How Erika Kirk Lost Control of the Truth

[00:01] I want to start off with this

[00:02] prefaratory note, this prolaminon,

[00:06] this preface, this prom, this

[00:10] introductory note so we understand

[00:12] what's going on here.

[00:14] I never thought I would see this, but I

[00:17] have. There is a group of people

[00:22] or maybe groups of people collectively

[00:25] who take the Charlie Kirk assassination

[00:28] TPUSA

[00:30] issues.

[00:32] Erica Kirk in terms of now leading it.

[00:36] Erica Kirk perhaps maybe how her

[00:40] reaction to Charlie's death might be

[00:43] affecting fundraising and leadership and

[00:44] the like and the leadership itself.

[00:49] Okay, that's that's kind of

[00:50] administrative.

[00:52] And you have the other groups who are

[00:54] the pro- Candice Owens or I hate Candace

[00:59] Owens or the I love Erica Kirk or I

[01:03] can't stand Erica Kirk for reasons the

[01:06] latter being the way she looks or the

[01:09] way she acts separate and distinct from

[01:12] how she looks which may indicate

[01:14] sincerity. You following this? Okay.

[01:17] [snorts]

[01:18] And they're going crazy.

[01:21] One group of people have said, "You

[01:23] cannot talk about Erica Kirk because

[01:26] she's our girlfriend. We love her." It's

[01:27] almost like

[01:30] like uh EDS, like Erica derangement

[01:33] syndrome, but but but positively. You

[01:36] know what I mean? It's it's this it's

[01:38] this haggio. They I I don't know what it

[01:42] is. this they they've elevated her to

[01:45] this status of I don't know what. But

[01:48] you cannot say anything about her and

[01:50] that's all they know. That's all these

[01:52] people know. They're online and they're

[01:54] very loud and they are the most profane.

[01:57] But they they won't tell you, "Well,

[01:58] what am I doing wrong?" I don't know,

[02:01] but I love her and you're being mean to

[02:03] her and I mean, I'm serious. That's it.

[02:05] Well, what am I doing wrong? It doesn't

[02:08] matter. Just Just stop it. I hate you

[02:10] and I want to be a part of this. And I'm

[02:12] not really big on the facts, but I'm

[02:14] going to wait into it. But this is as

[02:15] deep as it gets. And then you have

[02:17] another group of people. I hate Candace

[02:20] Owens. Oh, I love Candace Owens. Why do

[02:23] you hate Candace Owens? Because she's a

[02:25] grifter. That's the new word. Grifting

[02:28] also fed slop. You notice how when

[02:30] something ecosystem, how when something

[02:32] gets into our lexicon, our argo,

[02:36] our, you know, vocabulary, our le our um

[02:40] uh just our our our kind of urban

[02:42] dictionary. We just you get pummeled

[02:45] with it and then it kind of goes away.

[02:47] But anyway,

[02:49] they're coming after Erica, I mean, uh

[02:51] Candace, because I don't know, certitude

[02:53] or something. Who knows? But it has

[02:54] nothing to do with what she's saying.

[02:56] And no matter how careful she is in

[02:57] saying, "Look, I'm presenting this. I

[02:59] don't have to ask permission to to ask

[03:01] questions about Fort Wuka,

[03:04] that name,

[03:06] Fort W,

[03:10] she has to in their eyes either ask

[03:12] permission or she's wrong." And then

[03:13] there are other people who love what

[03:15] she's saying because they love her and

[03:17] they love her guts. It's like, okay, I

[03:20] love her guts, too. There's a lot of

[03:21] people with guts who are wrong or whose

[03:24] inquiry

[03:26] is misplaced. I'm looking at the facts

[03:29] of this

[03:31] and I come under this ridiculous premise

[03:33] that I don't have to ask anybody in the

[03:34] United States for permission to ask

[03:36] questions. I don't care. I can ask

[03:39] anything I want. If I want to question

[03:41] the moon landing or 911 or whether

[03:44] there's a god or if seed oils are bad,

[03:48] whatever I want to ask, I do it. And you

[03:52] can't tell me that I can't ask because

[03:56] you don't like the subject or you don't

[03:59] like me. Hey, that's okay. That's the

[04:03] way it goes. So, if this subject if if

[04:06] for some reason you just don't want to

[04:08] talk about Erica, don't watch this. Go

[04:11] to I I don't know because I'm not

[04:14] attacking her.

[04:18] I'm attacking in essence how she's

[04:21] destroying Charlie's legacy and how this

[04:25] thing posed such a an incredible

[04:28] positive thing for those of us of our

[04:31] political persuasion.

[04:33] And I'm wondering who benefits from

[04:35] that. Well, you know, the radical left

[04:38] do because Charlie was a was the bull

[04:40] work. He was a he was a torpedo. He was

[04:43] a he was a tornado. He was and now he's

[04:46] not there anymore. And now you have

[04:47] these other people who are just

[04:48] basically trying to collect as much

[04:50] money as possible and and I want to use

[04:52] the word grift but who are who don't

[04:55] know how to handle the uh the the the

[05:00] post grief review. Now, my friends,

[05:03] Erica Kirk has become, as you know, a

[05:06] central public figure since the death of

[05:09] Charlie. And that attention did not come

[05:12] from sympathy or support from questions

[05:18] that people may have had or not been

[05:21] answered clearly. And and the reason

[05:22] this matters is not gossip or cruelty,

[05:25] but credibility,

[05:27] which is very fragile in public life.

[05:30] And once it starts to crack, then

[05:33] everything that follows gets harder to

[05:35] manage. Remember what I'm telling you.

[05:37] Remember the the initial aspect what

[05:40] brought us to the dance. It gets harder

[05:43] to control and harder to manage and

[05:45] harder to corral and easier to doubt.

[05:47] And this is the context in which a lot

[05:50] of claims, have you heard this about

[05:52] Romania and her father was an intel?

[05:56] Hold. Look,

[05:59] let me get this right off the bat. Okay,

[06:02] let let me address this.

[06:05] I'm not even

[06:07] addressing that.

[06:10] You go ahead and do it. Romania,

[06:14] orphanages, whether you refuse, I a lot

[06:17] of this stuff has not been debunked, but

[06:20] there's no evidence of that. I'm not

[06:22] going there. That's not what I'm talking

[06:25] about. This is not a an investigation of

[06:28] her as a person. This is somebody going

[06:31] in after the fact. It's like, "Oh,

[06:32] yeah." Have you ever had a fight with

[06:35] somebody? Sorry to say this. And the

[06:38] person you're having the fight with is

[06:40] losing.

[06:41] And they'll turn you go, "Yeah, yeah. I

[06:44] remember when you were drunk at

[06:45] Christmas." They say, "What are you

[06:46] bringing that up for?" Because I've got

[06:48] to win something. I'm going to bring in

[06:50] things that don't matter that may be

[06:52] true but are irrelevant and immaterial

[06:54] to what we're saying under the rules of

[06:56] evidence. They're irrelevant and

[06:57] immaterial.

[06:59] So these claims people are bringing up

[07:00] and

[07:02] other controversy should be understood

[07:04] understood not as proof of guilt but as

[07:06] a test of how a public leader and an

[07:10] organization respond when trust is

[07:12] challenged. Okay. So that's it. So, let

[07:15] me just say right off the bat

[07:18] that doesn't interest me.

[07:21] Candace Owens

[07:23] and her past doesn't interest me.

[07:28] Charlie Kirk's

[07:30] past doesn't interest me. Uh, Mitch Snow

[07:34] doesn't interest me. I What does their

[07:37] past have to do? Under the rules of

[07:40] evidence, in order to impeach a witness,

[07:41] you got to ask somebody, "Let's talk

[07:43] about this." Now, as an aside, give me

[07:47] one second. In court, if I were to say,

[07:49] "Have you ever been convicted of a

[07:50] crime?" Excuse me, objection. What the

[07:52] hell does that have to do with anything?

[07:53] There are limited reasons under the

[07:55] rules of evidence. If it was a a felony

[07:57] or a crime involving dishonesty or false

[07:58] statement, a criminal falsely, that's a

[08:00] different story. But the point is, even

[08:02] in law, we say, "Excuse me, this has

[08:04] nothing to do with this." that that may

[08:06] be great in a magazine article, but this

[08:09] is a courtroom and our focus is this. So

[08:13] what what what's happening right now is

[08:15] these the facts remain and they're

[08:17] alleged and established that on December

[08:19] the 8th, Erica Kirk appeared publicly in

[08:22] New York City. And by that point, she

[08:24] was no longer just a a grieving widow,

[08:27] but the CEO and chair of TPUSA, Turning

[08:31] Point USA, a powerful, hugely political,

[08:36] big organization founded by her late

[08:38] husband, murdered and assassinated

[08:40] husband Charlie Kirk, who was killed on

[08:42] September the 10th.

[08:46] You say 911 and anything even remind

[08:49] even 911

[08:52] you know even uh

[08:55] anyway so that the the the less than

[08:58] propitious timing of this but as you

[09:02] know he was assassinated at a campus

[09:04] event at Utah Valley University UVU and

[09:08] within days of his death within days the

[09:12] board of TPUSA elevated Erica to the top

[09:14] leader leadership role saying in an open

[09:17] letter that this was what Charlie

[09:19] wanted. And whether or not that is true,

[09:22] the move immediately placed her at the

[09:25] center of political power, fundraising,

[09:28] media attention, and internal

[09:31] decisionmaking and that alone

[09:34] guaranteed scrutiny. Okay,

[09:38] so far so good. Is that fair? I think

[09:40] it's fair.

[09:42] Since then, as you can imagine, online

[09:44] discussion has grown, oh my god,

[09:47] metastatically and very intense and very

[09:49] rudely and very meanly and very

[09:52] abusively in some cases with people

[09:55] revisiting her past and examining her

[09:57] charities and circulating claims

[10:00] including the allegation

[10:02] that she is banned from Romania.

[10:06] And it is important to separate what is

[10:08] known, what is alleged, and how the

[10:11] reaction to those allegations have

[10:14] shaped public perception. Now, let me

[10:17] say again,

[10:19] in a cursory review and a cursory review

[10:24] of Romania claims, I'm not seeing

[10:27] anything there. Some articles, some

[10:29] people have said that was debunked. It

[10:31] was misunderstood. She wasn't really

[10:33] involved in it. Let me just say right

[10:35] there, if you want information on

[10:38] Romania or Czechoslovakia or anything

[10:41] else for that matter, have a nice time.

[10:43] Go for it. Tear it up. Have at it. I'm

[10:48] not talking about that. Again, why?

[10:51] Because it doesn't matter. It's

[10:53] irrelevant to this. It's irrelevant.

[10:58] If you're pulled over by a cop for

[10:59] speeding and you say, "How many people

[11:02] have you given a ticket to today?" Who

[11:04] cares? And [laughter] that's not what

[11:06] we're It might be interesting. Might be,

[11:09] but not for purposes of this. There is

[11:12] no evidence from what anybody's seen

[11:14] that she is banned from Romania. And

[11:17] there is no verified proof that she was

[11:19] involved in child trafficking and

[11:21] multiple articles have cited online, do

[11:25] not name her, her charity or the

[11:27] Romanian Angels project or whatever. And

[11:30] timelines matter because everyday heroes

[11:33] like you, which Erica founded in 2006,

[11:36] and its Romanian angels initiative came

[11:39] years after a 2001 heret article about

[11:44] alleged organ trafficking connected to

[11:46] adoption agencies. And that article

[11:49] doesn't reference Erica. And later

[11:52] reporting from Radio Free Europe and

[11:55] Radio Liberty about Romanian adults who

[11:58] say they were trafficked as children

[12:00] also does not mention her or her

[12:03] organization. And those facts should be

[12:06] stated clearly because repeating claims

[12:11] without

[12:13] evidence is irresponsible.

[12:16] Okay. So, what I'm telling you is that

[12:19] when you start throwing things out,

[12:23] and I've seen this before, you'll

[12:25] mention something.

[12:28] Pick anybody you want. Pick a claim that

[12:31] is unfounded

[12:34] or you like what is

[12:39] stated. Give an example. Nothing to do

[12:42] with this. We had a a block party for

[12:46] Zoran Mamani, the new mayor of New York

[12:51] City. And they kept saying HE DIDN'T

[12:53] THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE PORTAOTTIES. THOSE

[12:55] BASTARDS DIDN'T EVEN HAVE PORTAOTTIES.

[12:58] THEY GOT that

[13:01] on his inauguration

[13:03] piece. They said, "By the way, let you

[13:06] know because of safety, there's no

[13:08] public restrooms." And they told them,

[13:11] "Okay, does that matter?"

[13:14] Not if you want to blast him for not

[13:16] having portaotties.

[13:18] You see, the the thing they wanted to

[13:20] allege was more important than anything

[13:23] else.

[13:24] The truth had nothing to do with it,

[13:28] son of a

[13:30] But he warned you. Sorry, that ruins the

[13:33] narrative. You see what I'm saying? So I

[13:35] could just say things like children

[13:38] Romanian child trafficking car thrown

[13:40] out and people say oo I like that and

[13:43] say hey what's that smell that smells

[13:45] good what is that and it lures you into

[13:47] the kitchen oo it smells oo what is that

[13:50] what this is and then you get there and

[13:52] you say this is nothing you've got

[13:54] you've got garlic in a pan that's it

[13:58] isn't even garlic so like I say again be

[14:01] scrupulous

[14:03] is what people keep saying and I'm

[14:04] seeing a lot on various commentators,

[14:07] but without explaining.

[14:10] Don't bring up child trafficking if

[14:12] you're just going to be, you know, just

[14:13] mention it in passing. Those are that's

[14:15] serious allegation. Stick to what we're

[14:17] talking about here. Remember, they did

[14:19] the same thing with Oprah. Oprah, what

[14:20] about what about those schools? And what

[14:22] about Sean Penn in Haiti? And like,

[14:24] uh-huh, what about it? And that's it. It

[14:27] never Well, what about it?

[14:29] That's enough. They hope that will

[14:31] somehow

[14:33] wet your appetite and then that's all

[14:36] you need to know. It's like a bumper

[14:37] sticker versus a page. Now, at the same

[14:40] time all of this happened, the reason

[14:41] these rumors gain traction is not simply

[14:45] because people are malicious or

[14:46] ignorant, but because of how public

[14:47] trust works and how reactions often

[14:50] matter more than facts once suspicion

[14:54] takes hold. You see? So Erica's charity,

[14:58] Everyday Heroes Like You, and its

[15:00] Romanian Angels Project were described

[15:03] publicly as philanthropic efforts,

[15:05] including uh partnering with the United

[15:08] States Marine Corps to support an

[15:11] orphanage in Constant, Romania, and

[15:16] encouraging donors to sponsor children

[15:17] with holiday gifts. and Erica herself

[15:20] posted repeatedly from Romania between

[15:24] 2012 and 2014 sharing photos and

[15:28] messages about the children she met. And

[15:31] there is no public record showing

[15:33] remaining authorities banning her or

[15:36] shutting down the project. And the

[15:39] charity appears to have been in good

[15:40] standing with the IRS through its public

[15:44] social media presence went quiet years

[15:47] ago.

[15:49] So on paper, this should be enough to

[15:50] dismiss the claim. But credibility

[15:53] problems rarely disappear just because a

[15:56] claim is false. And this is where

[15:59] reaction becomes the story. Okay?

[16:04] This is what happens with Candace.

[16:08] People will read into what Candace is

[16:11] saying. So I'm going to tell you, you

[16:13] can think of me whatever you want. I

[16:15] can't help that. All right? I I want you

[16:17] to like me cuz I like you. But you will

[16:20] find I am no when it comes to

[16:23] people making claims. Tell me what the

[16:26] facts are. Whether it's Alex Jones or

[16:29] whether it's AOC.

[16:31] I've clarified more things about AOC or

[16:34] or Elon Omar and oh, SHE MARRIED HER

[16:37] BROTHER. NO, THERE'S no evidence of

[16:39] them. Well,

[16:41] because sometimes that it it gets it

[16:43] gets in the way of the narrative. Now,

[16:46] Erica, as it may or may or may not be

[16:49] surprised, has not directly addressed

[16:50] the Romanian ban rumor and instead has

[16:53] spoken broadly about conspiracy

[16:55] theories, calling them a mind virus and

[16:59] uh expressing anger, as you can

[17:01] understand, that people she says are

[17:03] monetizing attacks on her family and

[17:05] TPUSA. And while that emotional response

[17:08] is understandable, especially given

[17:11] grief and pressure, it is it is not uh

[17:14] reassured skeptics because it doesn't

[17:17] answer the specific questions that they

[17:20] are asking. And people tend to distrust

[17:24] silence and distraction combined with

[17:27] condemnation

[17:28] uh more than they distrust imperfect

[17:31] explanation. So, what that meant is very

[17:33] simply this, Erica, you're not handling

[17:36] this right. You're not if you're if

[17:40] you're going to weigh in, make sure you

[17:44] say things the right way. Don't make

[17:46] references to these these conspiracy

[17:48] theories and mind viruses. No, please.

[17:50] That doesn't

[17:53] look many folks also are not saying that

[17:55] Erica committed crimes or that the

[17:57] Romania claim is true.

[18:00] They're saying, "Oh, oh, oh, by the way,

[18:02] I heard somebody else say Romania. You

[18:04] know what it is? They get thrown out of

[18:05] Romania and they brought in the Tate

[18:07] brothers." It's like, "Stop it. You're

[18:09] just

[18:11] What do you bring in?" What? Romania.

[18:13] Wasn't that Dracula or I'm sorry. I'm

[18:16] going back to my my horror film. I'm

[18:18] trying to think of everything. Chowoescu

[18:21] or

[18:23] anyway

[18:25] what people are saying is that the

[18:28] pattern of response feels kind of

[18:31] defensive and controlling rather than

[18:34] transparent and that feeling that

[18:36] feeling is what drives doubt. When a

[18:40] leader steps into a role as CEO

[18:43] and public moral voice, she, as you can

[18:47] understand, inherits a responsibility to

[18:51] address questions calmly and lucidly and

[18:54] clearly, even unfair ones, and

[18:57] especially false ones, because clarity

[18:59] is how falsehoods die. And when leaders

[19:03] instead focus on, you know, tone and uh

[19:08] uh policing motives or or attacking the

[19:11] critics, the you know, causing the the

[19:14] the questions to grow. So this dynamic

[19:17] has been visible since Erica took over

[19:19] TPUSA. These are unforced errors, by the

[19:22] way. A lot of this was brought up by

[19:23] herself because of the way they were

[19:25] handled or not handled. And it has been

[19:27] amplified by the speed with which she

[19:29] assumed control. I mean immediately

[19:32] days after her husband's killed, she's

[19:34] like boom, she's there she is and

[19:36] anything she does, any kind of

[19:38] appearance wearing lame and this with

[19:40] this it doesn't look right and she's got

[19:44] to read this because that's stage craft.

[19:46] Sorry. And the old expression too soon

[19:49] comes to play. So with all of this

[19:53] appearing on major media platforms and

[19:55] delivering speeches and town halls and

[19:57] that Barry Weiss, oh God, Barry Weiss,

[20:00] do you are you not paying attention?

[20:03] And the interviews and all this while

[20:05] asking the public to grant grace and

[20:07] stop speculation, give me space, give me

[20:09] away. Here I am. But but you you can't

[20:12] have it both ways. Grant me grace and

[20:14] space and leave me alone and stop

[20:16] speculating. And uh to uh to many folks

[20:19] uh those two things seem

[20:22] rather in incompatible, inconsistent,

[20:25] because authority invites scrutiny and

[20:28] grief doesn't erase that. That's it.

[20:32] Now, the Romania claim, again, I've been

[20:34] hearing more and more about this, and

[20:35] let me just be clear. What this has to

[20:37] do with this, I have no idea, but that

[20:40] claim is a good example of how this

[20:41] plays out. It can be false and still

[20:44] damaging if left unadressed. And when

[20:46] people see articles cited out of context

[20:49] or perhaps incorrectly and timelines

[20:52] mixed up, they want to hear a simple

[20:54] response. So that's a good word to you,

[20:56] Erica. Even though it's BS, you you

[20:58] might want to say, "Look, let let me

[20:59] just let me just say this one. Let me

[21:01] clarify this." That's all.

[21:06] It's it's irrelevant, but it becomes

[21:08] relevant by virtue of the number of

[21:09] people that are saying it. Okay?

[21:12] It's important to have a response that

[21:14] says that this claim is false. Here is

[21:16] why, here is the timeline, here are the

[21:18] independent sources, and then move on.

[21:21] But instead, what they often hear is

[21:23] that asking at all is immoral or

[21:27] dangerous and that of that the approach

[21:29] feels like like an attempted shutdown.

[21:32] It's kind of like the how dare you? How

[21:34] dare you?

[21:36] [snorts] You've seen this before.

[21:39] allegations of marital infidelity. How

[21:42] dare you ask me this? You know, do you

[21:44] believe me or your lying eyes? Yeah, it

[21:46] it just don't give me this. How dare

[21:48] you? That means I'm hiding something as

[21:53] opposed to okay, I'll answer your

[21:54] question. If I ask you right now whether

[21:57] you had if I accuse you of having

[21:58] something to do with the Kennedy

[21:59] assassination, many of you weren't even

[22:01] born then. You wouldn't say how dare

[22:03] you. You say no. That's it. That's the

[22:06] way you react. No.

[22:09] No. As opposed to what do you mean?

[22:13] What do you mean? I used to have

[22:14] clients. I would say, "Have you ever

[22:15] been convicted of a crime?" Convicted?

[22:18] Okay. All right. All right. Convicted.

[22:20] All right. Got it. Illegal or unlawful?

[22:24] What do you mean?

[22:26] No. Ask yourself a question. If you were

[22:28] if you were if somebody brought up if I

[22:31] said, "Were you were you actually thrown

[22:33] out of Bolivia and denied

[22:36] denied entrance? Think think about how

[22:39] you would react. What

[22:43] you say what was what Bolivia?

[22:48] No. Do you have the right? No. That's

[22:50] the way you react. Not how dare you.

[22:53] Another conspiracy that see come on.

[22:57] This is axiomatic my children. Now when

[23:01] you have these attempts to shut down

[23:02] discussion, you know, rather than

[23:03] resolve it, it screws things up. And

[23:05] another factor, by the way, is how

[23:06] strongly some supporters react to any

[23:09] questioning of Erica Kirk. And this also

[23:12] fuels skepticism because emotional

[23:14] shielding, as we're talking about, is

[23:16] not evidence. And and telling people

[23:19] repeatedly that asking questions is

[23:21] wrong or or or to question a public

[23:24] leader because of her personal loss.

[23:26] That doesn't align with how public

[23:28] accountability has ever worked and how

[23:30] many people sense that and push back.

[23:32] Remember, if your

[23:35] question is about

[23:39] the timing of something,

[23:42] you can't use as a reason not to answer

[23:46] it the timing of the substance. You see

[23:49] what I'm saying?

[23:53] Remember when

[23:56] Casey Anthony, remember that one?

[23:59] Remember then we said you were out

[24:01] dancing at a party when you were out at

[24:03] a bar when your daughter was. How dare

[24:05] you ask that question? How dare you say

[24:09] I'm a mother in grief? No. No. That's

[24:11] the reason why we're asking is because

[24:12] of the timing.

[24:14] I can't ask this six months later from

[24:16] now. No, the the question is precisely

[24:18] the timing of this in view of the fact

[24:23] that you're a grieving mother

[24:25] theoretically and you were instead at a

[24:27] bar. Why does a grieving mother go to a

[24:30] bar? How dare you? Stop that. How dare

[24:32] you? Same thing with Erica. How dare you

[24:35] ask me this now? I'm g No, because

[24:37] you're on TV. You're on cable news.

[24:39] You're on berry wise. You're this. You

[24:41] You're doing every conceivable sp. It's

[24:44] that timing. This is inappropriate. This

[24:46] is not what a grieving wife does. How

[24:48] dare you? No, it's You see what I'm

[24:50] saying?

[24:51] See the anger itself that all of this

[24:53] brings it's a it becomes a signal that

[24:57] something is fragile and that it may be

[25:00] unfair but perception drives reality and

[25:02] media and politics. I mean one would

[25:04] think see there's also the issue of

[25:06] proportionality which is a big theme of

[25:08] mine. You see, viewers compare what they

[25:11] see to what they expect. And when

[25:14] messaging appears kind of polished or

[25:17] burnished or prepared or scripted or

[25:20] heavily, you know, branded so soon after

[25:24] a tragedy, some people interpret it as

[25:29] what what would you call it to be or um

[25:32] organizational continuity. How about

[25:35] that? Rather than personal mourning. And

[25:38] again, that interpretation may be wrong,

[25:42] but it exists and it grows when leaders

[25:45] do not acknowledge it directly.

[25:48] Erica has said her silence at times was

[25:51] about seeking justice and managing TPUSA

[25:55] and processing grief. And that

[25:58] explanation makes sense, but it still

[26:01] doesn't address why specific claims are

[26:05] not answered headon. and why critics are

[26:08] framed as enemies rather than citizens

[26:12] asking questions. None of this proves

[26:14] wrongdoing, but but it does explain why

[26:18] credibility has become such a problem.

[26:21] Credibility is not destroyed by one

[26:24] rumor.

[26:25] It is eroded and destroyed by patterns.

[26:29] And in this case, critics point to

[26:32] inconsistent messaging,

[26:35] delayed clarification, delayed

[26:37] explanation, and delayed explication,

[26:39] and an aggressive reaction to just

[26:42] scrutiny. How dare you? And they argue

[26:44] that TPUSA under Erica's leadership has

[26:48] leaned toward control rather than what

[26:50] we would call transparency.

[26:52] Remember who Charlie was? Charlie was

[26:55] they every they loved this guy. you.

[26:57] He's a public figure, a national figure.

[27:01] He inspired so many young people and

[27:03] he's gone. And you owe them an answer.

[27:07] Transparency.

[27:09] And whether that assessment is fair or

[27:13] is less than fair, frankly, is less

[27:16] important than the fact that many people

[27:17] believe. They believe it because

[27:21] what people feel and believe and and um

[27:25] have hunches about that shapes our

[27:28] engagement. And see that's especially

[27:30] dangerous for a movement

[27:34] organization because you see once the

[27:37] skeptical middle kind of disengages and

[27:41] disconnects the group becomes smaller

[27:44] and louder and more insular and

[27:48] protected and that's how influence

[27:50] declines. You see the way forward is not

[27:52] to dismiss all criticism as conspiracy

[27:56] theories.

[28:00] but rather

[28:03] I guess you would say to to to shame

[28:05] people for asking questions. You know

[28:08] that but just but but you need to se

[28:12] separate facts from allegations and

[28:15] address each other clearly. you know, on

[28:17] this Romania issue, that would mean

[28:20] stating plainly that there is no ban, no

[28:22] evidence of trafficking, explaining the

[28:25] charity's history, proving independent

[28:27] confirmation if possible, and then

[28:29] moving on and then saying, "I've

[28:30] answered it

[28:32] without moral lectures." I answered it.

[28:34] Go back and watch it. I'm going to say

[28:35] this one time. Everybody pay attention.

[28:37] Roll tape on this, as we used to say.

[28:39] I'm gonna say this one time. Address it.

[28:41] It's a good question. Let me let me get

[28:43] this out of the way. on broader issues.

[28:45] It would mean accepting that

[28:49] leadership also invites doubt

[28:53] and that responding calmly builds trust

[28:57] faster than outrage.

[29:00] Erica Kirk

[29:02] may be and appears to be innocent of the

[29:04] specific claims circulating about her

[29:06] past and the Romanian band and all other

[29:08] kind of stuff as it appears unsupported

[29:10] by evidence. But the larger credibility

[29:13] challenge she faces is real and is being

[29:16] shaped less by what happened years ago

[29:20] and more by how she and TPUSA respond

[29:23] now. Okay? In public life, people don't

[29:28] just judge what you say. They judge how

[29:30] you say it, how you react and how you

[29:34] react when questioned. And right now,

[29:36] many observers feel the reaction has

[29:38] been to close ranks.

[29:40] and attack motives and sanity and and

[29:44] whether you're a grifter or whether

[29:46] you're doing it for internet clicks and

[29:48] that usual stuff and to demand belief,

[29:52] you must believe me rather than to earn

[29:54] it. And until that changes, the rumors

[29:58] will continue not because they are true,

[30:00] but because the environment allows them

[30:02] to survive. That's it.

[30:06] So what I want you to understand is very

[30:07] very simply this. That is what's

[30:09] happening here right now. And let me

[30:10] just go back and you ask anybody else

[30:12] this question. If somebody asked you, if

[30:15] somebody said, "Is it true, let's assume

[30:18] that you were denied entry into Italy?"

[30:22] They revoked your passport and you were

[30:24] accused of running an organ transport

[30:29] plant transplant team in Genoa or

[30:31] whatever

[30:33] you would say.

[30:35] What?

[30:37] Remember that?

[30:39] What?

[30:42] What are you talking about?

[30:45] Did this happen? No.

[30:50] as opposed to let me

[30:53] let me clear some things up about that.

[30:56] The trafficking allegations of me in

[31:00] Italy. See, even that is like wait wait

[31:02] wait wait that's the way you react or

[31:04] how dare you you and your crazy. Oh,

[31:08] you're doing this just for clicks,

[31:09] right? No, that's not the way. No.

[31:13] No. If your spouse accused you of

[31:15] infidelity, WERE YOU OVER THERE WITH IT?

[31:17] NO.

[31:19] NO.

[31:21] As opposed to what do you mean? And you

[31:23] know it's

[31:26] remember during the Fanny Willis thing.

[31:28] Oh my god. Remember Wade or whatever? Oh

[31:32] god, he was they were the worst. They

[31:35] couldn't answer a question because it

[31:36] was true.

[31:39] So that's that. So the bottom line is

[31:41] simply this. This is a fascinating issue

[31:44] for derivative claims and derivative

[31:46] issues because of something which is

[31:47] very important. This is more than

[31:49] Candace or or Erica. It's about the

[31:53] media. It's about proof. It's about the

[31:55] the internet. It's about these new

[31:57] scrums and murmmorations. So, that being

[31:59] said, thank you. Thank you for your

[32:01] great and kind and incredible comments.

[32:04] I appreciate them so much. They're

[32:06] wonderful. Truly absolutely wonderful.

[32:09] And some are not so wonderful, but

[32:11] that's okay. I can take it. I also thank

[32:14] you

[32:15] for understanding the work that my wife

[32:18] is doing. Now, let me say something

[32:19] about this very quickly [snorts] and I

[32:21] want you to see this. She's at Lyn's

[32:23] Warriors. Okay, that's her thing. Got

[32:26] that? Good. And what she's doing is

[32:29] trying to protect protect children. Her

[32:32] her Oh my god. This morning there was a

[32:36] a a thread she did on her u

[32:41] exac account at lyn warriors about a

[32:44] little girl who was oh I don't even want

[32:46] to say it's just heartbreaking

[32:49] heartbreaking

[32:51] that's lyn warriors on YouTube

[32:55] what I do here is my business so what

[32:59] I'm saying is I just want you to

[33:01] understand there's a lot of people that

[33:03] I recommend and I think you should pay

[33:05] attention to,

[33:07] but we don't adopt each other's things.

[33:09] So, if you got a beef with me, that's

[33:11] okay. If you got a beef with Candace,

[33:14] blame her, not me. You see what I'm

[33:16] saying? Because people just

[33:19] Some people just love to get mad. As you

[33:21] notice, I never get mad. I've been doing

[33:24] this for a long time. This is my 38th

[33:27] year doing kind of professional

[33:30] commentary. I don't get mad

[33:32] because there's so many issues that we

[33:34] have to get to. So many issues and what

[33:37] we will get to ultimately I think is and

[33:39] what what Lynn's Warriors on YouTube is

[33:42] so important about is how to protect

[33:43] children because we pay a lot of lip

[33:47] service to protecting kids but we don't

[33:49] do anything. Legislation Congress we

[33:51] love to talk about it but we don't do

[33:52] anything we just we just so keep that in

[33:55] mind.

[33:57] I am a very very very simple person.

[34:00] I'm here to represent the opposition.

[34:04] Whatever the majority is saying, I'm the

[34:06] opposite because you will never find

[34:09] solace in the majority. There's

[34:11] something wrong with it because if you

[34:13] don't find something to disagree with,

[34:15] you're not paying attention. And that

[34:16] goes sometimes for people who are the

[34:18] same side that we are. In any event,

[34:19] thank you for watching. Please like the

[34:21] video. I appreciate that immensely. You

[34:24] know how that works. Please um uh

[34:27] subscribe to the channel, which is very

[34:28] important. very important you know you

[34:30] know 70% or so of the people who watch

[34:33] us don't subscribe I don't know why

[34:37] [snorts]

[34:39] please I said what I like this oh hit

[34:41] the little bell so you're notified of

[34:42] live streams new oh and and more

[34:44] importantly as I say which is more

[34:47] critical comment as you see fit your

[34:50] comments are incredible

[34:52] I'm saying this just in case you just

[34:54] tuned in for the first time for years I

[34:56] never read any of my comments never

[34:58] because they were awful. They were just

[35:00] like, "What do you these people hate me,

[35:02] you know, but they don't even know I'm

[35:04] send anything." But now I'm thinking,

[35:06] "Let me wait into this." And they're

[35:08] brilliant.

[35:10] Your analysis, your your take is and

[35:13] your support and your statement.

[35:15] Sometimes it's like graffiti. Sometimes

[35:17] it's it's more thought out. In any

[35:18] event, comment comment comment. And I've

[35:22] got some questions for you. Comment as

[35:23] you see fit.