Donald Trump Tells Erika Kirk to Sue Critics as HIPAA Violation Questions Surround Candace Owens Investigation
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Frank Turek Recalls Charlie Kirk's Final Moments and Confronts Three Months of Conspiracy Theories
15:00
Graham Allen Warns Candace Owens Endangering Erika Kirk and Her Children's Lives
23:11
Zach Costello Responds to Graham Allen's Attack on Candace Owens and the Erika Kirk Investigation
49:01
Donald Trump Tells Erika Kirk to Sue Critics as HIPAA Violation Questions Surround Candace Owens Investigation
Donald Trump delivered a direct message to Erika Kirk during a national pastors meeting, encouraging her to take legal action against those who have been attacking and defaming her. The president's blunt advice, "sue their ass off", comes amid ongoing controversies surrounding Charlie Kirk's death and Candace Owens' independent investigation. The situation has taken a new turn as questions emerge about potential HIPAA violations, with Owens apparently confirming that Charlie Kirk had medical records at a specific hospital. This raises serious legal questions about how that protected health information was obtained and whether healthcare employees illegally disclosed patient data to support conspiracy theories.
During a meeting with pastors across the nation that Erika Kirk attended, Donald Trump had a special message for her regarding those who have been attacking and defaming her. The president didn't mince words when he spotted Erika at the gathering.
"Hello, darling. Hello, darling. That's a good table. I like that table. You're doing well, right? Okay. I think you should sue him. You know what? I told her, 'You ought to sue some of these. They're so jealous of America.' I said, 'You to sue their... you... I can say you're not allowed to say this. You have to be nicer. Sue their ass off,'" Trump stated.
The president's encouragement for Erika to pursue legal action represents a significant endorsement as she faces continued public scrutiny and conspiracy theories about her late husband's death.
Candace Owens' Misunderstanding of Discovery
Following Trump's comments, Candace Owens responded by suggesting she would welcome a lawsuit because it would require Erika and Turning Point USA to provide information through the discovery process. However, this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how legal discovery actually works.
"By the way, I would like to keep reminding you that most of us welcome a lawsuit because then they would be required to give us the information that we're asking for," Owens claimed.
This statement demonstrates either a deliberate misrepresentation or a genuine lack of understanding about legal procedures. Discovery is not unlimited and doesn't allow someone being sued to demand any information they want.
The Reality of Legal Discovery
Discovery in civil litigation operates under specific constraints. The information requested must be relevant to the claims or defenses in the case, or reasonably likely to lead to relevant evidence. It must also be proportional to the needs of the case, considering the amount at stake, the importance of the issues, and the burden and expense involved.
If Erika Kirk were to sue Candace Owens for defamation or breaking a non-disclosure agreement, Owens would not be entitled to every piece of information she's been demanding about Charlie Kirk's death. The discovery would be limited to information directly relevant to the defamation claims or NDA violations.
For example, if the lawsuit centers on Owens calling for people to withdraw donations from Turning Point USA or telling people not to donate to the organization, the discovery would focus on evidence related to those specific statements and their impact—not broader conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk's death.
Additionally, certain information is protected from discovery, including attorney-client communications, which likely covers much of the information Owens has been demanding.
Why Hasn't Erika Sued Yet?
Many people question why Erika hasn't already filed a lawsuit against Candace Owens if she has such a strong case. The answer is straightforward: Erika's primary focus is on getting justice in the criminal case regarding her husband's death, not on civil litigation against a podcast host.
Despite what critics want people to believe, Erika is focused on what matters most to her right now—ensuring that the person responsible for Charlie's death is convicted. A defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens, while potentially winnable, is not her top priority during this time.
The AI Conspiracy About Charlie's Succession Planning
Candace Owens has expanded her conspiracy theories to claim that audio of Charlie Kirk naming Erika as his successor is artificial intelligence-generated and fake. During an ASU event, Blake Neff was asked about Erika becoming CEO and confirmed that everyone had heard the audio of Charlie saying that if anything were to happen to him, Erika should be the boss because she would do a good job.
Owens has demanded that Turning Point USA release the video from Aspen where Charlie allegedly named Erika as his successor, suggesting that the audio-only version is suspicious. Blake Neff responded directly to this challenge, explaining why they haven't bothered to release the video.
"Candace, we haven't bothered playing it because we know psychopathic predators like yourself do not care what is true or false and normal evidentiary logic has no effect on you. You're kind of person who sees coded messages in the numbers 33, but then ignores evidence like DNA on a rifle or Tyler Robinson's own family members turning him in," Neff stated.
He continued: "Playing the audio at Amfest already wasn't enough. You'll obviously just say it's AI or a hologram or an Israeli actor or something. So, what's the point? We gave up the possibility of any good faith conversation with you months ago. It's like you're trying to reason with a maniac brandishing a knife and screaming at people on the subway."
The point is clear: no amount of evidence will satisfy someone determined to believe conspiracy theories. If video were released, Owens would simply claim it was AI-generated video, deepfake technology, or some other fabrication.
The HIPAA Violation Question
Perhaps the most serious development in this ongoing saga is that Candace Owens may have admitted to being involved in or having knowledge of HIPAA violations. In a recent Instagram video, Owens made a statement that raises significant legal questions.
Discussing the hospitals where Charlie Kirk received treatment, Owens stated: "To this day, I have never had even one eyewitness at Timpanogos who witnessed that whole scene reach out to us. Whereas we had a ton of people that were reaching out about the other hospital, insisting Charlie was at the other hospital, Utah Valley, and then we confirmed that he had a file there."
This statement—"we confirmed that he had a file there"—is extremely problematic from a legal standpoint. How exactly did Candace Owens confirm that Charlie Kirk had a medical record at a specific hospital?
Understanding HIPAA Protections
HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) protections include not just detailed medical notes, but even the basic fact that a specific individual was a patient, was treated, or had a record at a facility. The mere confirmation that someone has a file at a hospital is protected health information.
For Candace Owens to confirm that Charlie Kirk had a file at a hospital, someone at that hospital would have had to look up that information and provide it to her or her team. Candace Owens is not related to Charlie Kirk, not married to him, has no child with him, and has no next-of-kin relationship that would give her any legal right to that information.
This means that either hospital employees illegally disclosed protected health information to Owens or her team, or Owens is lying about having confirmed this information. If hospital employees did provide this information, they committed a serious HIPAA violation and should face consequences.
HIPAA Violation Penalties
The penalties for HIPAA violations are severe and escalate based on the circumstances:
If someone accesses or shares records without authorization: up to $50,000 fine plus one year in jail
If done under false pretenses: $100,000 fine and five years in jail
If done for personal gain, fame, or harm: $250,000 fine and ten years in jail
If hospital employees provided Charlie Kirk's protected health information to support Candace Owens' investigation and boost her platform, that would fall under the third category—done for fame or to cause harm. This carries the most severe penalties: up to $250,000 in fines and ten years in prison.
Candace's Legal Obligation
By publicly stating that she confirmed Charlie Kirk had medical records at a specific hospital, Candace Owens has admitted to having knowledge of a crime. Even if she didn't personally commit the HIPAA violation, she has now announced to the world that she knows one occurred.
This creates an obligation to report the violation. The employees who disclosed this information—if Owens is telling the truth—have committed a federal crime, and Owens has just provided evidence of that crime to millions of viewers.
The most likely scenario is that Owens will claim the information came from an "anonymous source," which would allow her to avoid any personal legal liability while also making it impossible to verify whether the HIPAA violation actually occurred or whether she's simply making false claims.
The Broader Pattern
This incident fits into a larger pattern of either deliberate misrepresentation or reckless disregard for facts. Whether it's misunderstanding how legal discovery works, claiming audio recordings are AI-generated despite having no evidence, or potentially being involved in HIPAA violations, the pattern suggests either intentional deception or a dangerous level of incompetence when making serious accusations.
For the millions of people who follow Candace Owens' coverage of this story, this should raise questions about the reliability of the information being presented. If she's bringing anonymous sources as facts in something as serious as a HIPAA violation, while simultaneously making claims about AI-generated audio and demanding unlimited discovery in lawsuits she doesn't understand, what does that say about the credibility of her entire investigation?
The irony is that what could potentially bring down months of conspiracy theorizing isn't a grand revelation or smoking gun evidence—it's a simple admission of knowledge about a federal crime, casually mentioned in a social media video.
