Up Next
Unanswered Questions Mount in Charlie Kirk Investigation as New Evidence Emerges
12:13
Andrew Wilson Caught in Multiple Lies During Candace Owens Debate on Charlie Kirk Case
31:30
Candace Owens Exposes Kash Patel and FBI Cover-Up in Charlie Kirk Investigation After Joe Kent's Foreign Involvement Leads Rejected
27:36
Dave Smith Breaks Down the Candace Owens vs Andrew Wilson Debate on Charlie Kirk
Dave Smith offers his detailed analysis of the high-profile debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson regarding the Charlie Kirk case. Despite generally agreeing with Andrew's positions, Dave explains why he believes Candace won the debate decisively. He examines key moments including the infamous "name the seven charges" exchange, discusses the broader implications for conspiracy theories and official narratives, and shares his personal perspective on covering the Charlie Kirk case. Dave also addresses the role of debate tactics versus honest truth-seeking, the pressure Andrew created by offering $300,000 for the debate, and why the optics matter as much as the arguments when trying to win over an audience.
A Debate That Captivated Millions
The debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson has become one of the most-watched political debates in recent history, accumulating nearly five million views on Candace's channel alone, with additional streams on Patrick Bet-David's platform and other channels. Dave Smith, who knows all three participants personally and has extensive debate experience himself, offers a unique perspective on what transpired and why it matters.
Dave opens by acknowledging his respect for everyone involved while making his position clear: despite probably agreeing with Andrew on many points, this was unquestionably a win for Candace and a loss for Andrew. He's quick to clarify that this doesn't spell the end of Andrew's career—Andrew is talented, smart, and has had a successful year including multiple appearances on Joe Rogan. However, the debate didn't go as planned for him.
The $300,000 Burden
One of Dave's key observations centers on Andrew's strategy of offering Candace $300,000 to accept the debate. While this tactic works brilliantly as a promotional tool—creating dramatic clips where someone confidently declares they'll pay a massive sum because they're certain they'll destroy their opponent—it becomes a massive burden once the debate is accepted.
The high price tag creates an expectation that Andrew must not just win, but dominate. When you've publicly invested that much money and confidence, anything short of a decisive victory becomes a loss. The consensus from polls (including one with 150,000 respondents where Candace took roughly 70% of the vote) clearly indicated she won. Dave argues that when you pay this much to make a debate happen, you have to win convincingly, and that simply didn't occur.
Critical Moments and Tactical Errors
Dave identifies several specific moments where Andrew's approach backfired. First, he notes that Andrew read his opening statement from his phone while sitting close to Candace and Patrick Bet-David. For the biggest debate of his career, with millions watching, Dave found this choice baffling—the opening should have been memorized to maintain eye contact and human connection.
More problematically, Andrew defined "overwhelming evidence" as "evidence that convinces me," which Dave characterizes as an appeal to his own authority. Candace effectively needled him throughout the debate about this circular reasoning, mocking it as no more valid than saying "it came to me in a dream."
When asked to assign a percentage to his confidence, Andrew said 75%—a number Dave found surprisingly low given Andrew's previous declarative statements. More importantly, 75% is well below the threshold for "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal proceedings, essentially justifying Candace's entire line of inquiry.
The Seven Charges Debacle
The most devastating moment came when Candace challenged Andrew to name the charges against Tyler Robinson. This exchange became the debate's defining moment. After Andrew confidently stated he could name them, he hesitated and said "I think he's been charged with murder," using the qualifier "I think" when discussing the most serious charge in a case he'd paid $300,000 to debate.
When Andrew then challenged Candace to name all seven charges—presumably to expose her lack of knowledge—she proceeded to list them all correctly, even explaining the distinction between murder and aggravated murder (which carries the death penalty). Dave compares this to a bombing comedian trying to hand the microphone to a heckler—a move that only works when you're already winning over the crowd. When you're struggling and your opponent succeeds at your challenge, it devastates your position.
Dave notes that when you stop a debate to demonstrate your opponent doesn't know what they're talking about, and they prove they do, all that intended damage reflects back on you. You were attempting a smear that failed, making you look unprepared for a debate you initiated.
Debate Tactics vs. Truth-Seeking
Robbie Bernstein, Dave's co-host, expresses strong criticism of Andrew's approach, characterizing it as prioritizing debate tactics over honest truth-seeking. He points out that Andrew demanded intellectual standards from Candace that he didn't apply to himself—refusing to defend individual pieces of evidence while insisting she couldn't appeal to the totality of evidence.
Dave agrees that Andrew employed numerous debate tricks that backfired in this particular setting. The three-hour format with Patrick Bet-David differs from shorter, more combative environments where rapid-fire questioning might work better. Candace effectively called out these tactics, at one point refusing to be rushed and telling Andrew that his strategy of imposing artificial time constraints wouldn't work on her—adding that he'd be better in future debates for learning this lesson.
Lack of Case Mastery
Perhaps most surprisingly to Dave, Andrew didn't demonstrate the deep case knowledge he expected. When Candace presented arguments—such as questioning why fingerprints would be degraded in a certain pattern if they represented chronological order of touching the gun—Andrew didn't offer counterarguments or alternative explanations. Dave kept waiting for Andrew to provide responses like "maybe he wiped the gun" or cite forensic expertise, but these answers never came.
Dave also criticizes Andrew's approach of pulling gotcha clips throughout the debate rather than presenting a coherent theory of the case. A more effective strategy, Dave suggests, would have been pressing Candace on her working theory: "You've been investigating this for a year—what exactly do you think happened?" Then demonstrate weaknesses in that theory while presenting his own evidence-based conclusion.
The clips and accusations about Candace making various claims came across as attempting to discredit her personally rather than addressing whether there's overwhelming evidence Tyler Robinson committed the shooting—which was supposedly the debate topic.
Dave's Personal Position on the Charlie Kirk Case
Dave takes time to explain his own relationship with the Charlie Kirk case, addressing criticism he's received for not covering it more extensively. He recounts that immediately after Charlie Kirk's death, he took a public stand that drew significant backlash from his audience—he criticized people who were speculating that Israel was responsible, calling it irresponsible given the lack of evidence.
He explains why he stopped doing extensive coverage despite knowing the topic would generate huge numbers: it's not his area of expertise. Dave distinguishes between his knowledge of political philosophy, economics, and military history versus detective work and forensics. He also wanted to respect that this involved a real person he knew who was violently killed and left behind children.
That said, Dave notes a major turning point: when Joe Kent, the director of counterterrorism, publicly stated the investigation had been suppressed and raised questions about the official narrative, it changed the equation. The highest authority in counterterrorism didn't admonish Candace's investigation but instead confirmed there were leads the FBI had stifled. At that point, Dave argues, how can anyone be furious at people asking questions?
The Israel Lobby Complication
Dave points out that while there might normally be an honor code about not mentioning certain parties without hard evidence, the behavior of the Israeli government and lobby changed those rules. Benjamin Netanyahu immediately began lying about Charlie Kirk's positions while the body was still warm. The entire Israel lobby—which Charlie had been openly criticizing and perhaps turning against—misrepresented his views.
Then Charlie's widow appeared at the Republican National Convention in leather pants, physically close to the vice president, inserting herself very publicly into political discourse. Dave argues that when these parties so egregiously insert themselves into the narrative and behave so strangely, they essentially give permission for the conspiracy theories that follow. You can't declare certain topics off-limits while simultaneously making them central to your public messaging.
The Double Standard on Conspiracy Theories
Both Dave and Robbie discuss the inconsistency in how conspiracy theories are treated. Dave points out that many of the same people criticizing Candace seem fine with Alex Jones, who has been wrong about numerous major claims—including a documentary arguing the ruling elite planned to reduce humanity to 300,000 people. If the standard is that you can't be a conspiracy theorist who gets things wrong, that standard should apply consistently.
Dave references the COVID experience, after which Robbie says he'll never side with official narratives against those questioning them. The government's track record of lying—about Iraq, potentially about JFK and Martin Luther King Jr.—makes it reasonable to explore whether they might target domestic political figures who threaten their interests.
Charlie Kirk was the biggest political organizer of young right-wing Americans, he had the president's ear, and he was a vocal opponent of a war the U.S. was jointly fighting with Israel—a government known for targeted assassination campaigns. While this isn't evidence Israel did anything, Dave argues it's clearly fertile ground for conspiracy theories to emerge, and that's almost unavoidable.
Where the Evidence Stands
Dave admits he hasn't followed every detail but estimates he's about 75% confident Tyler Robinson committed the shooting—similar to Andrew's stated confidence level. However, he notes this leaves a substantial 25% possibility that something else occurred, which justifies continued investigation.
From what he's seen, the evidence consists primarily of a confession note, text messages that could be interpreted as a nervous person turning themselves in, some testimony about confessing to parents and police (though we haven't heard them actually say this), and surveillance footage of someone who looks like Robinson on campus—but nothing showing the actual shooting. Dave finds it "rather odd" that evidence was returned to the Kirk family, the site was immediately paved over, and a camera that was taken down was apparently never turned over.
He emphasizes that he's interested in the upcoming trial, where more information should emerge. He's not jumping to conclusions or chasing clicks—he wants to respect that an actual person he knew and respected was killed.
Candace's Right to Investigate
While acknowledging he hasn't watched all of Candace's coverage and that she may have made claims he wouldn't want to defend, Dave argues she has every right to explore her theories. He draws a parallel to COVID, where questioning official narratives was dismissed and censored, only for many "conspiracy theories" to later be validated.
Robbie notes that accusing Erica Kirk publicly without strong evidence might be inappropriate (similar to the Sandy Hook situation where getting that aspect wrong becomes more serious), but the general act of investigating the case and questioning the official narrative should not be condemned. The debate demonstrated there are enough unusual elements in the case to justify asking questions and developing theories about what might have taken place.
The Turning Point Text Message Revelation
Dave identifies another moment that backfired: Andrew reading a new text message from Charlie Kirk that Turning Point USA had provided him. This made Turning Point look terrible—they're essentially represented by Andrew in this debate, and now they're feeding him information to use against Candace.
More problematically, the text message contradicted Erica Kirk's previous public statements. She had attacked Candace and said it was completely untrue and made up that Charlie ever said anything about fearing for his life, claiming she had his phone and knew this for a fact. Now they were doing a complete reversal, saying Charlie was afraid but of the left, and they'd kept this quiet only to reveal it in an attempt to discredit Candace.
When Andrew said he'd reveal more on his own show, it seemed like he was doing exactly what he was criticizing Candace for—teasing information for content purposes rather than presenting it in the debate where it could be examined.
The Importance of Winning Over the Audience
Dave emphasizes that the point of public debates isn't just to have the best argument on paper—it's to move the audience. Optics matter. Andrew appeared nervous, was twitching his leg throughout, read his prepared opening, and seemed less calm than Candace, who cracked her knuckles and appeared ready to engage naturally.
Some have argued the polls showing Candace won are misleading because she has a bigger audience, but Dave dismisses this as cope. He points out that he's been trying to debate Ben Shapiro for years—if he finally got that debate and 70% of viewers thought Shapiro won, he couldn't dismiss it by saying Shapiro has a bigger audience. That's just losing. The job is to win over whatever audience is watching.
Candace collected $300,000 and didn't lose a single fan from this debate. If Andrew's goal was to expose her, stop her investigation, or damage her credibility, he failed completely. All the optics favored her.
Lessons for Future Debates
Dave, speaking from his own debate experience, notes that some tactics work in certain formats but not others. The rapid-fire questioning and interruption tactics Andrew employed might work in a contentious cable news segment but fall flat in a long-form, sit-down conversation where they come across as evasive and disrespectful rather than commanding.
He also emphasizes the critical importance of mastering your subject matter. When you're the challenger, when you've paid to make the debate happen, when you've publicly stated you're going to "ruin" your opponent—you need to know the case cold. You need to be able to respond to every challenge, explain every piece of evidence you cite, and have a clear, coherent narrative to present.
Finally, Dave suggests that Andrew would be better served by dropping some of the debate tricks entirely. While they might occasionally work, the risk of them backfiring—as they did spectacularly in this debate—outweighs the benefit. Honest, straightforward engagement with the material and the opponent tends to be more effective, especially in long-form formats where the audience has time to notice patterns of evasion or bad faith.
Video Transcript
[music]
What's up? What's up everybody? Welcome
to a brand new episode of Part of the
Problem. I am Dave Smith and of course
he is Robbie the Fire Bernstein. How are
you, sir?
>> Oh, I had a magical porch the other day
and uh we had a fun time out in uh
Appleton, Wisconsin.
>> We sure did.
>> The club, not the town. I still stand by
last year's remarks.
>> Great people. Great people. Great comedy
audiences. Not much to do in Appleton,
Wisconsin.
>> And uh I got more shows this weekend.
I've got a small porch in Philly. Uh
that's going to sell out, so grab
tickets. I think I only got room for
about 20 people. Then I got Doylestown,
PA. Then on Saturday, if you can make
the trip, I'm at the original porch in
Myersville, Maryland. Private bar. I'm
staying there that night. It's a party
night. Come on out. And then uh I'm
doing a comedy club in White Plains on
Sunday, which you can find on my
website, robberston comedy.com. Porttore
dates at porchtore.com and then you and
I oh actually no you're out at the
mothership.
>> I got the comedy mothership. That is my
next uh my next stop guys. It's um
August 28th through 30th. Um the shows
are here last I checked I think they're
like half sold out. So if you want to
get tickets now is the time. Uh you can
do that over at the comedymothership.com
or comicdabesmith.com will take you over
to that ticket link too. And then after
that, we got Louisville, me and you, Rob
Louville in September. And then uh back
to the uh Hyenas in in Fort Worth and
Dallas, which I'm really looking forward
to that. Those are always
>> fun fun shows, man. Um always have a
good time out there. And so I do doing
Austin and Dallas in the next couple
months is fun for me. I always uh I
always love my Texas comedy gigs. I
don't know why they always want me out
there in the summer, but Texas is it is
awfully hot. Anyway, okay. So, let's get
>> You should do those as winter gigs.
>> Yeah. No, it's never I don't uh half the
thing my entire summer schedule every
single year, Rob. Every single year,
they're always like, "Okay, so in in
August, we're going to send you to Fort
Lauderdale and Austin and Tampa and" and
you're like, "Well, why do you hate me?"
>> And get Salt Lake City back for
February. that rolled.
>> Oh, I know you got some good skiing out
there that one time.
>> All right. Well, listen, let's let's uh
discuss a bit. I feel like uh it's it's
a almost a thing that we have to talk
about. So many people have asked my
opinion on this thing and it's kind of
rare, I guess, that there's,
you know, there's there's a lot of
debates and there's a lot of podcasts.
It's rare that there's one that's so big
that people want you to comment on it
even when you weren't directly involved
in it. Of course, I'm referring to
Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson debating
on Candace's show. They got Pat uh
Patrick Bet David to be the moderator of
the thing. And it has been one of the
it's got to be one of the biggest
debates in, you know, in history. I
mean, it's like the thing is um I don't
know. I do I I got to say I find it very
fascinating on a lot of different
levels, which is part of why I wanted to
talk to you about it. Um, but the debate
itself, I just saw it's got like um it's
got millions of view. I mean, this thing
has almost five million views just on
Candace's channel. And it was streamed
on Patrick Bit David's channel, too. It
was streamed on another huge channel,
too. And then I don't know the numbers
on, you know, I'm sure on Twitter, on
Spotify, and all that. I mean, this is,
you know, like I I I I don't know, but
like how many people actually saw like
the Lincoln Douglas debates? You know
what I mean? I guess it was like the
audience there or you know like I don't
these it's it's crazy that we live in a
world where these things happen. Um of
course obviously it's it's about a very
sensitive subject that people are very
um understandably emotional about.
Anyway, it was a big uh a big spectacle
and I did think it was kind of
interesting. I
perhaps Rob, I have a little bit
different of a perspective on this thing
because I well I I'm uniquely interested
in politics and debating. I love it. Um
I know all three people involved and
I've done some pretty high-profile
debates myself. So I, you know, I kind
of see these things in maybe a little
bit different of a way. Um but yeah,
let's let's get into a bunch of it. I
guess I should just come out and say up
top and then we can we can get into all
the details, but I disclaimer I like and
respect everybody involved here. I don't
have a um I I don't have a um a horse in
the race in that sense. And in fact, I
probably overall probably probably agree
with Andrew on a lot of the points that
he made, but I just see no way around
the fact that this was a this was a big
win for Candace and it was a loss for
Andrew. Now, I think some people are
making way too much of that. I I've saw
people out there saying like his
career's over and I don't think that's
true. Andrew is a very smart guy. He's a
very talented debater. He's had a big a
very big year. He was on Rogan a couple
times. He's done huge shows. I think
Andrew is going to have a great career
and go on to do more stuff and and I
like and respect Andrew. I think he's
got a lot of good points to make. Um,
look, we can get into a lot of the
details, which I guess we'll we'll do
that now. But I'll I'll just start by
saying this, then you can give your
general thoughts.
I really felt this way actually I guess
maybe like a couple days before the
debate when I was thinking about it
because I kind of couldn't believe it
actually came to fruition but I was like
you know and and I think this kind of
played out
the tactic that Andrew used to get this
debate where he made a big spectacle and
he raised a ton of money or or he spent
money I don't know but he gave her like
300 grand I think to do this debate and
he called her out on Rogan and he go
this that tactic
works so well while you're selling it.
When you're on Rogan and you have a
little clip where you go, "Dude, I'm
going to give you $300,000 to debate
me." But like, that works very well
because it's like, "Wow, dude, you're
raising so much money cuz you're that
confident that you're going to just like
eviscerate this person." Like, you're
going to go there and you're going to
damage. That's why you're willing to
give them this money even though you
think they're doing something really
bad. you're going to reward them with a
huge sum of money because the payoff is
going to be so worth it that you're
going to and as you approach the actual
debate once it's accepted that now
becomes a burden. It's a big onus on you
that you kind of got to destroy this
person. And when you see Patrick Bet
Dave look the the consensus seems to be
that she won. There was a poll with like
150,000 people. Candace took like the
super majority of it. She took like 70%
of it. And I had a poll that I put up
after didn't have that many. We had like
60,000 people. And same thing, she took
the super majority. And it's just like
on some level, you kind of can't get
past that. You when you pay this much
money to make a debate happen, you have
to win. The consensus has to be that you
won. And that's not the consensus. So
just on that alone, you kind of take an
L. But whatever. I curious what your
thoughts are, Rob, on we can we can
start general and then kind of get into
specifics.
>> All right. Well, I'm going to take a
slightly different approach here. I'm
going to say that I don't know any of
the individuals involved. And I just
don't like Andrew Wilson [laughter]
and
>> and you know, I'm working with uh
overwhelming evidence, which is just my
personal feelings of seeing this guy on
occasion and just going, I don't like
him. And if I would clarify what I'm
working off of when I say I don't like
him, which I'll repeat again to make it
clear [laughter]
and really blow up relationships of
yours. You have no ownership of this. I
don't I like it. I like Andrew. Um, no.
I I think from what I've seen of Andrew,
uh, it's less of a pursuit of finding
truth as much as it is the sportsmanship
of debating, which I doesn't does not
personally appeal to me. I'm not
actually interested in debating. Um, and
I find it more engaging like debates can
be engaging. The way that he's going
about it and his pursuit of it does not
really uh I I don't find interesting or
rewarding. Uh why I particularly think
he lost this debate is kind of what I
was mocking him for up front is that
he's very demanding of that everything's
got to be perfectly thought out and
well-reasoned and he basically just
folded when he came in and said my
personal feelings are that it's
overwhelming evidence and he never
actually stated a case for it. Um and so
the reason why he's the big loser to me
is I I mean you got to hear this again
cuz I already said it to you. If you
gave me a debate with Fouchy during
COVID where I could give Fouchy let's
say $10 million so he actually would
have sat down with me, he would have
walked out ruined because I would have
had the questions to ask him. I I don't
need to litigate it here because I've
done it a hundred times, but there are
common sense questions I could have
asked him. He would not have had an
answer to. And you would have gone, "How
does a comedian take down supposedly the
world's biggest scientist?" He would
have been ruined.
>> Andrew was the challenger. He came in
there to go, I'm going to ruin you. He
never actually stated a case for why he
thought there was overwhelming evidence.
Demanded an intellectual honesty from
her that he was not applying to himself.
And uh more than anything, I think if
nobody knew anything about this trial
whatsoever and decided to watch that
debate, they walked away thinking
there's something screwy here. Now,
that's not to say that there aren't some
gaps in Candace's conclusions, but I
think you'd be more open to Candace's
outlook of the incident than, hey, this
kid is definitely the shooter. 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% 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 and actual
currency that is on the gold standard.
So stop relying on a broken system and
head over to goldback.comdave
to learn more. That's goldback.comdave.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Let me say, okay, let me say a few
things about all of this. Number one,
because I look, listen, I want I
understand you don't like Andrew and and
also I think even Andrew would probably
acknowledge he's not he's not the most
likable person and he doesn't make any
attempt to be more likable. Like he
doesn't mind, you know, bothering
people. And that's fine. It's and look,
I will say this, Andrew is a very
talented debater. He is a very good
debater. He also uses a lot of tactics
and personally I feel like he doesn't
need them for for the most part but they
didn't work in this debate and for
reasons and but I'll say this I also did
feel and I you know I could be wrong
about this but um I felt like he was a
little bit tight like he was a little
bit nervous in the debate and that
didn't help. Um also it's that it's a
really big moment. That's a big big
moment. It's a little bit different, you
know, it's it's like there is more
pressure and there is and there was and
he put a lot of pressure on himself in
this debate to your point. Number one, I
and I understand people could say maybe
I'm like um this is just optics or
something, but you know, the point of
these pursuits is to move the audience.
I mean, that's the goal here. And so
that does matter. It's not just your
argument. It's also how you and I got to
say I was really I was surprised by a
few things. Number one, I was really
surpris I just expected
I I expected Andrew to come in with a
mastery of the case. Like I've got this
thing and I did not get that from him.
And there were several points in it
where it was just like oh that did not
and I I you know um I thought reading
his opening was a huge mistake. Like
dude this is the biggest show of your
life. This is the biggest debate in the
country. We're all watching. This is
like you've you created this moment that
now got millions and millions of people
to watch it. You got memorize your
opening, man. Remember the arguments.
And if you're going it it becomes so not
human when you're very closely sitting
to Candace and and Patrick David and
you're reading off your phone your
opening argument while you're making
like these declarative statements about
her and how she's ruining the
conservative movement but you're not
like looking at her. You're reading it
off of your foot. So, I thought that was
very bad. And and I got to say it was
almost like just I I thought there was a
way he could have gone at her that would
have been much more successful. But the
way of like by the time you got through
this him reading his opening and then
the first round of like back and forth,
he's already in his opening defined
overwhelming evidence as evidence that
convinces me, which is like that's
really bad. appeal to your own
authority.
>> Yes. It's it's like um and then Candace
needled him with that throughout the
debate. She goes, "Oh, I guess it came
to me in a dream." You know, mocking how
that's really no more of a standard than
it came to me in a dream, which is like
a fair point. Um and and so and then so
first he says that, then Pat asked them
the question and he goes 75%.
which this is look certainly that sounds
a a whole lot less confidence than than
some of the statements Andrew had been
making before that and 75% is like I was
shocked Candace didn't jump on it right
away because then she says zero and that
created a crazy contrast but 75% is like
oh that's a quiddle you know I
understand the trial hasn't started yet
but 75% is we got to acquit right I mean
I don't know exactly what percentage you
put beyond a reasonable doubt but that's
way over 75 you don't convict people for
75%. So like I thought that was kind of
why I thought 75% is a number that
justifies Candace's entire pursuit and
and so then
um it was the point again this is all
very early on in the debate then she
started asking if you remember Rob at
one point about um so essentially she
she brings up a tweet of his where he
goes there's overwhelming evidence come
here man and it lists off these things.
It goes, "Dude, there's four different
pictures of him on the video camera.
There's his gun with the DNA evidence.
There's this. There's that." Right? Like
he has this tweet where look look dude
the evidence is overwhelming. And then
as she grills him about this,
he kind of doesn't really have a thing
to be like, "No, like like she
essentially goes she goes, "Well, look
at all these photos. I've seen these
photos. You can't tell a single one of
them's Tyler Robinson." And then instead
of just conceding that that's not really
good, he tries to do the game of like,
well, no, it's evidence because it's in
context and it's supported by other
evidence. And then she's like, but
what's the other EV? But you're like,
no, but what's you just lost? You lost
that, man. If you don't have a response
to the fact that I can't tell, like
again, I'm somebody who has not I'm not
a a a criminologist. I don't know
detective work and forensics and any of
this. So speak to me like I'm really
stupid. But what was the response to
that? Oh, well then that evidence is
gone. So the first thing you mentioned
is gone now because you don't have a
defense. Then she makes her argument.
There were lots of arguments there where
I thought maybe there was an opening for
cuz there must be more evidence than
just hearsay, right? And there maybe
there is an answer to why fingerprints
would be degraded even if that doesn't
represent the chronological order of
event. You know what I'm saying here,
Rob? I don't know anything about that.
But Andrew didn't offer I I was almost
waiting even for him to to go like well
this doesn't prove anything. Maybe he
wiped the gun or like I don't know. I
don't know the answer, but he didn't
seem to know. So essentially what I
thought had happened is that by the time
that opening period was over, he had
essentially
like I think in his mind he was almost
like, I'm going to fight her even on
that first one and then I'm gonna
destroy her in the second half. But he
actually lost the first half. And I
don't think he ever recovered from that
deficit because by the end of it, it
just became a thing that it was like,
"Okay, so like you're saying it's
overwhelming that he did it. She's
saying it's overwhelming that he he
didn't. Neither one of you can really
back up the claim that it's
overwhelming." And it just became a
thing of like you're both going in this
direction. But there was never really
the moment
like where Andrew really connected the
dots. Like I thought he was going to set
up for some type of at least attempted
home run swing at the end, but he never
really went he never really gave us a
why of why this whole thing needed to
happen. Like you've been doing this
Candace like what is your working theory
on the case? Hold her to that.
demonstrate that she doesn't really have
a theory and then go, "Okay, you've
you've been doing this for a year and
you still don't have a theory and here's
why that's so horrible that you did
that."
You know what I'm saying? Like there's
but it never really connected like that.
And then there were just kind of moments
throughout it where she just seemed to
know the case better than him.
So, I don't know. Did I leave there
convinced of any of Candace's theories?
No.
But did I did I leave there feeling that
Andrew Wilson had really demonstrated
anything? No. And so you just kind of
had two people going back and forth, one
of whom seemed to know the case a little
bit more. And I got to say, the the
debate was well, I could get into it
more, but as I said, it was riddled with
little tactics that Andrew used that
just backfired on him in in this one. It
just didn't work.
>> I didn't
Okay. I I think he never proved that she
was kind of being negligent or
misleading in terms of trying to
question what is going on here. And so
in the first half, he essentially just
folded. He never once gave a pitch for
here's why I actually think he uh Tyler
Robinson did it. He just appealed to his
own authority and said I find it over.
But he never he never explained here's
why I think it's overwhelming or at
least I I I maybe he said between the
confession and the this and but then
every time he was asked on any
particular piece of evidence he didn't
want to defend it and then he just said
it's the totality of the evidence while
also turning it to Candace and not
letting her go it's everything together
and pinning her to it's a gap between
this one single instance. So once again,
kind of uh applying an intellectual
standard to her that he wasn't going to
keep to, but he just kind of folded on
the first half. He never gave a pitch
for here's why I think it's overwhelming
that he did it. Uh and I felt that it
was essentially a dishonest tactic of
that he wanted to go in there and try
and just uh say here's why Candace is
not credible. And then even in the
second half, he didn't quite prosecute
the claim of uh whether or not there's
overwhelming evidence of of him being a
pathy. Instead, he kind of mostly
pursued a storyline of here's some crazy
things that you've said in regards to
Erica Kirk or other claims, but that
wasn't actually in line with the debate
topic of whether or not there's
overwhelming evidence of Apache.
>> So, I I don't know. He kind of just went
in with a dishonest play of here's how
I'm going to be able to play some gotcha
clips and hold your your feet to the
fire. But I think she just demonstrated
that there's enough uh there's enough
screwy in this case that it's reasonable
to have a podcast and ask these
questions and have theories about what
might have taken place here. Well, I
mean, look, I I'll tell you this. It's I
guess perhaps my feeling on all of this
is that
I understand like if people want to
criticize Candace's methodology or they
want to say quite frankly that she's
gone down some goofy trails that just
turned out to be wrong or whatever like
I I mean I'm not I I think okay you know
make your argument then what you know
and and maybe that's right but there is
this kind of like almost implicit thing
that Look, Andrew, obviously he's there
to ruin her. That's the goal. You know,
he's not mincing words about that.
You're there to ruin her. You're you're
putting up this money so that you can
destroy her. You're all claiming that
like she's doing something so wrong. And
I just kind of sit here and I go, "Wait,
like do you guys all hate Alex Jones?"
Like all, you know, like what what's
really going on here? like, you know,
and and don't get me wrong, like I know
like Fuentes and Candace, they have a
personal thing like and and whatever.
And I certainly, you know, like I've
said publicly before, I think it was
wrong the way Candace and Tucker went at
him and and I know that after they did
their podcast together, they, you know,
he felt wronged by the way she handled
it or whatever, but like do you hate
Alex Jones guts or are you like, are you
cool with him too? Cuz like Alex Jones
literally was on record telling me that
the the he made a whole documentary
about how the ruling elite were going to
exterminate the human species and reduce
us down to 300,000 people and that that
was their whole plan and that it's a
pretty catastrophic thing to be wrong
about. Like it's quite a claim, you
know, and there's a whole bunch more
like that he just I mean half of his
loose change claims don't hold. So,
like, oh, are you actually like, is that
the rule that you're not allowed to be a
conspiracy theorist and you're not
allowed to ever get some wrong or
whatever? I I I don't know. It just
seems like, but you got to connect
though. You got to explain why this is
wrong, why this is worth it. And I never
got anything even approaching that. Um,
and then there were just there were like
a lot of moments where she,
you know, he would just when you have I
think just like like Pierce Morgan is a
different environment than Joe Rogan and
the whatever podcast is a different
environment than sitting down for 3
hours with Patrick BD David and Candace
Owens. And when she would do things
where like Candace was very good at
like when he would try to badger her
with questions, which is a thing he does
in debates a lot. And I don't and he
does it while someone's saying something
like like K will be in the middle of
going like, well, no, I'm not arguing
that there's overwhelming evidence that
he's a pacy. My claim is that there's
and she's like, so what's the ev what's
the evidence? was the was and you're
like dude she ju she she's in the middle
of trying to clarify her claim and she
would just stop and go no I'm not going
to fall into this debate tactic I will
you know what I mean and then of course
the ultimate one which I'm you know look
I'm sorry man and I understand I making
this episode I just think it's something
that is important enough to talk about
enough people have asked me about this
and I'm not I'm I'm in the business of
telling people my opinion on these
things and so I'm not going to not do
But I don't wish to like, you know, pick
any fights here over this. I know
there's it's kind of unavoidable, but
you know, I see that people out there
are kind of going like, "Oh, well, all
these polls are [ __ ] because Candace
just has a bigger audience." And but
you're like, "Yeah, but this is a cope,
man. It doesn't matter." But it doesn't
Look,
I've been trying to debate Ben Shapiro
for years, right? I I couldn't go debate
Ben Shapiro and then if 70% of the
audience thinks he won go well I mean he
had a better you know he has a bigger
audience than me so whatever it's still
no I I lose then like that's it you got
to win over the audience that's the
whole job of this thing and look I
understand where people are going to it
makes people and maybe after we get
through with the debate we could just
talk about Charlie Kirk a little bit and
kind of the the whole situation I know I
understand why people get very upset
about the why they're very emotional
about the issue. And I understand that
people are like, "No, but she didn't
have an argument. She didn't have a
tight argument for this theory or that
theory." I get it. And I understand that
the seven listing the seven charges is
isn't like actually an argument about a
point of any of these theories, but I'm
sorry, man. Like that was a huge that
was a bad bad moment for Andrew in that
debate. And I do actually think even
though this might hurt to see that
Candace said it, which was very she
played that well when she goes, "Oh,
here. No, this will help you in future
debates to know that this tactic doesn't
work." Um, I do think that he made a m
it was like a um I don't know what to
say. It was a gigantic
catastrophic
forced error in own goal I at the end of
this debate that you had put up such a
huge price tag for and then kind of like
I think failed to win and then so at the
end of it then to just have this moment
I'm sorry that's a disaster dude and
it's it's um we could get into it we
could play the clip in a second but go
ahead any thoughts you have bro
>> all right I uh I apologize because you
have personal relationships that I do
not have [laughter]
>> no you can give your opinion on a debate
it's like we're not a I listen go ahead
it's fine. [laughter]
>> Um but to me that moment really
demonstrated the pursuit of debate
tactics over honesty and when he's there
and he's trying to pivot away from the
fact that he does not actually know what
they are and he's trying to pull every
move of oh no let's just pull it up. Oh
okay now you list them. Listen him 1 2
3. And to me it's just demonstrating
this is not really an honest
conversation. It's not a pursuit over
truth. It's a display of tactics. And
>> listen, I I'll tell you, I I think just
from my perspective before, I think
Andrew is a very good debater when he's
debating, but I do think you're right
that he uses those tricks, too. And I
think he'd be better off not using them,
cuz as we're about to see here, they can
backfire. There's a reason why you don't
want to use some of these tricks. Um
>> I think to me it goes further than that
that it demonstrates that even when it's
working, it's not really a pursuit of
truth. and he gave to me he just kind of
showcased that he was giving away his
cards of he's not being honest.
>> All right guys, let's take a moment and
thank our sponsor for today's show which
is Crowd Health this summer. Enjoy real
freedom and healthcare that actually
works for you. Now you've heard me talk
about Crowd Health for many years, but
now they've made it even better with the
Black Swan membership. This is the no BS
alternative for people who want control
over their care, their costs, and their
lives. For just $85 a month, you get a
dedicated team of expert bill
negotiators fighting for you. Access to
lowcost prescriptions and lab testing,
plus a handcurated network of
highquality, affordable doctors vetted
by Crowd Health. So there's no insurance
companies, there's no restrictive doctor
networks telling you who you can and
can't see. There's no bureaucrats
deciding what you can and can't do. It's
just you in charge. And if a real black
swan event happens, you're responsible
for the first $15,000 and the crowd
steps up to help cover the rest. It's
like the healthcare we used to have
before Obamacare ruined everything. So
this summer, stop renting your health
from the system. Take your power back
and enjoy the season with real peace of
mind. If you're ready to make the
switch, head over to joincrowthealth.com
and use the promo code POTP and you'll
get your first three months for less
than $85. That's joincrowalth.com
and the promo code is POTP. All right,
let's get back into the show. Listen, I
get I get your point here. Let's let's
play uh this this portion of the uh of
the debate here. Thanks, Natalie.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, I think what I think is that
um Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.
>> Yeah, but of the seven charges that he's
he's being charged.
>> Yeah. Can we list them real quick? I'll
tell you exactly which ones. We'll pull
them up.
>> Well, do do you know any of the charges
he's up for right now?
>> Yeah, of course. But I want to make sure
that we have them listed.
>> Yeah, but pause it real quick. Can you
name because my my general
>> So now listen, just to be clear here,
um Candace is the one who first engages
in the gotcha
thing here, right? Like she's going
like, "Wait, wait, hold on. Can you name
a single one of the charges that he's
being charged with?" Now, the Okay,
look, the real problem here is that as
you see, Andrew responds, "Yeah, of
course." He lets her know, "Yeah, of
course." Now, he again
Listen, this was a I don't think Candace
should have done that tactic. It's a
risky tactic. All he has to do is name
one and then you look really bad. So,
like it's a risky thing. I don't know
what people think like if you just stop
in the middle of the debate and start
quizzing your opponent. The thing about
doing that is they got to fail the quiz
otherwise it really does backfire. And
and look, and I'll break this down in a
second here, but there's you can't not
count this as points against you like in
a debate. But so here's so here's how
Andrew handles this by being asked.
First he's asking to bring them up. Then
Candace challenges him. Can you name one
of them? He goes, "Yeah, of course." And
then responds with this. Let's keep
playing.
>> Perspective is that you don't actually
care about this case. You're not
following it. That's the That's the
question. You're just not following it.
>> It seems pretty like if you're going to
engage and you're going to say the
evidence is overwhelming that Tyler
Robinson is guilty. I just think that
you should like Can you tell me one
>> then? Let's do the Pause it. Pause it
right there.
>> Really hang out. This is a great
>> Now, look,
I don't look, I've been in in debates
with people before where I really feel
like they don't know the subject matter.
Um, and I just asking it point blank
like this, I think, is a risky move on
Candace's part. But you do got to admit
as far as these type of debate tactics
go for her to say, "Hey, look, like this
is a really pointlank call out. This is
a crazy thing to say to someone in the
middle of a debate that like you don't
know the topic. You know, this is this
is like on the level of of saying you've
never read about this. You don't know
anything about that. I mean, I do
remember one time um Austin Peterson was
debating Clint Russell about Israel,
Gaza, and he didn't know what the Nagba
was. Clint brought it up and he thought
he goes he goes, "Oh, you're referring
to the Balffor Declaration." He goes,
"The Balffor declar." and he didn't know
what and I and then Clint just moved on
to like his next point and I called
Clint after and I go dude you had to
like pounce on that more you know like
he still won the debate it was clear but
like I was like dude when someone's that
right you got to go dude then you have
no business debating this subject if you
don't know that but anyway Candace
Candace goes here she goes I don't think
you really know this and if you're going
to say the evidence is overwhelming
shouldn't you be able to list one of the
charges now I'm sorry
that is reasonable Rob Like that's a
that's a reasonable thing to say, right?
I I if you're you're saying the evidence
is overwhelming, my god, I am assuming
you know the charges of this case. Like
I'm assuming you know the case very well
and you're paying 300K to a debate on
the case. I just assume you're going to
show up with a mastery of this thing. Um
I've never paid 300K for a debate
before, but I've also never debated
anything. I didn't feel like I had
somewhat of a mastery of the topic. Um
but anyway,
she says, "Can you name one of the
charges?" He's already said, "Of course
I can." But now he takes this
opportunity to double down. And here's
the the the
here. Let's play the rest of it.
>> One, because my my general perspective
is that you don't actually care about
this case. You're not following. That's
the That's the question. You're just not
following.
>> It seems pretty like if you're going to
engage and you're going to say the
evidence is overwhelming that Tyler
Robinson is guilty. I just think that
you should like Can you tell me one
>> then? Let's do the You can really Yeah.
No, this is a great guy.
>> No, no, no. You just got to ask me. play
out of context, put me in the hot seat.
So, please just answer the question.
>> All seven since you've been following
the case.
>> Okay, sure. You name You name one.
>> Yeah, you named all seven.
>> I'm happy to do that, but can you name
one?
>> Uh, I think he's I think he's been
charged with murder.
>> That's actually incredible.
>> Okay, just all seven. [laughter]
So, real quick, now this is I'm I'm
sorry, guys. I I don't know how you say
this any other way. This was a de It's
already devastating. It's already
devastating at this point. And it's not
that he didn't get the qualifier. It's
not that he didn't get aggregated murder
and just said murder or whatever the
charges. It's that he went in that
moment, I think he's been charged with
murder. You go, wait a minute, dude. Not
only do you not know the charges against
him, you weren't clear. Like, you
weren't 100% on what the top one was.
You just said, "Of course I know." And
then went you like you lost that, dude.
Then when you you went to I think. Why
is the word think coming out of your
mouth? This is not like a subject. You
either know it or you don't know it. So
you you pretended you knew it, but you
didn't. And now I I I mean this is like,
by the way, I could have I thought this
going in. I couldn't believe he because
this next attempt now to double down on
this. Rob is this is just not First of
all, I agree with your kind of like
it's not good faith. It's not a real
pursuit of the truth. It's gotcha
tricks. But this was also a really
unwise one because why in the world
would you um So I I think I've told this
story before, Rob. I know I've told this
to you, but I will tell this on the show
right now, right? But it was a story of
a comedian, really bad comedian, when he
was first starting. He was really bad at
standup. This is what's crazy to me
because Andrew Wilson is not bad at
debating. He's excellent at debating.
But anyway, this guy was a bad stand-up
comedian. And I don't know if you ever
heard the old thing. It's like an old
comedian thing. I've never done this.
I've never actually seen anyone else do
this, but it's a thing where there there
was a thing where uh the comedian would
go, "Oh, you think my like you get a
heckler and you go, "Oh, you think my
job's so easy? Why don't you try it? Why
don't you get up here?" And they get
bring them up and give them the
microphone. And the idea is that like
standup comedy is hard, so they're
probably not going to do very good at
it. And then you show what a you know,
you take it back. Get out of here,
buddy. You know what? Now, this kid, I
saw that this is like 15 years ago. He's
bombing bombing in the show and starts
getting heckled and then he tries to do
that. He tries to give the guy the
microphone and go, "Oh yeah, you think
my job's" And I remember when I first
thought saw that being like, "Wow, talk
about not getting comedy." Like, just
talk about your instincts being so bad
because dude, obviously, Rob, that move
is supposed to that works when you're
killing with the crowd. The crowd loves
you. One guy's heckling you and you go,
"Come on, dude." Now he's got the whole
crowd against him, he [ __ ] they
already like you and what are the odds
when you're already killing that he's
going to come out with something that
kills. But but when you're bombing the
whole time and then you hand it over to
this guy, all he's got to do is say one
mildly funny thing and then he
devastates you, you know, like what are
you doing? And in the same I couldn't.
So, in this moment, Andrew decides to
put it in on name all seven cuz I'm
going to prove that you don't know what
you're talking about. Already though,
Rob, starting from a starting point of
as you said, he doesn't hold the same
standards to himself. He didn't know
one, but now she's got to name seven. It
already doesn't make sense that he's
expecting her to have such a higher
burden. But Rob, I mean, I guess my
point is, dude, you're in the biggest
debate of your life. This is millions of
people watching. It's a huge thing. And
you just challenge. Like, aren't you a
little bit concerned with the off chance
that maybe Candace knows the charges.
I mean, whether you think her theories
are off or not, she's clearly been
living and breathing this case for a
year. So, I like to put all of this
thing and I'm sorry, but when you do
that, when you when you stop a debate to
go, I'm going to demonstrate that you
don't know [ __ ] You can't name the
seven things and then they do.
You were trying to make them look
terrible and ruin them and so all of
that has to be put back on you now. Now
you now you just look terrible for
attempting this smear job and failing at
it. You were not sure whether he was
charged with murder and she goes on to
list all of them. And not only does she
list them all, but she calls him out on
his tactic the whole I mean look, let's
keep playing this. This just gets worse
and worse. Let's keep playing.
And and and I I
>> Can you name all seven? I
>> I can.
>> Then do it.
>> Sure. You don't have to.
>> Do it. No. Do it. I'll count them. Go
ahead.
>> You don't have to put your fingers up. I
>> Okay. Name them.
>> Yeah. Sure.
>> Name them.
>> Uh the first charge is aggravated murder
because that's what carries the death
sentence in the state of No, that's not
that is literally not murder.
>> Okay.
>> And so just people No, don't I don't
have to do it in a time limit. There's
nothing going on. And just to explain to
people the difference of why that really
matters and shows that he doesn't
actually care about this at all is
because aggravated murder uh it's it's
narrowly defined and because he carries
a death sentence. I'm not I'm going to
answer the question. You're just going
to recognize that your strategy of
thinking that people are intimidated
when you try to put a time constraint
doesn't work. And you'll be better the
next time you do this.
>> I got it. I got it. Give me Give me the
other ones.
>> The more you cut me off, the longer I'll
take. Do you want to just wait for me to
finish of why that's a big difference so
that people don't
>> want you to list the charges?
>> Yeah, I'm going to do that. You just
don't get to pretend that there's a time
constraint for me to do that.
>> Well, how how long does it take you to
list seven charges?
>> I'm because I'm [clears throat]
speaking. You just got to
>> It sounds like you're just delaying it
because you don't know them.
>> I I know all seven of them. And
[clears throat] I'm gonna say again cuz
you're going to get embarrassed. I You
don't have to rush this. I'm also
showing an example of a very flawed
debate strategy. I actually No time
constraint.
>> I got one.
>> Great. The second charge is the felony
discharge of a weapon. Uh the next two
charges are for obstruction of justice.
Okay.
>> The next two charges are for witness
temp tampering. And the final
>> the specific charges though.
>> That is them. Obstruction of justice.
Obstruction of justice. Witness
tampering. Witness tampering.
>> Okay. And there's no other specifics to
them.
>> Well, we I can tell you why he's being
charged.
>> No, no. Just the the charges and then
seven.
>> Yeah. See, the bad thing is when you try
to be an a-hole and it doesn't work.
>> What's the seventh?
>> The last charge is uh violence in front
of a minor.
>> Okay. Got it. So then he's being charged
with murder. You just say aggravated
murder.
>> That's the distinction. You just want to
>> It's a massive
>> We're just supposed to pretend that
>> we're just supposed to pretend that she
didn't just rattle off all seven
>> now. Now we just move. It's like I
That's the tactic that just I'm sorry,
dude. When that backfires, it'll lose
you a debate because you're trying and
then you're just to we're just to
pretend that like cuz otherwise, dude,
like the whole debate can just be you
quizzing and if they get everything
right, then what? It's a tie. It's like,
no, you stop the record to When you do
that in a debate, you're stopping the
record to pause to go, "No, no, no, no.
My opponent's a fraud. This whole thing
is bullshit." It's a move. When that
doesn't work, it reflects poorly on you.
And she named all the charges, dude. I I
mean, I don't know. I don't know how
anybody um can can look at this and not
think that like, yeah, that's a bad
moment in a debate. I'm sorry. It's just
cope to say it's not.
>> Um
So, I just I you know, I cringe
re-watching this. I find it just
overwhelmingly exhausting to watch
someone play a confidence game of what I
will call controlling the call and just
very arrogantly uh pretending like
they're still in control and then
constantly pivoting. It's just not an
honest pursuit towards truth. It's
sportsmanship of debate and I don't
appreciate this rare art form. And so to
me, this is just gross and exhausting
>> and showcases that even in other times
where people don't realize that's what's
happening, this is the way he's engaging
with you. It's not a conversation I
could even partake in because I couldn't
sit there as calmly as uh Candace in
these kind of environments. Um I like I
will never debate. Not that it's
offered. I couldn't sit there and engage
in that conversation. It would just be
too annoying to me. But it's just
dishonest and it's showing his hand of
that this is sportsmanship and it's
dishonest.
>> Well, I mean it's then I mean whatever.
We don't have to play anymore. But then
he accuses her of getting the
information fed to her from the phone
and so she passes her phone off to
Patrick David. And I I'm just saying
it's like dude when you again you you
paid her 300 grand,
you know, she's seven months pregnant.
You come in with this written, you know,
like prepared thing. You got all these
clips prepared that you're gonna go
after her on and all of this, but then
you're going after this stuff and just
missing these like wild swings and just
missing. This just doesn't this is
precious time that you were supposed to
be using like eviscerating her claims.
And I also got to say, you know, and
sometimes these things are um you know,
as as you know, Rob, like you've done a
lot of like live shows and uh and like
Rob will do like on the the porch tour
sometimes like you'll do like a whole
presentation and a whole thing with GR
and it's it's hard sometimes to plan out
like how a a a presentation is going to
go along with the punchline and and the
timing and and as you know from you know
I've talked to you about some of your
shows where you're like, "Oh, it really
all came together perfect on this one."
And then you were like, "Ah, this one it
was a little bit off." And then it
wasn't I didn't account for this, but
then that you know what I mean? And like
so there's it also just unfortunately
for Andrew his team pulling up videos in
the back and feeding them to Pat and
then them waiting for the like it just
didn't click and work. You know, I had
the the moment that every was
everybody's big like takeaway moment of
my debate with Quomo was the thing where
he kept saying he never said this about
Ivormectton mocking Joe Rogan and then
the team had the clip pulled right up at
there. But that was out of my hands. The
team I didn't like come with a clip and
go he's going to lie about this guys
have this ready. I got lucky that
someone on Pat's team is good and pulled
that thing up and then had it ready to
go right away. So it's like the stars
kind of aligned. There were a few
moments there where it was like dead air
because they're waiting for the next
clip. And I got to say it it ended up
coming off like you said, Rob, as more
gotcha. Like I don't think Andrew was
best served going into that debate
going, "Let me pull the the seven most
outrageous clips of Candace Owens
because it does then it does seem like
it's like, oh, this is just gotcha
stuff." I think he would have been bet
much better off if he had been okay. If
he had said, "Okay, Candace, it's been a
year. What's your working theory? You
know, you've done all these big shows on
it. You've had a huge successful run.
You You know what I mean? Like, what do
you got? Cuz after all this, like, what
do you really got as your theory? Okay,
here's why I think it's Tyler Robinson.
Like, let's compare your theory to
mine." And then really had a mastery of
like, "Well, dude, the evidence here is
pretty overwhelming." and and he he
should have been prepared for her things
like oh like I don't know Rob what's the
answer why are his fingertips degraded
more so than the other ones of his
family well I I got to guess here
there's an answer to that right or
there's at least an answer that the
prosecution is going to present at trial
I didn't hear that and and if I had I
think he may have been in a position of
just be like I'm sorry dude like we're
comparing overwhelming verse
overwhelming I got DNA evidence
eyewitness witnesses and a confession,
you got nothing, you know, like there
was a but he never really had that
moment and instead he chased kind of
gotcha wins the whole time. That was
kind of how I felt. All right, guys.
Let's take a moment and thank our
sponsor for today's show, which is
Ridge. I love this company. I I'm a
proud owner of a Ridge wallet and I have
been for many years. They're great. I
don't know if you're if you still hang
on to the traditional wallet, but you
don't need to have a big leather brick
in your back pocket. You can just get
the Ridge wallet. It's cool. It's got
everything you need. It's a minimalist
wallet, but it's it holds your cash and
your cards, everything you need. And
they're real cool. They have a unique,
slim, modern design, and they're all
made with premium materials like
aluminum, titanium, and carbon fiber.
They have over 50 colors and styles to
choose from. And I'm telling you,
they're very, very cool. You should
definitely check them out. They have
over 100,000 fivestar reviews for a
reason. And they have the RFID blocking
technology. They also have the Ridge Air
Tag attachment, so you always know
exactly where your your wallet is. so
you don't ever have to worry about
losing it again. And they don't just do
the wallets, they make premium everyday
carry essentials, key cases, suitcases,
rings, all built with the same sleek,
durable design. And no matter what you
pick, Ridge has free shipping and a
99-day risk-free trial, plus a lifetime
warranty on all of their products. So,
there is no risk to you. And for a
limited time, our listeners can get 10%
off at Ridge by using the promo code
POTP10.
Just go over to ridge.com and use that
promo code POTP10 for 10% off. All
right, let's get back into the show.
>> Uh,
listen. [laughter]
>> All right, you've made your feelings
clear.
>> Uh, I have not followed the case to the
same extent as Candace has had, nor have
I watched all of Candace's programming,
which is uh quite robust on this. Um,
and there are claims that, uh, I
probably would not want to have to argue
or try to validate. Uh, but I do think
that she has a right to explore them.
Uh, some of which might be more
offensive than others. And I think
Andrew, for some reason, feels that what
she's doing is inappropriate. And I
don't think he demonstrated, hey, there
is incredible evidence of the fact that
this guy's the shooter. And so this is
ridiculous that you're exploring it and
that you're trying to uh potentially pin
blame on other people's. I think she
demonstrated that there's a lot of uh uh
open-ended things in the case. I mean,
to give you guys the short just what is
the evidence at the moment that he did
it outside of the note that was left and
the text message he sent, which was
basically a guy who seemingly doesn't
want to be convicted of a crime going,
"Hey, I committed this." And so we
supposedly have a reference to a
confession to his parent and a cop, but
we haven't actually heard them say that.
So it could be a kid who thought was
nervous that he was going to get in
trouble and so decided to turn himself
in. And the family said your best move
is to turn himself in. Uh the uh
evidence is supposedly that, you know,
they don't have video of him pulling the
trigger. The best evidence that they
have is a guy who looks like him moving
around on a campus. Um there's nothing
like just spectacular from what I've
seen that's been presented outside of oh
there's uh there's this confession note
which you know maybe is a pathy and he
didn't write that note and on the same
note it is rather odd that evidence was
given back to the Kirk family and that
the site was instantly paved over that
that camera that was taken down behind I
don't think that was ever turned over.
There are weird elements here that
create a question and I certainly think
exploring whether or not our government
uh engages. I mean it happened with uh
uh probably happened with JFK probably
also happened with Martin Luther King
Jr. I think it's very fair to explore if
uh there's certain forces that rise up
and pop in the general culture that uh
are so big and mighty that the
government wants them out of the way and
that they're taking people out. And I
think that's a fair thing to explore.
Well, I think if I were Candace in the
debate, and again, I'm not like taken
Candace's position, but if I was Candace
in that debate, I mean, I would have
really focused on Joe Kent and the
comments that he made and really tried
to drive home that that that just kind
of look and and look, this is kind of
where I am with the Charlie Kirk thing
in general.
It's like,
well, first of all, as I've said all
along from a year ago, this is a goddamn
like,
personally speaking, this is a very
strange topic. Um, this is like a real
person who I knew who, you know, got
murdered in the most horrific violent
way publicly. Um,
I I said immediately after Charlie Kirk
was killed and took a lot of [ __ ] for
this, Rob, if you remember. Yeah, this
actually really bugs me because I've
seen like a few people give me [ __ ] for
not talking about Charlie Kirk more over
the last year. Um, and you know, they
go, "Oh, Dave's a coward." or something
like that cuz he won't touch this issue.
Like, yes, that's me. I just avoid
radioactive issues and I'm uncomfortable
taking a public stand. Like, okay,
whatever. It's like, no, actually, what
happened was I um I pretty publicly took
a stand early on in it. If you remember,
Rob, there's I don't know that there's
been three times since we've been doing
this show where there was a damn near
revolt from the audience against me. And
this was one of them. It's because I was
publicly saying and I I haven't stood I
haven't changed my mind on that. I go, I
thought it was crazy that people were
saying Israel did it. Even speculating.
Some outright saying Israel did it,
others speculating. Some people who I
respect, who I like were doing that. I
called them out for doing that. I stand
by that. I think it was like uh you know
whatever. I think it I I'm not Thor
goofy conspiracies and I don't like
presenting wild ones that or I shouldn't
say when I say goofy theories
nothing wrong with a good conspiracy.
They happen all the time. But some
theories are right and some theories are
not. And like and I've kind of
maintained basically the whole way
through. Look, I know I I did a couple
shows on it after Charlie Kirk uh died.
one where I read his text messages and
I've explained that several times
because I thought it was the right thing
to do all things being, you know,
considered. Um, these these episodes
were enormously successful. They're some
of our most downloaded episodes ever.
And then I stopped talking about it
even though I knew this was a topic that
you'll blow up. You could have huge hu
because it's like, look, dude, honestly,
there's a few things here. Number one,
this isn't my strength. I know people
get confused about this sometimes, but
it's like I don't know. It's It's like
if we There was a bomb that was about to
go off and you go, "Dave, diffuse the
bomb." And I was like, "I don't know how
to diffuse a bomb." And you'd be like,
"But I heard you do a great rant on
Israel Gaza on Joe Rogan, so diffuse a
bomb." Like those are two different
skills. I I'm I'm like I'm I understand
arguments about economics and I know the
history of military conflicts or
whatever, but like I don't know anything
about detective work and forensics and
all of this stuff. So, it's just not
really my strength. I will say one of
the big holes in the Candace Owens, he's
a pathy theory to me seems to be that
he's alive and about to face trial. The
kid's going to stay on trial.
They're going to present a defense.
We're going to get to learn some more
stuff. So, like I don't know what. Okay.
So, like all of that, I'm not jumping
out on theories. I'm not just trying to
tra chase clicks. I want to respect the
fact that this was an actual person who
I knew, who I respected, who has
children, you know, like I I I don't
know. But Rob, Joe Kent, the director of
counterterrorism, came out and said the
investigation had been suppressed and
that he had major questions. He said
this on the biggest news show in America
when he resigned. The highest authority
in the land came down to comment on
this. And he didn't admonish Candace
Owens, who had had her investigation
going on at this point, Rob, for months,
right? He didn't he didn't say, "Oh,
this is crazy." He goes, "Hey, the only
person trying to shut down the war in
Iran who had Trump's ear was publicly
executed, and there were leads we should
have followed up on that were uh stifled
by the FBI." That's what he said.
At that point, how am I supposed to sit
here and be fur? You know, it's like
it's like after I know that they lied us
into Iraq, I'm supposed to be furious at
the people that are like 9/11 truthers.
Even if I'm not a 9/11 truther, I'm
supposed to be mad at them. I think I'm
actually more mad at the regime who just
took us into war. So again, none of this
really makes any sense to me. It's like
that's essentially where I'm at. I don't
know. There's some there's some things
that seem weird. The story between what
was going on with Charlie and the Israel
lobby is really fascinating. They
definitely all lied through their teeth
about that. Um
that being said, I don't really have a
theory other than that.
Very interested in the trial. I don't
know, Rob. Is that unreasonable? Is that
an unreasonable position to take?
Because I don't think it is.
>> Uh no. And I just feel like after what
we went through with uh COVID, anyone
that wants to question official
narratives, I don't ever want to I just
am never going to take the side of but
there's an official narrative from the
state here.
>> Now listen, I don't watch all of
Candace's shows, so I don't know to what
extent these claims are taking place. I
don't know. I do think that without
great evidence, um I listen, I'm just
not on the side of censorship ever.
People should do what they want to do
with their shows. I think that uh uh
accusing Erica Kirk in a public format
without great evidence b does maybe
borderline inappropriate because like
it's kind of sam similar territory to
Sandy Hook where I totally respect
people being concerned about false flags
but getting that aspect wrong um does
just become a little bit more
inappropriate. But I I mean the idea of
exploring the case and going, "Hey, I
don't think this official narrative is
true and was there a government motive
here?" Uh the idea that you're going to
criticize anybody for for doing that or
wanting to do a gotcha ruin them show. I
just I I don't know. I feel like you're
on the side of state censorship.
I you know, there was one point in the
debate where Candace says you're here to
argue the state's case and Andrew seemed
to get offended by that, but then it is
like I mean that is what you're doing.
like you are. That doesn't make it
wrong, but like that is what you're
doing. Um I I do think that there was a
point in the debate that Candace and I
think she could have maybe perhaps even
made this point stronger, but she had
said that like, well, look, she goes,
Benjamin Netanyahu immediately started
lying. And that's what brought Israel
into this conversation. And I do think
there's something to be said as I've sat
back and kind of watched all of this
happen.
I get your point very much, right? Like,
you know, in fact, I've made this point.
In fact, I made this point to a guy who
was a Sandy Hook uh truther back in that
time. This is a guy who used to host a
podcast with Mike Cannon back in the
day, but I remember he was saying and I
just thought all of it was dumb. He had
no argument and what he sent me stuff.
You got to watch this and watch it was
just terrible. Um, but I remember saying
to him about the Sandy Hook thing. I go,
"Hey, dude. Let's say 95% you're right.
Sandy Hook was a a false flag or
whatever. No one died. That's what
you're trying to tell me." Okay. Let's
say there's just a 5% chance you're
wrong about that. Okay. If you're wrong,
then you're publicly mocking the parents
of people who just lost their
kindergartenner.
Like, I' I'd be very concerned if there
was a 5% chance I was doing that. You
know what I mean? cuz like even if it's
only 5% you're like oh there's a 5%
chance that I'm being like the worst
most despicable human being imaginable
right now you know and so like yes you
get into that territory anytime you
start talking about a wife or that that
being said it's not wrong if the wife
actually is guilty but it is a like hey
man you take a swing at that at that you
better not miss type type of deal right
but I will say to and I think this was
the point at least I think this was part
of what Candace was getting at um in
fact I'd be interested to talk to her a
bit more about this but um maybe I will
soon um but
she was kind of going no look that's
what brought Israel into this and and I
will say that with the Charlie Kirk case
I I could see under some normal rule of
honor or something like that being like
you shouldn't mention Israel and you
shouldn't mention his wife unless you
really got some hardcore evidence, you
know, to to point in that direction. The
thing is that when immediately when the
body's still warm and I got the Israeli
prime minister lying through his [ __ ]
teeth about what Charlie believed like
really really trying to manipulate the
situation in his favor along with the
entire Israel lobby who he was openly
calling out and like kind of maybe
turning on and then to watch them all
lie about it and then his widow is out
in leather pants holding a Republican
national convention groping the vice
president. I I do feel like Rob to some
degree that changes that calculation of
whatever is you were saying is
inappropriate or whatever the honor
codebound thing you would have to do.
It's like you can't really say these
things are off limits to talk about when
they are so egregiously shoving
themselves inserting themselves into the
conversation. And so I got to say if
people don't like the conspiracy
industry that's arisen out of this like
don't you kind of got to look at that
behavior too and go Jesus guys. I mean
this was the worst way to handle it.
They essentially gave permission to like
start talking about this stuff cuz look
it's so weird and it's so right in front
of your face you know.
>> And uh just just for the sake of
transparency and calling myself out for
being a hypocrite I do have a joke in my
act that uh maybe insinuates
involvement in the Kirk case. Uh, and I
also did have a conversation on my
podcast at some point with the guest
about whether or not Erica Kirk could be
MK Ultra. Uh, both of those I thought
were valid because I think uh it is I I
think it's I'm open to exploring the
idea that MK Ultra is involved in uh
these kind of uh actions. I'm not saying
that that's what took place here. I also
don't quite know what takes place on
Candace's show. This is why I kind of
hate debates is that it brings you into
like the pure evidence place which uh
almost removes the poetry of explor
exploring ideas and trying to find
truth. Um but I just kind of lean
towards you know if you're if you're
criticizing the official narrative I
don't think you're instantly just like
wrong or everyone needs to go shame
shame on you.
>> Yeah. Listen um I look I agree. I agree
with you. It's it's look when I debate
and you see this I I like to debate the
war that's going on right now or
economic policy or is it just something
where it's like look it's very clear
what we're arguing about here. Um and
and not you know it's a little bit of a
of an awkward thing to to try to like
win a debate in devastating fashion that
you did a conspiracy that wasn't true.
you know, it's it's a little bit of a
tough thing to to sell. And there was at
least one point, and again, I don't
really I don't know enough about the
details to know this stuff. But there
was one point where Candace did walk
away from a thing she said. She goes,
"Oh, yeah, I got that wrong." You know,
and it's like, and that kind of takes
all the power away from it cuz it's
like, well, I mean, every she's allowed
to hunt down theories, right? And like
she can admit she got one wrong. Anyway,
I think that um
like I always I always saw it this way
that it's like
there
it's not my job. I don't know. It's not
it's not my job to be the whole monitor
of the dissonance. I mean, like again,
you know, there's probably a lot of
there's a lot of things that I think
people who listen to the show ought to
be able to figure out about my views,
even things that I don't talk about that
much, right? Because like Rob, if you
were to go,
where does Dave stand on building 7? I
never talk about Tower 7, right? But
almost that almost tells you where I
stand on it, right? cuz like I'm I'm not
a 911 truther and people know that and I
don't have you know and like it you
would just go how has that never come up
if I believe that it would have come up
one of these times you know what I mean?
I've talked about this stuff so many
times on such big platforms you would
have heard me say that if like where do
I stand on chemtrails? Well like I don't
believe in them right cuz I never talk
about them. You would have heard me talk
about them once if I thought this was
like a major thing that was that was
going on. Um,
again, that doesn't mean I have to run
around and like go to every dissident
go, "Oh, you got out over your skis here
or you you were a little bit too racist
in your criticism of the war or
something like that." It's like, I don't
know. There's we got, you know, we we
have a government that lies to us about
everything, commits enormous crimes
against us. You know, it's like here you
have a guy who was um who was a open
advocate against a war that we fought
jointly with the Israelis and he was
clearly in the president's ear had a
huge mobilization like outreach, you
know, organization. It's the biggest
political organizer of young people in
the right-wing in America. That's a big
deal. And he was against this war. Also,
that government's known for their
targeted assassination campaigns and
stuff. So, like it all I'm saying I'm
not saying none of that is evidence that
that Israel did anything because I don't
have any evidence that Israel did
anything. But it is fertile ground for
conspiracies to bloom and it's almost
undeniable that they're going to happen.
I don't I don't think like you know I to
me it's always been clear that like my
job is to tell the truth and to focus on
the evil people in power who are doing
the worst thing. focus on the major
crisis, the major problem. I don't think
like, you know, if you when you're when
you're going after people for being, you
know, if you're going after Alex Jones
for being Alex Jones,
you have to really demonstrate why it's
so bad, you know, which there is an
argument to it that you're discrediting
the entire movement that's against this
thing, but like you got to really
connect those dots. All right, guys.
Let's take a moment and thank our
sponsor for today's show, which is
Prolong by El Nutra. Long work weeks and
busy weekends can leave you feeling and
looking depleted. But Prolon's 5-day
fasting mimicking diet works at the
cellular level to reset and rejuvenate
you from the inside out, supporting
sustained fat loss, lean muscle,
metabolism, slower aging, and even
glowing skin. Prolon is a plant-based
nutrition program. It features soups,
snacks, and beverages designed to
nourish the body while keeping it in a
fasting state, triggering cellular
rejuvenation and renewal. This is real
science. It was developed over decades
with USC's longevity institute. It's
backed by top US medical centers. Prolon
has been shown to support biological age
reduction, metabolic health, skin
appearance, fat loss with muscle
protection, energy, and a healthier
relationship with food. Essentially, the
diet tricks your cells into thinking
that you're fasting. So, you get all the
benefits of fasting without having to
give up food. So, if you're ready for
your own reset for a limited time,
Prolon is offering part of the problem
listeners, 15% off sitewide, plus a $40
bonus gift when you subscribe to their
5-day program. Just visit
prolonlife.com/potp.
That's p r o l o n l i f.com/potp
to claim your 15% discount and your
bonus gift. prolonglife.com/potp.
All right, let's get back into the show.
So yeah, I don't know what to say uh uh
other than that on the topic. Um that's
kind of where I am. I'm open to this. I
know I know I got some friends who have
really gone down the rabbit hole. I know
Clint Russell has and he really thinks
it's shady as [ __ ] Um
I'm kind of open to that. I think we're
going to probably learn more at this
trial. So, let's see what comes out of
all this, you know, like I I don't it's
not um
it's it's not like like I almost and
this I guess is where what I said,
right? I think Clint I saw I saw part of
his stream the other day. We talked on
the phone briefly while I was watching
the the debate. Um but I saw part of his
stream and even he had said I mean
Candace has it at zero. I'd probably be
way higher than that, you know, like so
he was going like he I think I probably
am and this is what's kind of, you know,
ironic, I guess, that I I um I thought
Andrew lost the debate despite the fact
that I don't know that I necessarily
disagree with his opinion. I I think I
disagree with a few things he said, but
um but if you said 75% and I say this
with like real ignorance, Rob, like not
as someone following this, that's kind
of about where I'm at, right? I go
probably like odds are that this kid did
shoot him, right? I mean, if they got a
gun and they got I don't know. That's
kind of where I am. I don't know. But
that's not that like that number isn't
that high. That number leaves a whole
huge percentage that maybe there's
something else here that we don't know
about. I'm not against people digging
for that. If they think that's the case,
figure it out. And I'm not I'm not for
um uh you know, somebody playing the
role of being like, "Oh, I'll call you
out if your theory doesn't add up. It's
okay." Not quite sure why it needs to be
the number one debate, though.
Right? Like, it just seems like I don't
know, guys. Like, there's a war going
on. [laughter]
>> He put he put $300,000 on the line with
the I'm going to ruin you and you're
much bigger than I am. There's no reason
for you to have me on the show for the
opportunity to ruin you. And uh people
like stakes, you know what I mean?
That's like watching uh uh Evil Conval
jump the Grand Canyon. You're like,
"Someone's gonna fail today." And so
when you put up $300,000 of I'm going to
ruin someone, you're like, "Oh man, is
someone about to get ruined or is
someone about to lose $300,000
uh on on a failed attempt?"
>> Well, that's right. And and and it does
look, don't get me wrong, because to
some degree, these things are all
intermarried, right? Because there's
like like in theory, Rob, right? You
could win a debate. You could really win
the argument, but the crowd could just
disagree with you. Like 90% of the crowd
could think you lost even though you're
like, "Wait, I had way better
arguments." But then in some other
sense, that's a loss because you're the
goal of doing the thing is to get the
people to be on your side. And so I just
it's it's hard to go like how can you
look at a situation just even if you're
on Andrew's side and even if you think
he won the debate and even if you can
overlook moments like that in the debate
that didn't really go very well for him.
Candace Owens collected $300,000 and
didn't lose a fan over this. Like it if
the goal was to expose her or to stop
this or to anything it just made her
look good. everything, all of the
optics, even even the fact just that
Andrew seemed a bit nervous, that he was
twitching his leg the whole time, that
she that he wrote this whole opening
thing and she just cracked her knuckles
and came out and went like, "Okay, let's
do" and was calm the whole time and just
it's just it's it's hard. How do you
look at that and not go this was a win
for her? This was a big win. Um that I
don't know, seems clear to me. That's my
honest opinion on it. I know there are a
lot of people who are like, "Oh, very I
I saw a few people on Twitter who were
like, they'll be very interested to see
how Dave's going to handle this or
whatever." You're like, but I handle it
by telling you what I think is true that
like how I always do. And um you know, I
don't I I I also, you know, I I I guess
maybe more broadly I would say, you
know, kind of like an indefense of
Candace Owens that Yeah. It's like,
look, somebody said to me the other day,
uh, when I was [ __ ] on Hassan [ __ ]
someone said to me, they go, "Um, well
Dave, you don't want to be doing the
CIA's bidding, you know, like you,
they're trying to ruin this guy cuz he's
anti-war. Now you're going after him."
And I'm like, "Yeah, but everything
within reason." Like, there's a line
and, you know, the guy is openly pushing
like Mauism or or something like that.
And it's like, "Yeah, okay. I actually
think that's bad. And I also just find
him reprehensible on a lot of different
levels and whatever. But like there is
something to like when people go, "Oh,
Candace Owens collected money. She made
all this money off talking about Charlie
Kirk for the last year." It's like
Candace was going to make a lot of money
in the last year talking about whatever
she wanted to talk about. Okay. Candace
Owens has been humongous for a very long
time. Kenneth Owens got fired from the
Daily Wire and they kept her YouTube
channel. So she had to start a whole new
one from scratch. And she had millions
of subscribers the first day. She was
the chick who told she became in many
ways the face or one of the faces of the
anti-Israel movement, you know, and and
because she was at under Ben Shapiro's
company, it just it made the op the
dynamics of it so much crazier and more
interesting and compelling. And then she
went on to have like huge huge huge
success. So, she was going to be huge no
matter what, you know. And like I don't
know. I do think that people are going
after her
I in a way that doesn't make sense. Even
if she was wrong about all of these
theories, like even if that's the case,
I still just don't find that to be
something that that is worthy of like,
you know, again, like I said, Alex Jones
has a track record of getting a million
things wrong. I still don't look at Alex
Jones as like this awful evil person
because essentially he was against the
awful evil people as they were in power
doing terrible things. He just thought
they were communicating with aliens, you
know, like I don't know. It's just I I
don't I just don't it doesn't do it for
me. So doesn't seem right.
>> I also think she validated if you
thought she needed she validated the
pursuit. She she showcased that there
wasn't a coh coherent enough story for
this guy definitely did it. Why are you
looking into this? And I think she
definitely spoke to the fact that uh
this one's personal for her because you
know Charlie was a friend and that's why
she's digging in. And I
>> can I just say one more thing by the way
that I just forgot to say the final
note. I agree with you completely that
um I also thought what backfired weirdly
was him reading a new text message from
Charlie Kirk that Turning Point had
given him. I mean that just like look
it's it made turning point look terrible
which doesn't help Andrew ever as he is
in some way here de facto de facto their
representative. Uh not technically I
guess but I don't know you worked with
them and now you're doing this. It's and
and they're feeding you information but
so now you're telling me wait a minute.
So, you're telling me that first of all,
this completely contradicts what Erica
Kirk publish publicly said when she
attacked Candace Owens and said that
this is untrue. It's completely made up
that Charlie ever said anything about
how he feared for his life. And I have
his phone, so I know for a fact this
isn't true. Now, we're going a
completely 180 on that. And we're going,
"Oh, no, no, no. He was afraid but of
the left." and we have kept this quiet
all this time only to reveal it now in
an attempt to own Candace Owens that I
don't know I just thought that didn't
help the case at all and like I don't
know what else do you got and then when
he said he's going to reveal the more
stuff on his show kind of I think trying
to needle her for doing the same but so
now you're doing the same thing that she
did but you're very upset at her it just
none of this was coherent to me I don't
know uh you know I look I know something
about getting these big debate moments.
You you got to go win the debates.
I I don't know what else to say. Um
okay, we're going to wrap up there.
Catch you guys next time. Big episode
tomorrow. Catch you then. Peace. [music]
[music]
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
