Up Next
Dave Smith and Nick Fuentes Reveal the Truth About Charlie Kirk's Final Stance on Israel
30:01
Dave Smith Reveals Private Texts from Charlie Kirk About Israel and Douglas Murray Debate Aftermath
34:25
Candace Owens Debates Andrew Kolvet on Charlie Kirk Assassination Evidence and Tyler Robinson's Guilt
1:09:34
Dave Smith and Candace Owens Discuss the Charlie Kirk Assassination Investigation and the Israel Lobby's Influence
Dave Smith sits down with Candace Owens to discuss her debate with Andrew Wilson over the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation. They explore the suppressed foreign ties investigation, the transformation of Turning Point USA, and how the Israel lobby attempted to use Kirk's death to rally support while lying about key evidence. Candace reveals new details about text messages, the organization's betrayal of Charlie's vision, and why telling the truth has become the most powerful position in American politics.
The Debate Performance and Andrew Wilson's Preparation
Candace Owens reflects on her debate with Andrew Wilson, explaining that she felt confident going in because she could tell from his demeanor that his strategy would be to attack her personally rather than focus on the evidence. She had pushed for the debate to happen quickly because she knew Wilson didn't genuinely care about the case - he had been criticizing Turning Point USA and Erika Kirk until May, then suddenly appeared at their headquarters acting supportive.
Owens recognized that Wilson hadn't actually watched the preliminary hearing or understood Utah's Rule 1102, which allows hearsay at that stage. When Wilson claimed there was "overwhelming evidence" but then admitted he was only 75% certain, Owens saw this as a critical concession that undermined his entire position.
The Standard of Evidence and Burden of Proof
Dave Smith points out that once Andrew Wilson said he was only 75% certain, that essentially ended the debate. If there's 25% uncertainty, that gives people license to pursue other theories. Smith emphasizes that there's a difference between the standard required to imprison someone (beyond a reasonable doubt) and the standard for citizens to freely speculate about major events.
Owens pressed Wilson on his claim of "overwhelming evidence," particularly regarding photographic evidence that couldn't clearly identify Tyler Robinson and DNA evidence that was degraded. Wilson had no substantive response to these challenges, instead trying to pivot away from discussing evidence to questioning Owens about her statements regarding Erika Kirk.
The Suppressed Foreign Investigation
Smith emphasizes that Joe Kent, the former director of counterterrorism, publicly stated on Tucker Carlson that the investigation into foreign ties was suppressed. Kent had resigned over the Iran war and immediately spoke about how Charlie Kirk had been "screaming in the West Wing" about not going to war with Iran, then was publicly executed, and the investigation into foreign data points was blocked.
Owens argues this alone gives American citizens license to investigate and speculate. She points out that she reported information from military sources about potential foreign involvement, but the military wouldn't confirm or deny. The burden should be on government agencies like Tulsi Gabbard's office to investigate, not on private citizens.
The Text Message Revelation
A major moment in Smith's analysis came when Andrew Wilson produced a text message during the debate that Turning Point USA had apparently given him. This was shocking because Erika Kirk had previously gone on Glenn Beck's show and stated that text messages Owens referenced didn't exist. When Owens confronted her, Kirk claimed the messages were on Signal and had been automatically deleted.
Owens explains the contradiction: if the messages were on Signal and automatically deleted, how does Andrew Wilson have them months later? She had actually told her audience the messages were on iMessage to Dan Flood, not Signal. The fact that Turning Point held this "relevant information" for a year while attacking Owens, only to give it to Wilson for a debate victory, makes the organization look extremely suspicious.
The Transformation of Turning Point USA
Smith and Owens discuss how Charlie Kirk's death has resulted in a transformation of Turning Point USA into something very different from his vision. Charlie had explicitly promised he would continue inviting Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Smith himself. He had told Smith they would do lots more together. Charlie had said Thomas Massie was his favorite congressman and had been a Ron Paul supporter.
After his death, Turning Point didn't defend Massie when the Israel lobby removed him from office. Tucker, Owens, and likely Smith are no longer invited to events. At the first major event after Charlie's death, Erika Kirk had Ben Shapiro open after her - despite the fact that Charlie deeply disliked Shapiro and considered him a "snake" who "operated behind the scenes."
Owens reveals she has extensive text messages documenting Charlie's negative views of Shapiro over many years, right up until his death. Even Shapiro himself came out to correct Andrew Kolvet's lie that Charlie and Shapiro weren't friends - because Owens was about to release evidence of Charlie's true feelings.
The Missing Motive
Owens points out that the alleged political motive for the assassination has been debunked by the very testimony the state is relying on. Lance, Tyler Robinson's boyfriend, testified under immunity that they never discussed politics, never discussed LGBTQ issues, and Tyler never mentioned Charlie Kirk. This completely destroys the narrative that this was a politically motivated assassination by a trans activist.
With that motive gone, Owens argues other potential motives should be explored: Charlie's scheduled will change three days after his death, his desire to look into Turning Point's finances, the pressure from Israel-focused donors, and the fact that 80% of murders are committed by someone the victim knows. In a normal investigation, these would all be examined, but instead they're dismissed as conspiracy theories.
The Lies in the Aftermath
Both Smith and Owens emphasize how many people lied in the immediate aftermath of the assassination during an open murder investigation. There was the false narrative about Charlie's relationship with Israel, including an AI-generated photo of him hugging an Israeli flag posted the day he died. Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement saying "I didn't do it" within 48 hours when no one had directly accused him.
Erika Kirk went on what Owens describes as a "Shabbat Shalom tour" with Bari Weiss, trying to establish that Charlie loved Israel. All of this happened while they were lying about the existence of the text messages where Charlie expressed fear about the Israel lobby the night before his death.
The Debate Strategy and Andrew Wilson's Failure
Owens explains that Wilson wanted to move away from discussing actual evidence - the screwdriver, the towel, the degraded DNA, the inability to connect the gun to Charlie's body. Instead, he tried to depose her about obscure clips regarding Erika Kirk, which had nothing to do with their debate claims.
She emphasizes there was no contract allowing him to depose her - they were there to debate their claims about the evidence. Wilson had claimed there was "overwhelming evidence" that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, while Owens had said (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, which she allowed to stand) that there was just as much evidence it could be a psyop.
The Photographic and DNA Evidence
Owens challenged Wilson's tweet claiming there was photographic and DNA evidence. The photographic evidence shows a blurry image where you cannot clearly identify Tyler Robinson - Owens joked it could be Dave Smith for all anyone knows. Wilson tried to say this was "supported by context," but Owens insisted that if you can't see it's him, then it's not photographic evidence of him being there.
Regarding the DNA evidence, the gun had dust and debris on it, with Tyler Robinson's prints being the most degraded among four or five sets of prints. This suggests someone else handled the gun last. Wilson simply responded "so what?" when challenged on this, showing he had no answer for why degraded DNA should be considered overwhelming evidence.
The Probative Hearing Standard
Owens explains that Wilson didn't understand that at the probative hearing stage in Utah, the standard is very different from a trial. Prosecutors can look at evidence and make inferences - essentially doing what Owens does on her podcast. They said someone in a maroon shirt looked like Tyler Robinson because both wore Converse sneakers. They couldn't even connect the person in the maroon shirt to the person in the black shirt.
The lead investigator's testimony that these were the same person based on similar shoes would be laughed out of most investigations. Yet Wilson accepted this as "overwhelming evidence" while calling Owens's interpretation of the same evidence a "conspiracy theory." The only difference was that one came from a prosecutor and one came from an independent journalist.
The Israel Lobby Connection
Smith and Owens discuss how Charlie was being pressured by Israel-focused donors, the top Zionist donors to Turning Point USA. They were threatening to pull funding because of his stance against the Iran war. Charlie was giving them "the finger" and standing his ground. This provides a clear motive that Smith argues should have been explored.
The fact that all these people lied about Charlie's relationship with Israel makes them look even more suspicious. If there was nothing to hide, they could have said, "Yes, we were pressuring him, but we had nothing to do with his death and actually feel bad about it." Instead, they came out with the AI flag photo and Erika's media tour.
Joe Kent and the Counterterrorism Investigation
Smith reveals he had received intelligence 48 hours before Joe Kent resigned that Charlie Kirk information was going to be all over Kent's resignation letter. While less appeared in the actual letter than expected, Kent's first interview on Tucker Carlson was all about it. Kent stated that Charlie had been screaming in the West Wing about stopping the war with Iran, was then publicly executed, and the investigation into foreign involvement was suppressed.
Owens points out that Turning Point USA, including Erika, attacked Joe Kent for coming forward with this information. This is backwards - Kent should have been their natural ally. The fact that they attacked someone saying the investigation was suppressed makes people think the organization has something to hide.
The French Military Connection
When Wilson pressed Owens on her claims about French military involvement, she explained this came from a military source. She did everything right by reporting it. She even called the military to try to confirm whether people were on the ground that day, but they wouldn't respond. This would be the job of intelligence agencies to investigate, not private citizens.
Owens argues that if the government is actually involved in the assassination, they're not going to want citizens to have evidence. She draws a parallel to the JFK assassination - where is the hard evidence there? Citizens are limited in their ability to investigate, but they can point out strange anomalies and clock the lies, which is what she's been doing.
The Iran School Bombing
Smith and Owens discuss the bombing of an Iranian girls' school with a Tomahawk missile. Even after it was confirmed to be a Tomahawk, Donald Trump was saying it could have been from anybody. Smith points out that only a handful of countries have Tomahawk missiles, and the Israelis don't even have them.
Pete Hegseth looked extremely uncomfortable when Trump asked him about it because, unlike Trump, Hegseth knows what a Tomahawk missile is. The suggestion that France smuggled a Tomahawk to Iran so they could bomb their own girls' school was absurd. Owens emphasizes that they murdered schoolgirls and won't even take responsibility or apologize for the "mistake."
Putin's Communication Style Versus Trump's
Owens shares insights from her trip to Russia, where she attended the speed forum (described as "Davos of the East") and heard Putin speak. She was struck by how much time Putin takes to articulate why Russia is doing something, whether in the Ukraine situation or other policies. He sat for three hours taking questions, explaining and justifying Russian actions.
In contrast, Trump offers no explanation for the Iran war. No articulation of how America will get out of it. Just "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" memes online. Owens sees this as fundamental disrespect for the American people - not even bothering to lie convincingly or sit down to answer questions for hours like Putin does.
Understanding Ancient Civilizations and War
Owens shares a profound insight from interviewing a Russian director who explained that Americans don't understand what ancestry means to people from ancient civilizations. When Americans come with deals, Russians aren't interested in deals - their ancestors were there thousands of years ago. They'd rather die than betray that heritage.
She connects this to Persia (Iran), explaining why Afghanistan is called the "graveyard of empires." The U.S., as a 200-year-old country, can't comprehend the deeper, spiritual drive of people who have lived through thousands of years of history. The idea that Persia could be taken in two weeks shows complete ignorance of this reality.
Owens describes how Iranians stood outside infrastructure sites willing to die rather than surrender when the U.S. threatened to bomb them. She asks if Americans could imagine doing the same thing. This fundamental difference in what people are fighting for makes the war unwinnable.
The Two Weeks to Flatten the Curve Parallel
Smith draws a connection between Trump falling for "two weeks to flatten the curve" during COVID and "two weeks to flatten Iran." Trump was president during the original COVID "two weeks" and fell for essentially the same lie in both his first and second terms - just different versions.
The presentation of the Iran war as something that could be won in two weeks with just an air assault shows either stunning stupidity or stunning dishonesty from the administration. Anyone with middle school-level foreign policy knowledge would know this is absurd. Trump should have said "you're fired" to whoever pitched this idea.
The Drone Revolution and Future Warfare
Smith reflects on how 20 years ago, the U.S. was the only country with predator drones for targeted killings. Now cheap $20,000 drones are everywhere, playing huge roles in the Ukrainian war and the Iran conflict. In ten years, these might be produced for a few hundred dollars.
This means any Persian insurgency could keep the strait closed indefinitely. Even if there was regime change, a few hundred thousand men with a few hundred thousand dollars in budget could attack ships and drive insurance prices up. The whole war is completely unwinnable - an absolute disaster that shows no understanding of modern asymmetrical warfare.
The American Revolution Lesson
Smith points out the irony that America was literally founded on a war against the most powerful military in the world using asymmetrical warfare and insurgency tactics. The Founding Fathers understood that someone defending their home has massive advantages - they're the most motivated fighters, they know the terrain, they have nowhere to retreat to.
Americans have also not experienced the level of collective suffering that countries like Russia and Iran have been through. Russia collapsed twice in the 20th century, was invaded twice, lost tens of millions. Iran's war with Iraq in the 1980s killed hundreds of thousands. These are war-torn populations used to suffering much more than Americans can comprehend.
The Credibility Earned Through Truth-Telling
Smith argues that what's really happened is that people who opposed the Gaza genocide earned massive credibility with their audiences. This wasn't about "milking conspiracies" for money - Owens would have had a huge audience regardless. She gained three million YouTube subscribers in the first day or two after leaving the DailyWire+.
The comparison Smith makes is to LeBron James playing for the Lakers - yes, he makes money there, but he would make a lot of money on any team because he's LeBron James. Similarly, Owens had already built massive credibility, and her audience followed her when she pursued the Charlie Kirk investigation because they trusted her.
The Collapse of the Trump Coalition
Smith reflects on how the Donald Trump coalition has been destroyed over the last year, which would have broken Charlie Kirk's heart more than anything. Charlie worked so hard to keep that winning 2024 coalition together. But because of what the administration has done - the Epstein files coverup, launching the Iran war - there was no way to hold it together.
The story shifted from "Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens don't matter" (when polls showed 99% of MAGA supported the war) to "it's all their fault the coalition broke up" a year later. But as Smith and Owens point out, no one wanted another war. No one wanted another war for Israel. Support for Israel has completely collapsed.
The Israel Lobby's Suspicious Behavior
Owens points out that it's particularly people who support Israel who want the investigation to be open and shut. She hasn't seen one person who's radically pro-Israel even concede the obvious anomalies in the case. They won't say "that is kind of weird" about Joe Kent being shut down from investigating foreign ties. Instead, they immediately attack Joe Kent.
If Owens were managing PR for Israel and they actually were guilty, she says she'd have her people lean into the obvious anomalies - say "yeah, that is weird, maybe it was Iran." But instead, everyone is completely anti-Joe Kent, which makes them look shady. The same with Turning Point USA's response - attacking the person who says the investigation was suppressed.
Erika Kirk's Behavior and the Organization's Betrayal
Owens expresses shock at how Erika Kirk has behaved, questioning what wife would act this way after her husband's assassination. You would hate your husband's enemies harder after he's killed. Yet Erika has reserved more hatred for Owens than for Tyler Robinson, whom she unblinkingly convicted by saying "I forgive you" before anything was proven.
She had no questions, told Bari Weiss she was certain. This was felt as weird by the public before Owens even turned her attention to it. People were observing this behavior and finding it suspicious. The fact that Turning Point takes positions Charlie would never have taken is a betrayal of his memory and vision.
The NBC Hit Piece and Brandy Zadrozny
Owens reveals that Erika Kirk sat down with Brandy Zadrozny from NBC for a hit piece on Owens. This is significant because Charlie Kirk hated Zadrozny - she did one of the first hit pieces on Owens and Charlie back in 2018. Zadrozny is not just an ally of transgenderism; she's extreme on it and believes children should be able to transition.
Erika sat down with this woman - someone her husband hated - who she believes represents the ideology of the "trans furry" who killed him, in order to write a hit piece on Owens. This shows Erika will partner with anyone when it comes to attacking Owens, which makes people extremely uncomfortable with her behavior.
The Admission in the NBC Piece
In the NBC hit piece, they basically admitted that Charlie Kirk's death was supposed to reunite an already fracturing Republican party. The party was fracturing over the Iran war and the Epstein files, but they say it could have been reunited "had it not been for Candace Owens."
Owens couldn't believe they put this in writing without realizing how it sounds. Charlie's death was supposed to make people forget about Trump looking the other way on pedophiles and Zionists involved in the Epstein files. Americans were supposed to forget their moral objections to covering up child abuse and instead focus on "left bad, trans bad." But people were moral enough to not let that happen.
Why Truth-Telling Now Pays
Owens argues that we've finally reached a point where it pays to tell the truth. In the pre-COVID world, this wasn't the case. She's actually happy COVID happened because it was an evil that fractured people's trust with mainstream media. People who listened to authorities, masked themselves, didn't speak to family members, took the vaccine - like Owens's own sister who wouldn't let her meet her baby - eventually realized they'd been lied to.
Audiences now recognize coordinated campaigns when everyone says the same thing - whether it's "wear a mask, save lives" or "the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson did this" or "honor the widow." They want something that actually makes sense. Their brains naturally want to believe something logical, not coordinated propaganda.
The Need for Humility and Passion
Owens emphasizes that going forward, people will need to not just tell the truth but exercise humility when they're wrong. She does this on her show constantly - when she's pursuing something and learns new information that contradicts it, she tells her audience. This demonstrates willingness to be wrong rather than being an expert who "Dr. Faucis" their way through everything.
She also stresses being passionate about what you speak about. People know she deeply cares about what happened to Charlie Kirk. There would be no Candace without Charlie - he trained her on debating, they traveled the world together, they came up in politics together. Her perspective shifted on Israel first, his shortly after, and they maintained their relationship throughout.
The Future of Non-Interventionist Politics
Smith predicts that going forward, non-interventionist, non-war hawk right-wingers will need people who have been against these wars from the beginning. He specifically mentions Tucker Carlson and Thomas Massie as people who could carry this movement forward. He doesn't see how anyone from the current Trump administration can do it, given their record.
The trend of truth-telling becoming more valuable will continue. People who have earned credibility by opposing obvious evils like the Gaza genocide will be the ones audiences trust going forward. The old model of mainstream media propaganda, even when employed by influencers, no longer works because audiences recognize coordinated talking points.
America Becoming More Cohesive
Despite everything that's happened, Owens believes America is actually becoming more cohesive in many ways. The left-right paradigm is fracturing, and there's a lot to be hopeful about. People across the political spectrum are recognizing common enemies and common interests that go beyond traditional partisan divides.
The awakening happening isn't because of any one person's influence - it's a mass movement. If someone like Owens or Tucker Carlson were taken out or compromised, their audiences wouldn't just start trusting CNN again. They'd recognize the person had been compromised and seek truth elsewhere. The audience is smarter than the manipulators think.
Video Transcript
What's up? What's up everybody? Big show
today. Very excited. Uh very excited for
it. Very very quickly before we start, I
do a couple uh items of business. I am I
got a few more stops. This summer, the
next up uh August 28th through 30th,
I'll be in Austin, Texas at the great
Joe Rogan's Comedy Club, the Comedy
Mothership. I just saw yesterday three
of the five shows are sold out. There's
still tickets available for two of them.
They're going to sell out this week. I
know people are going to be asking last
minute, so please go get them now while
they're still available. Um, and then I
got Louisville, Kentucky, and I'll be in
in Dallas as well in a few weeks. comic
davemith.com for all of those dates.
There's tickets available to to all
those dates. All right, so we have for
today's show the um really somebody who
needs no introduction. People say that a
lot, but it's rarely true. Um, but the
myth, the legend, um, coming off of what
can I say, a debate performance where it
it must I don't think there's in human
history been a more viewed, more money
paid debate. And it it if anyone was
going to get $300,000 for a debate,
well, it should have been me. But if it
wasn't going to be me, I was sure glad
it was you. And the consensus seems to
be you got the the the win in the debate
as well. So, I guess listen, I want to
talk about a lot of stuff. I just did a
whole episode on the debate. We'll talk
about other stuff as well, but it'd be
like podcast malpractice to not open
with this. You must be feeling good uh
after this whole spectacle.
>> Anything you want to say? What are your
thoughts on it now a few days out?
>> As soon as it concluded, I was just
flying high. Um because I at first and
foremost, I was fully confident going
into the debate. Um, and despite that, I
like overstudied, reminded myself of
different elements cuz you never want to
underestimate somebody. Uh, but I knew
just in the way that he was presenting
and the chain smoking and like the false
bravado um that his whole strategy was
going to be to come at me like I was an
only fans model. And also why I pushed
wanting to the debate to happen quickly
was because I knew that he didn't care
about this case. I mean, this was a
person who was talking trash about
Turning Point USA, talking trash about
Erica Kirk up until May. And then he
goes to their headquarters and he comes
out like he's Daddy Warbucks and is
talking about, you know, throwing money
at Candace and and, you know, shouting
me out on Piers Morgan and shouting me
out on Joe Rogan. And it just showed
that he was completely disingenuous.
Like, this is not his perspective on
women in the role as CEOs that he's ever
demonstrated. But this is what happens
over and over again. We see these people
who are fundamentally just online
prostitutes, right? You give them enough
money and they will go out and they will
change their position on anything. And
this is somebody who was supposed to
represent that like culture of guys
online talking to girls about being
prostitutes. And so I just was like,
"This is easy." And if you're going to
be such a scrub that you're going to
offer $300,000,
I mean, it's absurd. It's financially
irresponsible, frankly. Um, then let's
do it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's it you
know, look, I think it was I I I I do I
think it was good that it happened like
and I thought it was good that it was
going to happen when it was first like I
always um I think there it's good to
have these debates and it's good kind of
for people to see them. Look, this is
this is a um obviously this is a huge
topic. This was the biggest political
assassination in modern history which is
we you know modern I mean saying like
post60s or whatever. This is like the
biggest political assassination in
America in me and your lifetimes. It is
a thing that let's just say
huge swats of the American people are
not buying the official story on and
what wherever you are on what you think
is real. I think certainly we could
probably all agree that well like yeah
I'm sorry like once the FBI took over
this investigation there's just no
credibility from the state and so nobody
trusts anything they say. It's
interesting to have these debates and
and the push back um on them. And I
think that
>> I don't know. I guess one of one of the
things that I was thinking about a lot
even in the leadup uh to this debate was
just kind of which one was one of the
things that I think got teased out which
was an interesting thing uh uh from my
perspective in the debate is it's like
hey what is exactly the standard
of the burden before people can freely
speculate you know about like a topic
and and like obviously okay we have kind
of this this standard that I guess it's
like the Magna Carta or whatever has
been the pillar of western civilization
that okay before we deprive someone of
their liberty the standard is like what
we call it beyond a reasonable doubt
which is a very clunky weird phrase that
is not even clear what you know like how
do you go beyond a point of doubt what
exactly does that mean I guess it means
like there essentially is no doubt
although there always is some degree of
doubt but anyway so we say that's the
standard before we imprison someone and
take away their freedom now the standard
for say you firing someone, you know,
like if you suspected someone on your
team was stealing from you, okay, I
don't know that we don't have the same
standard that you say it has to be
beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly
we would go like, "Hey, you don't want
to fire someone if they didn't actually
steal from you, so like make sure you're
right about that." But I also thought
something that was just very interesting
to me is like I and I said this on my
recap the other day. I thought that once
Andrew said 75%.
I almost went, "Well, then there's the
debate,
>> right? I mean, if we're only at 75%,
then that gives l that gives license to
a good friend of Charlie Kirks to be
like, well, I'm going to pursue every
other theory under the sun. I mean, I
just don't like it's like once we're
saying that, what exactly are we say?
Now, again, fine. If you want to say,
hey, don't make specific claims unless
you have specific proof, that's fine and
we could go over that. But more broadly
speaking,
I mean, you got you're at 75%. I don't
know exactly where I am, but I know that
Joe Kent told me that the investigation
was suppressed. So that's there's 10%
right there off the top of my certainty.
And so like I don't know. I just I
thought that in some ways that debate
which was more meta than the actual
debate was like that was an important
conversation for Americans to have about
all these things.
>> And that was kind of what I was trying
to demonstrate early on. As soon as he
said 75%, why does he have a problem
with people thinking about what would be
to him 25%. Right? Why does he have a
problem with people stepping outside and
saying, "I'm looking at the evidence and
I'm interpreting it in a different way."
And the reason why I knew that he did
not watch the preliminary hearing was
because he was completely lost on the
point that I was trying to make when I
said, "I can keep explaining this to
you, but I I can't understand this for
you." the entire where they are at in
terms of where he gathered what he
perceives to be overwhelming evidence
was during the probitative hearing. The
standard at the probitative hearing is
you can just look at a piece of evidence
and then you can infer what you want.
The prosecution is basically doing what
Candace Owens is doing on her podcast,
right? So the prosecution is looking at
a person in a maroon shirt and saying
that looks like Tyler Robinson to me
because they're both wearing Converse
sneakers. He actually said this lead
investigator. They couldn't even connect
how the person in the maroon shirt
coming up the stairwell was the also the
person who was coming up the stairwell
in the black shirt. They asked that
question. How do you know these are
actually even the same two people? And
he comes back and he says because
they're both wearing Converse. That's
something that's the craziest thing I've
ever heard for saying I'm totally
certain that this is Dave. I'm going to
be honest. It could be you coming up the
staircase. I don't know. The image is
blurry. And so if I'm looking at that
evidence and I'm saying I I think it's
not Tyler Robinson. Why is one called a
conspiracy theory and the other one
called overwhelming evidence just
because it's coming out of the mouth of
a lead investigator? That's just his
opinion, which by the way is allowed at
this stage of the hearing. I was saying
to him, this is Utah's rule 1102. The
judge could not have made this clearer.
It was constantly thrown out and that's
why I knew he didn't watch the hearing.
He didn't research what that rule meant.
Hearsay is just allowed. You can say, "I
spoke to Bob and Bob told Cindy that he
thinks that that's Tyler Robinson." All
of that is permissible. So, they're not
doing anything wrong. But he couldn't
understand what was hypocritable
hypocritical about him constantly
calling people conspiracy theorists,
demanding further evidence when he was
doing the exact same thing by saying,
"Well, I find everything that they did
at the probative hearing to be
convincing evidence." And I I I
recognized immediately that he did not
spend any time watching the hearing. He
didn't comprehend. He didn't research
anything. And uh it was just it was
going to be a cakewalk. And that was why
he he wanted to move away from
discussing the evidence. I wanted to
keep going on and discussing the
screwdriver and discussing the towel and
all of these elements that I think would
have made the debate more interesting
for people to listen to. And he was
like, "No, no, no, no. I just want to
move towards questioning you about
things you've said about Erica Kirk,
essentially."
>> Yeah. All right, guys. Let's take a
moment and thank our sponsor for today's
show, which is the Wellness Company.
Americans love sushi. Over the last two
decades, raw fish consumption has
exploded. Sushi bars are everywhere.
Millions of people now eat raw fish
weekly. But there is a hidden risk that
most people never think about and that's
parasites. This is why many physicians
are raising awareness about parasite
exposure. Dr. Peter McCulla, you may
remember being heroic throughout COVID.
He recommends doing a parasite cleanse
at least once a year as a preventative
measure. So the wellness company offers
a hard to access prescription parasite
cleanse. It's USA compounded ivormectin
and meabendazol. Ivormectin paralyzes
the parasites nervous system while the
meabendazol starves them. Each capsule
contains 25 milligrams of ivormectin and
250 mg of mendazol. You can choose
between a 90 or 45 capsule bottle,
giving you either four or two 21day
parasite cleanse cycles. So go check
them out at twwc.health/pro
and use the promo code problem to save
up to $60 off plus you get free
shipping. That's twwc.health/pro
promo code problem for up to $60 off
plus free shipping. All right, let's get
back into the show. Yeah. Well, I did
think that um and and again I I'm not
just saying this because you're here. I
said this in my my debate recap episode
that we we put out the other day that I
I did feel that it once
and this was so early in the debate, but
it was almost like a deficit that Andrew
never recovered from was that once he
also he defined overwhelming as just
like this very subjective pleasing
myself type thing, which I don't I think
there should be like I'm not saying
there's as clear-cut a definition for
overwhelming, but it's got to be
something in the realm of objective
evidence, not just are subjective like I
you know what I mean like I don't know
exactly where you would draw the line of
that but like there you're making a case
that there's overwhelming evidence.
Okay, this guy the state hasn't really
presented its case yet. This hasn't gone
to trial. This is a man who's innocent
until proven guilty. So we're already
starting with you're making a very
specific claim too. And then when you
immediately that kind of falls apart
because again he's you pressed him on
like okay well you're saying there's in
this tweet you're saying there's
photographic evidence there's DNA
evidence and you're like okay well
here's the problem with the photographic
evidence I cannot clearly you can't see
that that's Tyler Robinson from the
picture that's just kind of objective
you go okay so take that out so then
don't have that there and then he goes
well that's supported by the context of
other evidence and you're like no no no
no no you can either see that this is
him or you can't if you can't see that
this is him then let's focus on this
other evidence that you're saying as
evidence, but if you can't see that this
is him, then obviously that's not
evidence, right? And then so then it's
like you go you make the point about the
the um degradation of the DNA and he
just didn't really respond to that.
>> So what he says, so what?
>> Like now I'm just saying if you're
taking on this debate, you have to have
an answer to that. Now you lose me. I I
tap out pretty quickly on like forensic
expertise. So if you were to just go,
"Oh, well this happens sometimes or
something." I like, okay, maybe there's
a But he didn't even offer anything like
that.
>> No, he couldn't describe the dust, the
debris, and I wanted to go further
because I wanted to get into the scoping
on like first off, you're going to say
the gun was taken apart. I mean, I know
this case so thoroughly that I was happy
to go through the evidence and present
my claim, which is like this could just
as well be a pathy or not be him at all
because they never connected that gun,
which had dust and debris, to Charlie's
body. And he didn't want to do that. He
knew instantly that that route he he
couldn't defend. As soon as he got to so
what about the degradation of of Prince,
it's like what do you mean so what? Like
that is that is me proving my point that
we don't know who was the person who had
this gun last. If you're saying his is
the most degraded and there's four other
sets of prints or four five plus other
sets of prints on it, you actually need
to explain to me why I shouldn't think
that someone just took his gun and threw
it into the woods. And then I was going
to get into how they haven't been able
to connect it to Charlie's body based on
the testimony of Samantha Carer, but he
wouldn't give me the opportunity. He was
like, "Uh, we're we're we're done off of
discussing the evidence because I I now
want to bring up obscure clips of you
talking about Erica Kirk, which actually
has nothing to do with the evidence,
which we're here to debate." Like our
debate claims, I cannot say this enough.
There was no contract when he tried to
say there was like some contract where
he was allowed to depose me. That did
not exist. We were here to debate our
claims that Tyler Robinson, the evidence
is overwhelming, that Tyler Robinson
killed Charlie Kirk versus me saying,
and he did take my tongue and cheek
mocking them for saying overwhelming,
but I allowed it to stand, that there's
just as much evidence that he could be a
psy we're here and we don't have any
concrete proof one way or the other.
>> Yeah. which I think like that is I I got
to say I think that's a very reasonable
position to take and and particularly
again like I said I I really do think
the in the big picture the biggest piece
of adi the biggest piece of evidence
that I think really came out that backed
you up I mean I I don't know I I don't
know how else to look at this other than
if you're being honest you got to go
when you had been conducting this
investigation publicly for months
already and your podcast was like the
number one podcast in the world so it's
not like this was like not this was a
thing that was known that you were like
on the attack about theory saying this
one didn't add up and you're looking at
what else happened and then the director
of counterterrorism
resigned over a war that we just
launched and the first thing he says
when he goes on the other biggest news
show in the world is sits down on Tucker
Carlson's now by the way I had been so
this is I had gotten info that Charlie
Kirk and stuff about him was going to be
all over his resignation letter I had
gotten this info like 48 8 hours before
he resigned. So like in other words, the
intelligence that I got from people
close to this was correct that like a
resignation was coming down the pipe.
When by the time the actual letter came
out, there wasn't much about that in
there. But on his first interview, he
talks all about this. And he goes,
"Dude, the first thing he says is he
goes, "Dude, I mean, Charlie Kirk was
screaming in the West Wing about how we
have to stop Trump from going to war
with Iran." And then he's publicly
executed. And then he says, "And our
investigation was was suppressed when
there was legitimate foreign like I
think he said data points or something
that should have been pursued." Well,
okay. I mean, that alone kind of gives
license to American citizens to freaking
like it's in our hands now. And so
motive and that's what I was saying when
he starts bringing up this stuff about
Israel. It's like this is a motive that
should be explored. I mean, Charlie was
being pressured by Israel, uh, you know,
or I should say like Israel focused
donors, the top Zionist donors to his
organization. They were threatening
money and he was giving them the finger.
And and by the way, just by the fact
that all of these people lied about it,
okay, you have no incentive to lie. It'd
be totally fine if that was all
happening and you're like, "Well, I know
we were pressuring him, but honestly, we
had nothing to do with his murder and I
I actually kind of feel bad that we
pressured him about this in the end,
whatever." They came out and it was like
a picture of Charlie hugging an Israeli
flag. We got BBNet and Yahoo saying, "I
didn't do it." When really nobody asked
him if he did less than 48 hours later.
And then we have his wife Shabbat
Shaloming on tour. Like they were just
trying to say to us, "You have to accept
that Charlie loved Israel and that he
would do anything for Israel
immediately, which was very strange. It
didn't really make sense to me." And the
story about which did get debunked in
court. They kept trying to tell us that
this was a political assassination.
Well, his boyfriend testified that they
never discussed politics, that he never
discussed LGBTQ issues, and he never
mentioned Charlie Kirk to him. Like,
there goes your entire motive. So, since
your entire motive exploded on the basis
of the evidence that you are accepting,
which you should not be because Lance
was given you immunity in that
testimony. But let's let's take it let's
do it your way. Let's say Lance
everything he says we we should be like,
okay, this is a fact. We should follow
the boyfriends. He's not a shady
character. He's being protected by the
FBI. Nobody knows why. Then uh if we're
going to use that analysis, then Lance
told you that the motive is BS, right?
He had no LGBTQ motive. He didn't know
who Charlie Kirk was. They never
discussed these issues. He was not
political in those ways. So now we got
to find a new motive, right? We got to
find a new motive. And I've presented a
lot of potential things that should be
explored. Um also Charlie changing his
will with Erica scheduled for three days
after um he got assassinated that
Monday. Okay, so I guess it was
Wednesday to Monday. He was supposed to
be in an office changing his will. Like
in a normal investigation, that might
mean nothing, but most people would go,
"We should take a look at that." Men
don't usually just go and change their
wills and then unfortunately die a
couple of days before it. What's going
on? He also wanted to look into the
finances at Turning Point USA. So, when
he just keeps using this stupid phrase,
what's your positive evidence? It's
like, do you know how an investigation
works? Explore these leads. Explore what
was going on behind the scenes with the
donors. This man was running an
organization that had a hundred million
dollars coming through it. Okay, that's
a potential motive. In fact, in 80% of
murders, we know that people are killed
by somebody they know. So, how are we
not questioning anybody or even
concerned? That's a lapse in
responsibility to not do that.
>> And I think that um
I mean, at least for me, right, because
I don't want to like I don't want to
overstate this because people can lie
for all types of reasons. Um, and and it
doesn't necessarily prove what those
reasons are, but there is something
about how like in the wake in the
immediate wake of the biggest political
assassination of my lifetime and with an
open murder investigation,
how many people just lied through their
teeth? Just like lie. You're like, "Yo,
I'm sorry, but like on some level, you
make yourself like a person of interest.
I'm not saying a suspect, but like you
make yourself something when you just
come out and start lying during an open
murder investigation. what are you
doing? And I got to say one of these
moments which I just kind of couldn't
believe this as it was happening.
>> I couldn't believe Andrew was reading
his opening statement to begin with, but
I actually couldn't believe that he came
out with that text message.
>> Crazy.
>> And there was something and you of
course pounced on this immediately, but
it's like whoa whoa whoa. So now Turning
Point is giving you
like this has been relevant information
for a freaking year while they and and
look there's there's a few layers to
this because number one I understand
Andrew wants to say and I understand I
will be if I'm being honest here okay
it's a bit of a gray area where he's
like I'm not an agent of Turning Point
USA I'm just me but also you did once
work for them you're saying and also now
they are feeding you information and he
can chalk that up to like oh well if you
ask in a non-hostile way like you're
being accusatory so they don't want to
tell you. But guys, again, this is the
real problem you have here is a few.
Number one, you're not the only person
who's been asking about this case.
>> Correct. You don't have to give it to
the whole point.
>> Everybody wants to know about this.
Literally, everybody, you're talking
about one of the most beloved, adored
figures in this world who was murdered
in his youth. Like, everyone wants to
know the answers to this. There's a long
list of us, you know, and then like if
they had this, what you're holding this
to get a win over Candice rather than
giving us this information that like
>> put it up on the Charlie Kirk show. Put
it up on the Charlie Kirk show. I mean,
come on. You could do it right here. Why
are you giving this to Andrew Wilson?
>> And and this would seem and also it
makes it seem very shady because this
would seem like major, very important
evidence. If you're making the claim
that no, he was scared for his life, but
it wasn't the Israel lobby. He was more
worried about the left. Okay, I can
fathom that. But like let me see then
why are you holding it this long? But
then of course the other major one
Candace I got to ask what this is like
from your perspective is that the one
major time that Erica intervened in
during the course of you going down this
this this these rabbit holes, the one
time she intervened to tell you to stop
the one thing she said that you were
lying about this proves was the truth.
And like so I remember I remember last
time me and you last time I saw you uh
which uh in person when me and Theo came
over to your house earlier this year um
which we I came over to your house and
talked about Charlie Kirk and now in
hindsight I got to do that for free.
Didn't even cost me $300,000 which is
pretty cool. Uh I didn't know I didn't
realize what a value I was getting at
the time. But uh but so but even then I
remember you were it was right after you
had just met with her and so she had
publicly said oh that's not true but you
even said when she met with you she was
like oh yeah we did find it on the phone
it was that. But it's just kind of crazy
that it's like look you guys came out
and intervened to say this was a lie.
Then it got proven that you were wrong
about that. Right. Like best case
scenario wrong worst case scenario
lying.
>> Yeah. And I'm going to go with lying.
I'm going to go with lying and I'm going
to tell you why. again, here's my
positive evidence, whatever he keeps
saying. But I was the person who
presented this to the public and I got
they lied both ways. I was the one who
said Charlie uh was had this breakup
with Israel, you know, the night before
on a text message. They lied, lied,
lied, gas lit until I dropped the text
message. Turning Point USA could have
just come out and said that was true.
Right? Then I say, and that's not it.
There were two people that he texted the
night before saying that he was fearful
that he was going to get killed. And he
was not. He did not say the left. He did
not say the left. He's if he had said
the left, they would have released those
messages in the first 24 hours because
their entire narrative would have been
proven by these messages that Charlie
was fearful of a left night before.
Instead, they allowed me to look like I
was lying, lying, lying, lying. And
then, mind you, I'm saying this in
September. It is in December when Erica
comes and she sits down with Glenn Beck
and she puts on the like I have his
phone and none of that's true and and
that was the first time that I engaged
her like and I came my platform and I
said she's lying she's lying these
messages do exist and after that she
quietly behind the scenes cuz she
doesn't like to ever be on record saying
anything said to me okay well actually
the first thing she says is have you
seen the messages
and I say I'm playing So chill. I say
no. And she says, "Well, they exist, but
they" He said, "The left." And the
reason why I didn't have them was
because it was on their signal signal
chat, which gets wiped. Okay. So, let me
tell you what's wrong with that. This is
why she's walking herself into a tra
into a trap. First off, I then told my
audience she's lying. It was actually on
iMessage. Dan Flood sent a message on
iMessage to Charlie. A like that's going
to get that'll get clocked later, right?
But let's let's assume that what she
said to me in person is true. That was
on Signal. on their security chat which
wipes automatically. How the hell does
Andrew Wilson have them months later
then? Like what's going on? How do these
messages suddenly she she told me that
she then asked
>> as if she had never for some reason Dan
Flood and Andrew Kovette didn't offer
this information to her for four months
as her husband's murder investigator. I
think that would be the next next day
you would say hey this is crazy because
the night before he texted me this and
he was right. You would say that Dan
Blood was literally providing security
to Erica in the aftermath. He's the one
who took her to the White House. So,
we're supposed to believe he never
mentioned this to her. She went on to
onto Glen Beck. Andrew Coat never
mentioned it to her. He's the one that
told me about all of these messages. And
then I went and, you know, did what I
had to do to get to to secure the
information about them. And we're
supposed to believe no one told her, but
Candace knew in September. And then she
now she wants to think that the signal
chat got deleted, but somehow Andrew
Wilson has it in his hand and it's going
to save a left. I am waiting for him. He
has promised he's going to drop these
messages. They better be signal messages
which are supposed to be deleted but
also it's going to be great. It's going
to be great
>> because they keep getting caught in
these lies and this is why they hate me
because I'm clocking them on these lies
left and right. All I'm doing is telling
the truth. Okay. I don't know why
they're lying but they are they have not
presented themselves as honest people in
the wake of the assassination which
makes people think that they are
suspicious. Okay. doesn't mean that they
killed Charlie Kirk, but it does mean
that in the aftermath they have been
behaving in a very suspicious way.
>> It seems to me like also at the very
least you'd say, "Look, man, there's an
onus on you to come out and correct the
record once you publicly came out and
said that didn't exist." Like there's a
big difference between that didn't exist
and oh, it absolutely did exist. That's
that's pretty 180. And you know, like I
you know, so when I did I did an episode
shortly after Charlie died where I I in
response to you, I read some of the
personal text messages that he had sent
me. And it was a little bit of a weird
situation because well, look, typically
speaking, I would never read private
text messages ever with anyone. Like I
wouldn't read private text messages that
you sent me on a show cuz like I don't
know there's there's talking on the
record and there's talking off the
record and so I wouldn't do and
specifically after someone dies I
wouldn't ever so like my default
position is like no I wouldn't share
that. However, it's like everybody was
reading messages Benjamin Netanyahu was
reading like things from his you know
really taken out of context from from
the letter that he wrote to him.
everybody's and the stuff I had was
somewhat relevant I thought not to
anything about his death but just to the
conversation of where he was on Israel
and where he was and so I was like you
know what I think I should full
transparency I should uh show this but
like just for the sake of argument right
had I realized like a week later that I
was wrong and those text messages
weren't from Charlie Kirk like I looked
at my phone I thought they were from
Charlie but they're from someone else or
they're from Charlie something else or
whatever I I made it conf well then like
the onus would be on me I'd have to go
back on air and correct the record so
like Either way, right? Either way, you
could just say, I mean, the onus would
once you come out and say, "Hey, this
other person's lying, but then it gets
confirmed that they weren't lying, that
they were right about that." I do think
the onus is on you. So, I think that
ends up making them look very bad. And
then I got to say I kind of was curious
on on your thoughts about this because
you know just on the organization of
Turning Point USA more broadly.
Um cuz to some degree you know like
almost for the sake of argument let's
just say for this Tyler Robinson did
kill Charlie Kirk and let's even add in
he kind of acted alone. He wasn't even a
part of the thing like that does turn
okay but in effect we still already know
that every member of the Israel lobby
lied through their teeth to try to
manipulate this thing. We know now that
Erica came out and said you were lying
when you were not and it was correct.
And but anyway, the point is in effect
what's ended up happening here has been
really a radical transformation in
Turning Point USA. Um and one that
Charlie explicitly promised it would not
make. I mean, he went out of his way in
the last few months of his life when he
was getting, of course, the text message
that is now famous is when they first
tried to uh cancel Tucker. He goes,
"Well, then I'm going to invite
Candace." He goes, "If you try and" and
he he went out of his way over and over
again to say that um he would never not
be inviting Tucker or Megan Kelly. He
told me we were going to do lots more
stuff together in the future. I mean,
like he was not he was very clear that
it's like, "Look, I'm not and and by the
way, he explicitly, you know, kind of
said to me at one point like he he drew
a line at like Fuentes and those guys.
He really did not like them for years of
personal issues, you know, but that was
it that he was like, "No, dude. Like,
you're totally you have a legitimate
right to question the relationship with
Israel or question Israel Israeli
policy." He was and now you have an
organization. He also said Thomas Massie
was his favorite congressman. He was a
he was a Ron Paul guy at one point after
all. And now you have Turning Point USA
not only did not stick up for Thomas
Massie when the Israel lobby stole that
seat. a foreign lobby stole the seat of
a sitting US congressman as Charlie
Kirk's favorite congressman and they
didn't stand up for him. And also, I
don't know, I haven't kept up with the
latest candidas, but I don't think you
or Tucker or even Megan are getting
invited to a lot more Turning Point USA
events. Maybe I'm wrong about Megan, but
I certainly don't think me or you or
Tucker are going back to anymore. So
like whether or not there was a
conspiracy on what killed him in effect
here, him being killed has transformed
the biggest youth political conservative
outreach organization to be something
very different from the vision that
their their founder and leader had in
mind for them a year ago.
>> And that and that is what makes people
not trust them. Like
>> yeah,
>> I I actually was just so shocked like it
like it was such a no no from the
beginning all the way through to the end
that Charlie Kirk did not like Ben
Shapiro. It's it's it's mindboggling
that his wife would take over the
organization and at the very first big
event at Amfest would have Ben Shapiro
open after her. That is crazy that they
would even allow him to sit in the
studio of Charlie Kirk days later.
You're going, "What the heck is going
on?" With a million dollars in hand,
you're just going, "What's happening
here?" And then when Andrew Kula then I
mean this was such an extraordinary
extraordinary lie that even Ben Shapiro
came out and corrected it. Like Andrew
Coba I was like he was trying to tell my
book that I was not friends with Charlie
Kirk which is like I couldn't even
believe it and Ben Shapiro was I said
say I want you to actually say he was
friends before I released these messages
and I did and it was going to be way
more painful. I released one I was about
to release a whole set but then Ben
Shapiro came out and told the truth. It
was crazy. He then tweets, "I've never
said that Charlie and I were friends,
blah blah blah blah." And I'm going,
"Turning point USA is so nefarious that
even Ben Shapiro is willing to tell the
truth about something his relationship
with Charlie because I was just going to
blast him. I mean, I had so many
messages screenshot and I was going to
be like every single year all the way up
until the very end of his perspectives
about Ben Shapiro. He thought he was a
snake. He thought he operated behind the
scenes. Ben Shapiro like like everyone
what you know you think you're going to
be friends with him and then suddenly he
is he's chronically Ben Shapiro he's
terminally Ben Shapiro right and so the
fact that they were willing to lie but
Andrew Kovat was willing to lie about
that it it means that you are you betray
you you've betrayed Charlie you just did
betray you were betraying him every
single day when you take and stake
positions that Charlie would have never
taken um and that is why people are
going what wife would allow this what
wife allows. You hate the enemies harder
after your husband has been killed,
after your friend has been killed. You
would hate his enemies more in the
immediate aftermath. And yet she has
reserved more hatred for me than for
Tyler Robinson. That that's that's wild.
Who she unblinkingly said he did this.
He acted alone. Told Barry Weiss, oh,
she has no questions. Essentially
convicted him by saying, "I forgive
you." Right? You got to do something
wrong to be forgiven. before anything
came out, before she had any more data
points. What is that going to make the
public think about you? And you you you
have to own that. You have to stop
pretending Mrs. Candace's fault. It was
felt before Candace even turned her
attention and went, "Well, that was
weird. You lied about this text
message." Uh, and it's because people
are observing your behavior.
>> All right, guys. Let's take a moment and
thank our sponsor for today's show,
which is Ultra. Ultra, of course, you
know, they make the guilt-free pouches,
and now they've introduced the sleep
pouches, which are brilliant if you have
trouble sleeping. If you wish you could
fall asleep faster and sleep deeper and
wake up without groggginess. Maybe you
currently use sleep aids, but they're
too strong or they're not working or you
want something healthier. Well, you got
to check out Ultra's new sleep pouches.
The idea behind this is genius. Everyone
uses pouches for increased focus and
energy, but Ultra took that idea and
flipped it. These are the pouches that
help you wind down, fall asleep, and
stay asleep. And the great thing is they
use just six clean researchback
ingredients. It's a milligram of
melatonin, eltheanine, magnesium,
chamomile, passion flour, and lemon balm
extracts. Nothing bad for you. Six
healthy, clean ingredients that are all
demonstrated to help you sleep. The
bottom line is that Ultra Sleep Pouches
deliver better, deeper sleep with
properly dosed and natural ingredients.
And new customers can use the promo code
problem and get 15% off at
takeulttra.com.
That's takera.com promo code problem for
15% off. All right, let's get back into
the show. Yeah. Yeah. I I I was shocked
to just and I think I probably did bite
my tongue a bit on on some of this stuff
at the time because it's just a weird
dynamic, you know, when you know someone
and they're they're murdered and they
it's their wife and you know, but like
also I just could I just couldn't
believe like you know just the type of
thing that makes you like question like
who's around you? Who are your friends?
Who's your support? No one. You didn't
have anyone who would grab you and go
like, "Hey, like I don't think you
should throw on leather pants and go up
there and be all handsy with the vice
president and have like pyro technics
and stuff like this is just really
really like you're opening yourself up
to a whole we this looks so bizarre and
like like I don't know. I just it's
crazy to me that nobody had kind of
intervened to to prevent just the
obvious thing. The other thing about it
that I guess is
>> in a in in a weird way
probably nothing would have would have
like broken Charlie's heart more than to
see where the coalition is today
>> after all of this. And I I guess we all
kind of feel bad about that to some
degree, you know, like Charlie was a guy
who really just wanted to keep that
winning coalition, the 2024 energy that
we all had, you know, to together. And
of course because of what this
administration has done, I think there
was just no no way that was going to
happen. But it is something where like
this has been a major theme to me of the
last year is that essentially the the
Donald Trump coalition has been
destroyed. It's much like with the
Israel topic in general, you know, when
the Zionists would be like, why are you
know why is Candace Owens exploding in
popularity? And like they would think of
everything except for Gaza, you know,
like everything else. We're like, you
know, we're kind of committing a
holocaust on the side. Maybe that's the
problem. Like it's never
>> you start, it's like you start this
thing your your kind of like journey on
revisiting, you know, the the Israel
question. And you started being like,
you were like, you know, I just had a
baby and then I saw an image of this
baby who had like been crushed under a
building. And then I'm just sitting
there kind of thinking like, oh my god,
that baby's as precious as my baby and
it could be my baby. And imagine what my
life would be if that happened to my
baby. And then like everyone goes,
what's her angle here? you know, like I
think it might just be that. I think it
might just be the thing she said like
the baby getting
>> and they're like so is it like human
>> is Qatari money coming in? You think?
Anyway, but so there's this whole but
similarly there's been this huge um you
know there's this interesting dynamic
where okay so when obviously this
started with the 12-day war and the
suppressing of the Epstein files and
then it was really just solidified by
launching this war again and the whole
thing falling apart. But at first when
the war first launched and you had those
polls that said 99% of MAGA loves these
wars.
>> Crazy.
>> Ben Shapiro and all those guys, they
said the lesson here is that Tucker
Carlson doesn't matter and Candace Owens
doesn't matter and Alex Jones and Megan
Kelly and sure you might look next to
their their shows and see awfully huge
numbers and every time there's a chart,
these are the biggest shows out there,
but they don't matter. They're totally
irrelevant and there's no connect. Now,
a year later, uh the story is that it's
all your guys' fault that the coalition
broke up. You went from not mattering at
all to being responsible to taking down
the biggest coalition ever. Whereas,
like what's right in front of all of us
is that it's just like, dude, no one
wanted another war,
>> right?
>> No one wanted another war for Israel,
>> obviously. And the other thing is, yeah,
the support for Israel has completely
collapsed. And so people that continue
to lie to them about Israel or lie on
behalf of Israel are just not getting
support. And you're blaming it on me and
Tucker. I don't know why you're blaming
it on me and Tucker. Again, we were one
of the last ones to really join the
party. Maybe the first out of the
Republican party to say like I'm, you
know, I'm done with this. Um getting
fired obviously publicly kind of being
hung for having a totally rational
perspective that genocide is always
wrong. I did I didn't know that there
were exclusions on that. I didn't know
that that genocide is sometimes okay
like and but sticking you sticking to
being willing to lose my career and
being willing not to change my position
for money which I think is unusual and
has built up trust with the audience
like if I care about something and I'm
principled about something I'm not going
to pivot on those things but to your
bigger your other point this is what's
amazing speaking about turning point uh
link linking up with whoever they don't
they have no morals anymore they don't
care about anything um and that recent
piece that they did with Brandy
Zazraznney uh from NBC. Charlie hated
this woman. I mean, talk about the
messages I have. She was the original
person who did a hit piece on me and
Charlie uh back in 2018. It was like one
of our first lessons with the media, how
you can sit down with a reporter, invite
them in, go take them to dinner. She did
pay her own dinner, but and then we were
just so shocked by what she wrote. This
woman is not just an ally of
transgenderism. She's like like far um
like she's extreme on transgenderism.
She believes that children should be
trans. Erica sits down with her. Sits
down with her. So your husband hated
her. You believe a trans furry killed
your husband and you're sitting down
with Brandy Zadznney to write a hippie
pie on Candace. You you'll partner with
anyone uh with when it comes to the
topic of Candace. But what was in that
piece is so telling because they
basically say they could have reunited
an already fracturing Republican party
which was fracturing over the Iranian
war and the Epstein files had it not
been for Candace Owens. I I couldn't
believe it. I couldn't believe they put
it in writing and didn't realize that.
Like, yeah, guys, this is crazy.
Charlie's death was supposed to make you
forget about the pedophiles that uh
Trump was looking the other way on. You
were supposed to make you forget about
the Zionists who were involved in the
Epstein files that Trump was looking
away from. And in your good sense, you
said, "I don't care if I supported MAGA.
I'm not supporting someone who is okay
with children being abused or was
willing to look the other way when
people that he's who are giving him
money are plausibly abusing children."
like you were moral in that perspective
and we were going to distract you by
telling you but remember the left the
left bad bad left bad trans bad this I
couldn't believe it but that is their
position and Blake Nef has shared that
Andrew Kovette shared that that is what
they hate me for is stopping us going
back to this basic structure this this
paradigm of left versus right
>> which is so which you know it so
fundamentally misunderstands the dynamic
of what's going on cuz like in a way I
don't know it's like they're they're
almost going first of all they're going
they're first when they go oh Tucker
Carlson doesn't matter or can Owens
doesn't matter it's like okay now
they're trying to downplay your
significance as if you guys aren't
massively influential figures which is
stupid you know but then when they go
you destroyed the whole coalition or you
could have kept it together you're
massively overestimating how much
influence any one of us actually has the
thing that people don't get right is
that there's a mass awakening going on.
People like us have been a part of this
and we're talking about this and our
audiences respect and enjoy our
perspectives and like that we're telling
the truth as we see it. But that doesn't
mean that we're their emperor god. Like
in other words, if I were to just come
out tomorrow and go, "Yeah, you know,
actually whatever. Let Israel take
Lebanon and let them kill some of those
people." It's not that my audience would
go, "All right, well then I guess that's
what we're doing." They'd be like,
"Wait, Dave's been compromised. He's not
telling the truth anymore." It's not
like as if it's not like as if they if
they took out you and Tucker Carlson and
Joe Rogan. It's not like your audiences
would then go back to listening to Jake
Tapper and go, "Oh, okay. I guess that's
what the truth." You know what I'm
saying? Like it's like no like there the
the truth is that not me or you or
anyone else is skilled enough to have
spun this away to keep the coalition
together. Too many people the whole
point was no more of these stupid wars
and drain the swamp. That was the whole
point. This if we're covering up the
most corrupt goddamn thing ever,
whatever exactly the Jeffrey Ebstein
thing was in one way or the other. It's
the most corrupt thing ever in the
world. So there's there's that. And then
there's we're launching more wars. We're
killing people by the thousands and
wasting hundreds of billions of dollars.
All literally so obviously at this
point, Candace, I mean, I remember even
when me and you first met, which wasn't
that long ago, and I'd be like, "Dude,
we fought the war in Iraq for the Israel
lobby." And you'd be like, "Whoa, this
is crazy. We have all but now is it even
like a thing? You got to convince us
we're fighting this war so that Israel
can take southern Lebanon."
>> It was crazy.
>> This is so This was just way too
obvious. They weren't even trying with
this one. I mean, we're learning that
BBNet and Yahoo is is in the situation
room and Trump is sitting down listening
to him telling him how it's going to go.
And then we understand the fundamental
stupidity of our own president that he
thought that it was convincing that we
would be able to be out of this in two
weeks. Like two weeks to flatten the
curve on Iran. This is Persia. They've
been around like this is not just going
to be a country that you're going to
overtake in two weeks. So you're telling
me he's so fundamentally stupid that a
person that's in middle school, you
could have the foreign policy level of a
middle schooler trying to write a paper
and you would go, "No, no, that's
absurd." If you are the president, you
go, I don't even need to be deep on this
topic, but the fact that you pitched me
this stupidity, you're fired. That's
what he should have said, right?
Obviously, we're not taking this over in
two weeks by, oh, we're just going to
have an aerosault and it's going to be
over. I don't I don't need to be an
expert on milit I don't have no military
expertise to tell you that that is such
a nonsense. And Trump went for it,
right? He went for two weeks to flatten
the curve. That's supposed to be the
stupidity that they tell us cuz they
think we're all dumb and we're not. Two
weeks and this will all be over. But he
pitched that to a president, a city and
and Trump said, "Yeah, no, that's that
sounds good." And in this room of people
who we're now all learning are
fundamentally dumb, corrupt, and
blackmailed. They were willing to put
American lives on the line. And now
we're learning about the ships and
what's been going on there and people
that are trying to to to jump off of
them because we always knew from the
very beginning that this was unwinable.
So the audience is smarter than you
think. Okay, that's what that's what the
lesson is in all of this. Uh the
propaganda is not slapping the same.
They've then gone, okay, CNN, MSNBC,
they fall and people don't believe them,
so we can just employ a bunch of
influencers to do what they were doing
and it's going to somehow look
independent. No, when they all come out
the same talking points, people are
recognizing that as well. So, you have
basically only one option. One option.
And it's the one you never want to take.
Tell the truth. Listen to the people
when they tell you what they want. And
don't be surprised when you completely
abandon every issue that you stood on,
every promise that you made, and the
people are no longer with you. Don't
don't play shock. Don't play it's
Tucker's fault, it's Kansas's fault,
it's whoever's fault. Blame yourself for
once in your miserable life. And that is
how I feel about Donald Trump today.
>> All right, guys. Let's take a moment and
thank our sponsor for today's show,
which is Quint. Summer always changes
the way you get dressed. You want pieces
that feel lighter, that are more
breathable, things that are easy but
still put together. Well, you got to
check out Quint. Their European linen
pants and shirts are the perfect warm
weather upgrade to add to your rotation.
Starting at just $34, their tees are
soft and easy to wear, and their
lightweight cotton sweaters are perfect
for cooler summer nights. Everything at
Quinc is priced 50 to 80% less than
similar brands. They work directly with
ethical factories to cut out the
middleman. So, you're paying for
quality, not brand markup. And Quinc
goes way beyond clothing. They have
custom upholstered sofas, ceramic
cookware, premium bedding. It's the kind
of brand you end up recommending to
everyone for everything. I will tell
you, I uh I have several items of
clothing from Quint. I really, really
like them. They're my type of brand.
everything. It's kind of simple, but it
looks good and put together, and it's
very, very reasonably priced. Like
really quite hard to find better these
days. So, elevate your summer wardrobe.
Go to quint.com/potp
right now for free shipping on your
orders and 365day
returns. That's now available in Canada,
too. It's quint.com/potp.
That's qui nce.com/potp
for free shipping and 365day returns.
All right, let's get back into the show.
>> Yeah, well said. Amen. And even as you
say it, you know, it's like
>> he did he also fell for the original two
weeks to flatten the curve. I mean, he
was the president at that time, too. So,
he fell in both his first and second
term got suckered into a different
version of it. And it is
>> two weeks Iranian. It's like what? Yeah,
that's right. But it does almost in the
same way, you know, if you remember the
John Stewart joke that he told, you
know, 10 months after all the rest of us
had told it, but then it was okay to say
it when John Stewart said, but he goes
the thing where he goes, he's like, it's
the name of the lab. Like the lab and
the virus have the same name. Well, like
in the same sense, you're almost like,
well, who would have imagined the
Persians would exercise so much control
over the Gulf? And you're like, what do
they call the Gulf? It's the Persian
Gulf. Persia is a whole half of the
Gulf. Like, yeah, there's the other Arab
side, I guess, but like, how are you
going to and and even the idea, you
know, it's like people don't even, you
know, look, man, like of course this
whole plan was stupid and unwinable and
everyone with an ounce of wisdom always
suggested that. But look, man, I mean, I
remember very vividly like I was me
already. I was the guy obsessed with the
the wars and the government and the
economy and all this when Obama's drone
war program was this crazy new thing and
he had expand I mean it it started under
Bush and then he expanded it but it was
like a new thing that we had predator
drones that can go like hunt people down
and we have kill list and all this stuff
and we were the only ones who had them.
No other military in the world had
predator drones and you know the
explosion of drones just in the last 20
years now everyone's got them. They're a
They were a huge huge force in the
Ukrainian war. They're a huge factor in
this war. And now they got these cheap
$20,000 drones. Okay, but what's that
going to be in 10 years?
>> I mean, in 10 years, they're probably
going to be able to to produce these
things for a few hundred bucks
essentially saying that any Persian
insurgency could keep the the straight
closed. Like, even if Benjamin Netanyahu
got his regime change there, what do you
need? You need a few hundred,000 men
with a budget of a few hundred,000,
you know, like and and they're going to
be able to attack ships and drive the
price of insurance up. Yeah. The whole
thing is totally unwinable. It's a it's
an absolute disaster.
>> And one of the things that was super
compelling for me, so I went to Russia
earlier this year and I had got an
opportunity because they were freaking
out about me going to Russia to then go
hear Putin speak um at the speed forum,
which is actually the people are so
dumb. It's attended like Trump
administration was there, but they were
like Candace is there. Okay. So is Trump
administration like this is like Davos
of the East or whatever. Uh but anyways,
one of the things that really stood out
to me was
how much and I I had already been
reading Putin's speeches when things are
were breaking out and every and I was
like, "Okay, what's actually happening?
Let me read Biden's speech. Let me read
Putin's speech and figure out what the
truth is in between," which is what you
should do, right? But one of the things
that is so shocking to me and the
difference in the way that our
government treats us uh versus like the
way Putin addressed his people is he
takes a very long time to articulate why
he's doing something right. He he
believes that they actually whether you
think he's lying or he's telling the
truth that he sits down and we saw this
even in the Tucker Carlson interview and
he will explain why we are justified in
doing what we are doing in Ukraine. Now
you weigh that against Trump. I don't
care what you think about what we're
doing in Iran. I don't care if you think
your gas prices are high. We're just
doing what we do. We're we're dropping
bombs. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb
Iran. We get a little meme online and
next thing you know, we're bombing Iran.
He's articulated no reason. He's
articulated no way in which we're going
to be out of this. He doesn't feel he
has to. There's such a fundamental
disrespect for the people and that
that's really bothering me now where
it's like even if you are lying, could
you at least articulate a lie to us?
Like could you could you could you come
out and could you sit down and could you
answer questions for three hours like
Putin did? you know, in front of these
people and say, "I'm here and you can
ask me every single question about what
we're doing, why we're going to do Iran,
despite the fact that none of you guys
want to do this, why I think it's so
important for us to be in there." And
that is like there's a a fundamental
difference there. And also just spending
time with the Russian people uh which I
think now makes me understand the
Persian people. They have been around
for so long that uh I was sitting down
interviewing a director there and he
said to me, "You Americans come to us
with your deals, right? You want us to
sign a deal. You have no concept of what
ancestry means. Like what what we don't
care about a deal. Like thousands of
years ago, our ancestors were here. We
know where we're from. We're not going
to cut a deal and and sell. we we'd
literally rather die than to pay
attention to one of your deals. And
that's something that it was like just
okay this is they are fighting for
something different and fighting for
something more. I think it's even why
people say uh you know Afghanistan was
is like the graveyard of empires because
our mindset and such a young country 200
years can't comprehend that there's
something deeper and something that's
more spiritual that drives people that
have lived through so much. Right.
That's why I say you are talking about
Persia. You you're gonna take Persia in
two weeks. Yes. Okay. We call it Iran.
They have been here for so long and they
will be fighting for something
different. And we saw that when we were
threatening to bomb up their
infrastructure and a bunch of people
just stood outside willing to die.
Willing to die rather and like, okay,
Trump, yeah, we might die. That
literally is what they're saying. Could
you imagine that happening? It gives you
chills to even consider that. Could you
imagine that happening in America? And
so it yeah, that's something that I'm
very aware of now is that they have such
little respect for us that even when
they get caught red-handed bombing an
Iranian school for no reason at all,
they go,
>> "We ain't do that. Iranian people bad.
They did that. They brown. They did
that." It's like, "Okay, let's just at
least have enough respect to own it and
say we made a mistake." You know, they
still haven't They still have not owned
that mistake.
>> Oh yeah. No. I mean, and it was even
after um even after it was confirmed it
was a tomahawk, Donald Trump was still
sitting there. In fact, you remember
there was the one moment where he
actually it was the most uncomfortable
I've ever seen Pete Haggsath who no one
has ever accused of being a genius. But
like unlike Donald Trump, Pete Haggsath
knows what a tomahawk missile is. And so
it had come out that it was a tomahawk.
And Donald Trump goes, you know, it
could have been from anybody. I mean, it
was a tomahawk, but it's not necessarily
ours. What do you think, Pete? And then
Pete's like, "Um, we'll have to wait for
the investigation to cut because even he
knows like like I don't know that Trump
knows that there's only a handful of
countries that have tomahawk missiles.
The Israelis don't even have tomahawk
missiles. Like Britain, what is your uh
what is is the accusation here that like
France smuggled a [ __ ] tomahawk to
the Iranians that then they dropped on
top of their own girls school?" Like it
was just too already and this is before
the investigation. Like it was just it
was too ridiculous. But like you said,
no, I mean, look, there is a certain
point, and this is this is something
that I do try to um, you know, kind of
push right-wingers on, but there's
something to Listen, man. Like, on a
spiritual level, there's something so
dark about killing a bunch of little
girls and then not even taking the
responsibility for it, lying about it.
But, you know, this was you. And like,
okay, if you want to say this was war
and it's a tragic mistake, I mean, I
still consider it murder in the first
degree because you launch a war of
choice and then you're responsible for
everyone you kill in that thing, if you
ask me, you know. Um, but
>> and no explanation for they couldn't
have even made the mistake. I mean, if
you watch Sky News's investigation into
it, they knew every body that was moving
in there. It's it is incomprehensible
what they did, and it should not be
forgotten. Okay, you just you just
murdered a bunch of school girls and
there's no explanation and there's not
there's not an apology. There's not
owning it. Mistakes certainly can't
happen. Even if they came out and said,
"Yes, this was us. We are sorry. This
this was an issue." Like that would be
more respect for the people, but they
just think we're so dumb that he's just
like, "No, literally Pete says in that
clips that's something Iranians do, not
something that we do." Like, you know.
>> Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Well, it's
also also just like the basic look the
the basic lesson which is there there's
always something so fascinating about
this. I guess particularly from my
perspective cuz I'm like I feel like I'm
I'm always arguing on behalf of what
this country was founded on explicitly,
but also the fact that this country
literally was founded on a war against
the most powerful military in the world
using the understanding of the problems
with insurgency and with asymmetrical
warfare and understanding that like
listen dude, it's just like if somebody
inherently there might be me verse
somebody, right? But if that if somebody
is trying to break into my house to kill
my family, there's just immediately huge
advantages that I have in that fight.
Like, this is not meeting with guns in
an open field somewhere. First of all,
I'm the most motivated fighter there is
because I'm fighting on behalf of my
family living. So, this isn't like
there's not an option to retreat, right?
There is no I can't let my family get
killed. Number two, you're on my you're
in my home. I have weaponry. I know the
the layout of this house more than you
do. You know, there's a bunch of
advantages. And I think one of the other
things that Americans really don't have
an appreciation for is the level of
suffering that some of these other
countries have been through
collectively, you know, together that
America just hasn't. You know, you look
at like this is one, you know, as you
start talking about the the connection
kind of between the Russians and the
Persians or whatever or the Iranians
more broadly, the you know, Russia
collapsed twice in the 20th century.
Like their entire government collapsed
twice, right, with the Bolevik
revolution, I guess even three times if
you want to technically count like
during the Bolevik Revolution, there
were two collapses and then they
collapsed when the when the Soviet Union
collapsed. They were invaded twice. They
took on losses of tens of millions. Now,
I'm not even getting into the 90s when
their life expectancy collapsed over the
crazy shock therapy stuff. And so, like
there just the people had been through
it.
>> And same with the Iranians. I mean, if
you look at their war with uh with Iraq
in the 1980s, hundreds of thousands of
people killed, um sanctioned [ __ ]
like these when you threaten them with
war, these people are war torn and used
to suffering a lot more than the people
that we know. That's just kind of a part
of the reality. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And and and that's what you when
you recognize that it's so different to
go and visit these places. I picked up
on that and I was going, "Wow, they are
fighting for something totally different
than what's being sold to us." And Trump
hasn't considered that. Like he doesn't
have the depth to be able to to be able
to consider that. Like he genuinely
thinks they can be defeated in two
weeks. And like you said, you're like
they couldn't be defeated three times
and they're still here. And um and so I
I really resent the fact that we can
never get a clear answer, an honest
response, and that they continually
think that we are too stupid to be able
to handle that. And it's because they
have no reason to be there outside of
Israel. That's the reason that even if
they were to articulate it, the honest
truth would be we're doing it because BB
told us to do it. That's it. There's
there's no going to be no upside to the
American people. And um we've just been
doing this for so long and nobody
noticed. And we're kind of shocked what
everybody noticed. We tried to use
Charlie Kirk assassination to parlay
that into more support for Israel. We
even posted an AI photo of him hugging
um uh the the flag of Israel on the day
that he died. We thought that would work
and you know it didn't and we don't
really know what to do and we don't
really know how to get out of this
thing. That's going to be another
question. How do we even get out of this
thing? Um and that's where we're at
right now. Like in that and I do think
that that is a lot of the reason that
there is so much nastiness toward me is
because they wanted to use Charlie's
death to rally support for Israel and
they blame me for having stopped that.
Erica was ready. Shabbat shalom Barry
Weiss go on tour. He loved Israel so
much like you know and I I ruined
something, you know. I ruined something
there.
>> All right, guys. Let's take a moment and
thank our sponsor for today's show which
is Goldback. A great company, an amazing
product. Uh if you haven't watched, I
interviewed uh their CEO, Jeremy Cordon.
Go check that out if you haven't
already. It was a great conversation. We
talked a bunch about inflation. As as
you guys know, it measured in gold. The
dollar has lost 99.6% of its value uh
since the Federal Reserve was created.
And you don't need a chart to see it.
You feel it at the grocery store every
week. Now, because of high prices, of
course, a lot of people are turning to
gold, as they typically do during times
of inflation. But for daily purchases,
you're still stuck using dollars. Well,
that's the problem that Goldback solves.
They're real 24 karat gold that you can
spend like cash. They're one of the most
affordable ways to own fractional gold.
And they've already become the leading
non-crypto alternative currency that's
out there. So, there's no accounts,
there's no fees, no data tracking, just
person-toperson transactions in actual
currency that is on the gold standard.
So, stop relying on a broken system and
head over to goldback.com/dave
to learn more. That's goldback.comdave.
All right, let's get back into the show.
And that's very interesting because that
can be a real dynamic kind of
independent
of whatever even is the correct theory
about Charlie Kirk, you know, and I I
I'd said this in my last episode that
there's something to me I think also
with like because there's there's an
interesting thing where I go, okay, even
if you don't think even if you think
Candace has has gone down rabbit holes
that aren't worth going down and okay,
she's saying when she's pressed about
what she thinks that she thinks the
Israelis and the French were involved,
but she herself will admit she can't
prove that that's the case or whatever.
But I just go like,
>> well, bro, right, but like even at the
same time, you go like, okay, like
there's always been conspiracy theorists
out there. There's conspiracies that are
correct. There's conspiracies that are
are not correct. There's always been
people that are theorizing. And like I
just find it kind of interesting when
there are people who are like really
good friends with Alex Jones who are
like really going after you for pursuing
this path or you're like I don't know he
was pursuing whether the government was
trying to reduce the human population to
300,000 in an effort to form one world
government. By the way, none of that
ended up happening but I don't know. I'm
still just more angry at the George W.
Bush administration at like in this
example that that you're talking about
here. It's not as if again I guess I
guess more or less what I'm what I'm
saying here is that it's like there's
what you said something else is going on
here something else where it's like yes
I think what you said that you you have
very effectively
changed the conversation from being like
we're going to rally around kind of rah
rah low IQ conservative slop which I've
seen a real effort to push out there
like it's the left
>> the left us. The left hates all of us.
And like, you know, and don't get me
wrong, there are disgusting leftists out
there. There were people who were
celebrating Charlie Kirk as the
creepiest thing in the world, but
actually that's kind of a pretty
>> isolated, sad, mentally disturbed
person. I don't know that that does
represent the left broadly, you know,
like I I don't actually think that's
true. And so, like I I don't know. I
just I guess I do question like where
what the motivation with a lot of these
different things are. And I look,
there's no question that I think you're
really on to something when you say that
that's what this was supposed to be used
as, but not implying that it was done
for that reason, but simply saying that
a lot of people tried to manipulate that
to be like, "Hey, we're going to make
this a rahrh. We all get back into the
coalition." And then of course, we're
supposed to just not question the fact
that even though you've won the
argument, Ben Shapiro gets to be in
charge of the policy somehow. You know
what I
and we're supposed to just fall in line
with that. Whereas like the thing is
like no, that's not what we think the
appropriate response to this is. We're
not just going to support neocon
policies because a guy who didn't
support neocon policies got tragically
killed. That doesn't make sense.
>> It is kind of just amazing that it's
particularly people who support Israel
who want the investigation into Charlie
Kirk's death to have been open and shut.
I mean, that's just it's it's I notice
patterns. It's kind of weird. I haven't
seen one person who's radically Parisio
be like, "Oh, that is kind of weird."
You know, that is kind of weird this
happened. You don't have to totally bite
every conspiracy theory, but to not
recognize the anomalies in this case,
like they won't even be like, "Hey, that
is kind of weird that Joe Kent was shut
down from investigating foreign ties."
No, they all attack Joe Kent
immediately. They Joe Kent is this, he's
a he betrayed, he leaked all of these
things. Guys, that's why people find
Israel to be suspicious is because none
of you will even concede the points that
are easy to concede. Like if I was
actually like let's say and this is
hypothetical that Israel actually killed
him. If I'm in charge of the PR policy,
I'm going to say to my PR people, my my
Zionists, I'm going to be like, you
know, lean in a little bit to like I
recognize the obvious and be like, hey,
yeah, you know, that is a little weird
about we should investigate those
Egyptian planes. We, you know, he should
be allowed take a look at foreign
involvement. Maybe it's Iran. I think
Iran did it. They were just completely
like anti Joe Kent. Turning Point USA
included. That's why people think you're
shady, right? You're attacking Joe Kent
for telling coming telling people I was
not allowed to investigate foreign ties.
That's wild. And of course,
>> how is that not a natural partnership
for you to bring him on when he leaves
and Erica should be shocked by this?
Instead, he's saying, "Cash Patel didn't
let me do this." And Erica's friendly
with Cash Patel. That's crazy. That's
like It's a total inversion. I'm sorry.
People are noticing those strange
anomalies and thinking that it it makes
them uncomfortable. And yes, you this is
going to shock you, Dave. Like, I really
don't want to shock you. If the
government is actually involved in the
assassination of Charlie Kirk, they're
not going to want you to have the
evidence. It's a crazy thing. JFK
assassination, where is your hard
evidence? You know what? I did call the
military and ask them to to confirm
whether or not people were on the ground
that day and they wouldn't do Like when
he was pushing me on the France thing,
I'm like, "This came from a military
source. I did everything right and
reported this. What else am I going to
be able to do?" That would be the job of
of of Tulsi Gabbard's office, the job of
the White House, the job of our military
to investigate. Like, they're putting
the burden on us because they don't want
to do their jobs and look into foreign
ties. That's completely upside down. So
yeah, we're limited as citizens in terms
of being able to probe things, but we
can point out the strange anomalies and
we can clock the lies and that's what I
have been doing and what I will be
continuing to doing on my program.
>> Yeah. You know, I said the other day on
um on the show that because I don't
people will say this is one and I hate
this because well there's I guess these
are also partly my libertarian roots
because I am like a real kind of you
know Thomas Soul Murray Rothbart kind of
guy deep down but like people go oh
Candace has milked this. she's made so
much money over the last uh year talking
about these conspiracies and it's like I
don't know I always found that was
almost like yeah but that's like saying
like oh LeBron James has made so much
money because he played for the Lakers.
It's like, well, he's made a lot of
money playing for the Lakers, but he
would have made a lot of money had he
gone to another team also. Like, it's
just like, no, is one of the biggest
broadcasters in America, so yes, she's
made a lot of money on her show. But
your show, literally, your show, what
did you get? I can't remember the exact,
but it's like broke the YouTube. I think
you got like three million subscribers
the first day or two days when you left
the Daily Wire. Like, it was insane.
Like, it was like,
>> we were already, we were already in the
top 10 podcast globally. So, it's so
crazy that they're pretending that I
needed my friend to die to keep me
there.
>> I think I think actually like kind of
more what's going on here, which is
something that I find to be an
interesting dynamic and I think this is
true on um on the left with the
Democratic Socialist Rise. In fact, I I
said this on Pierce Morgan to that um
what's the guy the Babylon B guy um when
we were debating
>> the other one, Seth Dylan. And then you
I think played the clip on your show.
But I said to him at one point I go like
well you guys are so mad that Candace
Owens is so huge and Nick Fuentes is so
huge and like it's all your fault. I was
like it's all because of you. You guys
are the And so essentially I think like
really and this is my read on it
essentially here is that just like I
remember this happening with co I was
super against all the restrictions very
early in COVID. It was a really
unpopular position. It was dangerous. It
was like oh this might get you
demonetized. this might get you kicked
off of a social media thing. And then
slowly we won the argument and then by
the end of it it was just real wind at
your back because you had all this
street cred from being the one who was
and that's what's happened to everyone
who was against what Israel did to Gaza.
That really is kind of the long of the
short of it here is that everybody who
just opposed that the most obvious evil
thing ever to oppose got a whole lot of
street credit and now they have
credibility with their audience when it
comes to other issues. And don't get me
wrong, I don't love that a lot of the
lefties are trying to push socialism
with the credit that they've earned from
being against the war. But at the same
time, if you look at someone like Quuomo
and you go, "Well, why did mom Donnie
win?" It's like, well, because it's a
rejection of you. And I just think in a
similar sense, it's like, no, it's not
that
>> it's not that, oh, you like like it's
the same misunderstanding the moment of
going, oh, so you got a big audience
because you talk about conspiracies with
Charlie. It's like, no, you had the big
audience, you had the credibility, and
they followed you on that is a much more
accurate way of like just describing
what we've all just lived through and
witnessed. And and then I want to give
you a a final word on this, but I also
do think I'm interested just your take,
this last question, I promise. Um, I
think that trend is going to continue
going forward in in American politics.
And I think that for the future of of
say like broadly speaking like
non-interventionist, non-war hawk
right-wingers, whatever broadly we would
define ourselves as,
we're going to have to get people who
have been against this from the
beginning. And I'm looking at Tucker
Carlson, Thomas Massie, people like
that. I think they're the only ones who
are going to be able to carry this thing
forward. I I don't see how anyone from
this administration does it.
>> Yeah. We we finally have reached a point
where it pays to tell the truth, right?
and we were not living. Um, and in the
pre-COVID world, I'm actually happy co
happened. I looked back on it and I I
realized that it was the it was an evil
which fractured people's trust with the
mainstream media. People who listened to
them, did what they said, masked
themselves, didn't speak to their family
members, took it, you know, my sister
was one of them. Like, she wouldn't let
me meet her baby. Um, and I was like,
I'm not doing this. I was never I mean,
not even for a single day I accept a
narrative because I was already antivax
and I knew how what the government does
and had researched it. And so, yeah, you
you earn I earned a little bit of
credibility there, but more importantly
is the audiences said, I don't actually
I now recognize these sorts of campaigns
where you start saying the same thing.
Wear a mask, save lives. I say on my
show now it's like the evidence is
overwhelming that Tyler Robinson did
this. Like, why are you all saying the
same thing? Why are you using, you know,
honor the widow, honor the widow? It's
like, no, just articulate something that
makes sense that happened on September
10th. I don't need to honor anybody.
Like, just tell me like actually what
happened and I'm I want to believe
something that makes sense. Like, my
brain naturally wants to do that. Um,
and so I agree with you. It's going
forward you're going to have to tell the
truth. And for some reason, you know,
across the board, left and right, that
shocks people because they're so used to
be giving, you know, uh, all of these
awards and accolades and, uh, being told
that they're amazing because they're
just putting on a performance and
they're lying. But we're we're in this
weird place now where that no longer
serves. They look like they're lying.
They sound like they're lying. And so,
not only just tell the truth, but also
exercise humility when you get something
wrong. say, "Oh, you know, I I had
showed you guys I do that on my show all
the time where I'm like, I was pursuing
this and then I learned this
information. Um, so that's just not
right." Demonstrate that you're you're
willing to be wrong. Like you're you're
not some expert that just gets to Dr.
Fouchy your way through this stuff and
you know what I mean and Dr. Fouch your
way through this and say, "Well, I I'm
this person or that person." And you
know, be passionate about what you're
speaking about. I think also matters as
well. People know that I deeply care
about what happened to Charlie. Um I I
there like I when I said there was no
candidates without Charlie, I meant that
like I came up in politics with him. He
trained me on how to debate. He trained
me on all this stuff. We traveled the
world together. And um my perspective
shifted on Israel first, his shifted
second. Like just shortly behind it. And
we never lost our relationship in
between that. You know, it's the same
way that like I know that if I were ever
to be having a debate on Israel, like I
wouldn't want to debate you on it. Like
you're just you've read so much so you
know common sense. I'm not going to go
into that. this is something that you've
been passionate about that you actually
had to do something and stand up to
people that you should have been
naturally allied with and you you're
just deeper on the topic. Be reasonable
and allow people that know more to speak
about topics as well. You know, yield
that floor to them almost and find what
it is that actually drives you. Um and
yeah, I I think actually despite all the
things that have happened, America is
actually becoming in many ways more
cohesive. The left and right paradigm is
fracturing and there's just a lot to be
hopeful for. Yeah, I I really that was
very well said and I I completely agree.
All right. Well, Gandice, I always just
love talking to you. I adore you. Thank
you so much for for taking the time. As
I said to you off air, uh more
importantly than your debate victory,
congratulations on your growing
beautiful family. I wish you all the
best um with the uh the third trimester.
And don't be be easy on George. You
know, it's not his fault.
>> That's what I remember. It's women. You
really don't understand what men have to
go through in that third trimester. It's
very hard on us. Gosh, try to be try to
just be
>> It's just honestly, yeah, it is. It's a
third trimester. It's just the absolute
worst. It's when the pregnancy begins.
And so, it was it was not a good time to
come down to debate me and think that I
was going to tolerate you acting like a
brat. Okay. It's not going to work.
That's the worst worst time to come and
try to fix my face.
>> But it was calm. But you had calm mom
energy, which was good. It was like,
"No, we won't be doing any of that
today." All right. Well, thank you so
much. Of course, everybody, you know
where you can find the Candace Owens
show, and you can follow her all over
social media. Uh, we'll throw a link to
the Andrew Wilson debate in the
description, but judging by the view
counts, I think everyone has seen it
already, but if in case there you
haven't, we'll we'll throw that there.
Thank you so much, Candace. Keep up the
great work and we'll talk soon.
>> Thank you so much. See you guys next
time.
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
