reason

[14:22] I did not secure the rooftops. This text

[14:25] message is the reason." Take a listen to

[14:26] what he said.

[14:28] >> On Monday before

[14:31] this correspondence went to Chief Long.

[14:33] "Hello Chief Long,

[14:35] received this message today from the

[14:37] student group. Um there is a student

[14:39] roof access pretty close to where CK

[14:41] will be set up at the Utah Valley

[14:44] uh the Sorensen uh center has a couple

[14:47] of staircases that go up to walkways on

[14:49] the roofs.

[14:51] He comes back and the Sorensen

[14:54] for identification the Sorensen Center

[14:55] was the building in front of the Lucey

[14:57] Center.

[14:58] And so he and he comes back and he says,

[15:01] "You want uh access to the roof."

[15:05] And came back and said, uh "I was told

[15:07] students have access above us. If this

[15:10] is true, it would be nice to either have

[15:13] it controlled access

[15:15] or allow one of my guys to be there as

[15:19] well if possible."

[15:21] He comes back and his last

[15:23] correspondence was

[15:25] I got you covered.

[15:32] What else am I to do?

[15:34] When a command level

[15:38] uh person from an accredited police

[15:40] department says, "I've got this area."

[15:45] >> What else am I to do?

[15:48] He is heavily implying that

[15:51] I did what I had to do. I texted him. He

[15:54] said he had it covered. What else am I

[15:55] to do? And then we revealed on the show

[15:58] that he those aren't even his messages.

[16:01] Those are Dan Flood's messages. And he

[16:02] admits that finally in this lawsuit that

[16:05] those are Dan Flood's messages. That was

[16:06] not an honest presentation to say, "What

[16:09] else am I supposed to do?"

[16:12] If you were not even on that text chain.

[16:14] So, yeah. I view that to be a

[16:17] a lie by severe omission. I think the

[16:18] average person uh a jury pool will say,

[16:21] "Yeah, no. That sounds like you were

[16:23] involved in this text chain and your

[16:25] excuse for why you did not secure the

[16:27] rooftops was because of this text

[16:29] chain." You never said, "Dan got these

[16:31] messages. Here's what Dan said back."

[16:33] And what is so shocking

[16:35] about this is that

[16:38] throughout this lawsuit he explicitly

[16:41] lies. That the lawyer explicitly lies in

[16:44] this filing by claiming

[16:46] that I asserted over and over again that

[16:48] that Snow that Mitch Snow was telling

[16:50] the truth about Harpole when in fact,

[16:53] no. I went through a great many pains to

[16:55] repeatedly assert publicly that I could

[16:57] not confirm that he saw Harpole. Okay?

[17:00] Here is just one of many examples on my

[17:03] podcast. This is actually when I

[17:04] interviewed Mitch Snow where I said, "I

[17:06] can't confirm who you saw. Take a

[17:08] listen."

[17:10] And I want to be clear.

[17:12] I can confirm

[17:14] on this podcast live every step of your

[17:16] story in terms of where you went, what

[17:18] time you were there,

[17:19] um that there was this big meeting that

[17:21] happened. I confirmed the location with

[17:22] other people that are that are on

[17:25] uh Fort Huachuca currently. I can

[17:26] confirm everything with metadata.

[17:29] Um I obviously can't confirm that you

[17:31] saw who you say you saw.

[17:34] I obviously can't confirm

[17:36] that you saw who you say you saw.

[17:38] And like I said, I said it repeatedly.

[17:40] And even in this filing, in his own

[17:42] legal filing, Brian's lawyer accuses me

[17:44] of confirming Mitch's claim while in the

[17:47] very next paragraph he presents proof

[17:50] that I didn't confirm Mitch's claim.

[17:52] This is point 63. I mean, this lawsuit

[17:54] is a dizzying read. He says, "On

[17:57] December 23rd, Owens posted to X Fort

[17:59] Huachuca confirmed." The body of the

[18:02] post claimed that she had proof that

[18:03] Snow was telling the truth about Harpole

[18:07] and contained a screenshot of what Owens

[18:09] claims to be the incident report from

[18:11] Snow's visit to Fort Huachuca. Did he

[18:13] read my post? My post right here says,

[18:18] "Find your favorite podcaster who joined

[18:20] the psychological operation to convince

[18:21] you that Mitch was lying about having

[18:23] been at Fort Huachuca." Remember, Mitch

[18:26] said he was at first taken outside by

[18:28] Captain Neff and questioned for a long

[18:29] time. I then recap what happened. I said

[18:32] I always believed Mitch's story of what

[18:35] happened on that morning because he

[18:36] supplied overwhelming evidence with

[18:38] metadata and timestamps. Now we have the

[18:41] incident report. What we cannot confirm

[18:45] as of yet is his memory of who he is

[18:48] convinced he saw coming out of that

[18:50] early morning meeting. We cannot confirm

[18:54] Matt Sorensen. We cannot confirm.

[18:57] What is this?

[18:59] What is this? What are we to make of all

[19:01] of this? What are we to make of this

[19:03] filing? What do you think is the purpose

[19:06] of this filing? I will I'll give you my

[19:08] thoughts, my questions rather. I can't

[19:12] know what is going on uh behind the

[19:14] scenes. I think it the timing of this is

[19:16] strange, like I said. The strategy here

[19:18] to never actually ask me to retract, to

[19:21] never present any evidence

[19:24] to the contrary.

[19:26] Uh hey, Kenneth, here's uh my receipt. I

[19:28] was getting a Starbucks at 9:00 a.m. I

[19:31] was therefore not at Fort Huachuca or

[19:33] getting a Starbucks at 7:30 when your

[19:35] set meeting was happening.

[19:36] Could have done that. Never did this,

[19:37] okay? I can tell you though, via my

[19:40] experience with defamation,

[19:42] is that there are a lot of lawsuits that

[19:43] are filed because people don't

[19:45] understand that what you put in a

[19:48] lawsuit filing is not always true, as I

[19:51] just demonstrated to you, right? You can

[19:53] write whatever you want, and people tend

[19:55] to take everything that's filed as a

[19:56] fact. They just go, "Oh, well, like case

[19:59] in point, Brigitte said I was a dual

[20:00] citizen of the UK." Suddenly people

[20:02] start saying I'm a dual I'm not a dual

[20:03] citizen of the UK. It's not a fact,

[20:05] okay? You can You can just put stuff in

[20:06] a lawsuit. And I have seen

[20:09] over and over again examples of people

[20:11] filing lawsuits as PR strategies. I

[20:14] lived that with the Kim Klacik lawsuit.

[20:17] I said

[20:18] uh she was a former stripper, blah blah

[20:21] blah. She said I'm not, so she files

[20:23] this lawsuit and then says, "This is

[20:25] proof that it's not true cuz I'm I'm

[20:26] filing a lawsuit." And people then

[20:28] suddenly "Oh, well, it must be true.

[20:30] She's filing a lawsuit." So And then

[20:33] what ended up happening was she took it

[20:34] to discovery, and then she folded.

[20:37] Right? She folded and wanted to sign an

[20:39] agreement say, "Let's Let's walk away

[20:41] and not talk about it." When we started

[20:43] presenting the evidence of the uh

[20:45] strippers that worked with her and knew

[20:47] her, it was like, "Okay, actually this

[20:49] was just meant to be a PR thing,

[20:50] actually, and so I could keep claiming

[20:53] that this wasn't true."

[20:55] I've seen that happen before, okay?

[21:00] Is this that?

[21:02] Is this someone going, "I just want to

[21:04] be able to get people to think that by

[21:07] filing this lawsuit means I'm telling

[21:08] the truth. I'm saying in this lawsuit

[21:09] that I wasn't at Fort Huachuca.

[21:12] Why else would I file a lawsuit? Does it

[21:13] mean you Now everybody can just let the

[21:14] Fort Huachuca story go cuz I said it.

[21:17] Like I said that Candace said things

[21:18] that she didn't say.

[21:20] Like I asserted that Candace was a part

[21:22] of the early conspiracies when actually

[21:24] the exact opposite thing is true.

[21:27] I'm just going to put stuff in here and

[21:29] then I'm going to hand it to

[21:29] journalists, which is what they do. And

[21:32] journalists are going to publish this

[21:33] and say, "Ah, proof! Proof!"

[21:36] Proof that he wasn't at Fort Huachuca

[21:38] cuz why else would he file a lawsuit?

[21:40] But maybe there's an expectation

[21:42] that it's never going to make it through

[21:43] the court system. That you're never

[21:44] actually going to have to present any

[21:46] proof of anything.

[21:48] Because the judge is going to look at

[21:49] this and go,

[21:50] "No. She asked you multiple times. This

[21:53] is I'm going to throw this away."

[21:55] Is that the expectation? Again, I'm

[21:56] asking questions here.

[21:58] This feels weird to me. The strategy

[22:00] here feels weird to me. You're dealing

[22:02] with a lawyer that has full access to my

[22:05] lawyers in the state of Tennessee, has

[22:07] been in communication with them for 2

[22:08] years. He never raises a single issue

[22:12] until the end of April?

[22:14] And then says doesn't matter or we're

[22:15] filing a lawsuit. Is this a PR move? And

[22:19] if it is, how do we respond to it? Well,

[22:23] I obviously just received this lawsuit a

[22:24] couple of hours ago and I am not

[22:26] therefore

[22:28] at liberty to assert what we will or

[22:31] will not do because I have to speak with

[22:32] my husband and I haven't had the time

[22:34] to

[22:35] you know, formally plead my case with

[22:38] him so to speak. What I will say is how

[22:41] many opportunities are we going to have?

[22:44] Are we ever going to have another

[22:45] opportunity to force depositions?

[22:48] Are we ever going to have an opportunity

[22:50] to have the power of subpoena? He is

[22:52] making claims that he rendered first

[22:54] aid. This would give us the opportunity

[22:57] to then say, "Oh, Terrell Farnsworth

[22:59] actually has footage that has never seen

[23:00] from every angle. We can now take a

[23:02] look. We want to see this footage and

[23:04] subpoena this footage

[23:06] so that we can see what happened on the

[23:07] ground if you are asserting that you did

[23:09] provide critical aid. Will we ever have

[23:11] an opportunity

[23:13] to do this ever again?

[23:17] Can we look at the situation where

[23:19] you're you're you're saying, "Oh, this

[23:21] this conspiracy, all these people are

[23:22] involved." You're bringing up Charlie

[23:24] Kirk, Mikey McCoy, you're bringing up

[23:25] these episodes where we discussed Erica.

[23:28] Can we now sit these people for a

[23:29] deposition? Can we now demand

[23:32] these text messages? He's saying,

[23:34] "There's no conspiracy here." Can we now

[23:35] say, "Okay, well, we'd like to discover

[23:38] that."

[23:39] We'd like to actually look at all of the

[23:41] evidence and be able to come up with an

[23:44] argument uh and we're we're going to

[23:46] need we're going to need access. We're

[23:47] going to need access to everybody's text

[23:48] messages if that's what you are

[23:50] asserting. If you are saying that I have

[23:52] defamed you and you are a part of the

[23:54] Turning Point USA brand,

[23:57] you're saying you're mentioning Erica

[23:59] Kirk.

[24:02] Is this the only

[24:04] plausible path that we will have before

[24:07] us

[24:08] to get Erica Kirk to sit for her

[24:10] deposition?

[24:12] To answer basic questions that we've

[24:13] been asking for actually a very long

[24:15] time if that's the claim that you are

[24:16] making

[24:18] regarding there being no conspiracy.

[24:22] Is the power of subpoena actually going

[24:23] to be our only way?

[24:27] I'd like to hear your guys' positions on

[24:28] this, but

[24:29] um

[24:31] I have never been doing this for fun.

[24:33] Charlie Kirk is dead. We have been told

[24:36] a lot of lies, um a lot of inconsistent

[24:40] stories from the people that are around

[24:43] him. They are, I would say, especially

[24:47] in this last month, there seems to be

[24:49] sort of a ramped up effort to attack

[24:52] people who have been asking for the

[24:54] truth in a reasonable fashion over and

[24:56] over again, extending

[24:59] messages to Brian. Hey, come on the show

[25:01] if you'd like to. I didn't actually even

[25:03] ask him to come on the show. I said, you

[25:03] could just tell me what the truth is and

[25:05] I'll report on that. And they don't want

[25:06] to do that.

[25:08] You don't jump and skip and then file a

[25:10] lawsuit. That's not normal. That is

[25:12] abnormal.

[25:14] That's not the normal trend. People

[25:15] genuinely want to not have the wrong

[25:17] information out there.

[25:19] So, they ask you to retract the

[25:21] statements that you are making.

[25:24] Something's not right here.

[25:27] I get a sense that this this feels like,

[25:28] well,

[25:30] we tried to answer about Fort Wayne

[25:31] Chuck. It was a very serious lawsuit,

[25:33] but defamation's hard. That's that was

[25:35] what Kim Klacik said. Defamation's hard.

[25:37] So, that's what that's why I have a

[25:38] lawsuit filed, but as you can see I'm

[25:39] telling the truth because I filed the

[25:40] lawsuit.

[25:43] I think we have to think on this. Um

[25:45] I have to talk to my husband.

[25:47] I I do think that's this really may be

[25:50] the only opportunity that anybody who

[25:52] deeply cares

[25:54] about this case and genuinely wants

[25:56] truth will have

[25:59] to be able to subpoena that information.

[26:02] The power of subpoena

[26:04] is well,

[26:05] it's it's a power.

[26:07] It is a tool and I'm I've only ever been

[26:10] interested in getting to the truth

[26:12] of what happened to Charlie Kirk on

[26:13] September 10th.

[26:17] >> [music]