The full transcript

See that too.

Are we live? Okay, so we're officially live. Uh, Candace, Andrew, you know, good to sit down here with you talking to you guys about Uh, the conversation that I think started with you being on Joe Rogan when you said, hey, I'm offering $300,000. And for the audience watching this, you have to know, when you see this final product, there's a lot of stuff that happens behind closed doors. There was still communication till midnight, even some of the stuff this morning. Like, it's like you're trying to sell a company, it's the last 24 hours that the deal doesn't work out. But kudos to the both of you guys that you made it work. Uh, the topic of discussion today, how this got prompted, is Andrew, you said there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk. And Candace, your position was he's a patsy. Tyler Robinson is a patsy. So of course we'll talk about a lot of different things, but that's kind of how the whole thing got started. For the audience watching, I think this is, uh, truly for 3 different people. Number one is anybody out there that loves Charlie, respects Charlie, his legacy, what he did. Uh, we have a lot of love and admiration for what he did. He changed the lives of many people. Uh, uh, young men, young women. You work with them for many years. You guys were friends. You've said a lot of good things about Charlie, respectful towards him. You guys may have disagreed on some things, but you got a lot of respect for him. The second audience is, um, the folks out there, you that's watching this. And so for you, you've been wanting something like this to take, take place. And kudos for Andrew for coming out and saying, hey, I want to have this conversation, and for Candace to accept it. Uh, so you, you have the ability to say, I agree, I disagree, comment to all the stuff that you're doing online. And if you want to see more of these things Any of the 3 channels, subscribe to them. The Candace Show, The Crucible— I'm sure some of the people from Crucible are watching as well— and the PBD Podcast. The more you subscribe to this, the more we're able to deliver these types of conversations to you. And last but not least, it's about the 2 of you. My goal is to speak as little as possible. 99% of the time it'll be you guys speaking, and the audience will be able to see it. If I jump in, just so everybody knows, on the back end, both have agreed. In the back, there's 3 people representing Andrew And 3 people representing Candace to do fact-checking. So at any point, if somebody makes a claim, the other can say, can we fact-check this? I can jump in and say, fact-check this. Even the folks in the back can say, fact-check this. So it is a very fair conversation that we're having here. And so with that being said, um, kudos to Michael Knowles. Your name was mentioned a lot. You missed out right now. The last 10 minutes we talked about you. There's a lot of love and respect here mutually from both parties, all 3 of them here. And then of course the great Joe Rogan that started this conversation, and he also volunteered, but it ended up being, uh, this format that we have here today. So with that being said, Andrew, your claim is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. Opening statements, opening comments. Sure.

And what I mean by overwhelming is I just find it very convincing. That's— I think that's what most people mean when they say overwhelming evidence. So I have a brief opening statement. On September 10th, 2025, Charlie Kirk was murdered. Many of you already know a lot about the events which occurred after Kirk's death. You remember the ghoulish laughter, celebrations, and madness we saw from leftists all over, from TikTok invasions, debates, posts on social media, destruction of memorials, and things like this. Within weeks of Kirk's death, a cottage industry began to form peddling various alternative theories, On how he died. What special interests may have killed him? What nations were involved? And was our own government one of them? Because this was the first nationwide traumatic event in Gen Z's lifetime, the demand for answers was severe and palpable. The leading theory from the conspiracy verse is that Israel worked with the United States government to murder Charlie Kirk. Within a day or two of Kirk's death, Ian Carroll claimed that Israel killed Charlie Kirk, and the conspiracy caught on like wildfire. This theory was built on one misleading piece of evidence: that in his final days, on or around September 8th, Charlie sent a text message reading, Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause. This was sent in the context of a platforming dispute regarding Tucker Carlson. From this scintilla of misleading information, it was speculated that Israel killed Charlie Kirk because he would have successfully opposed the Iranian war. Now, that's a fun theory, and who doesn't like a good fun conspiracy theory? I like them. But there is no evidence that Israel actually killed Charlie Kirk. And if Candace has some, I'd like her to actually show it to me. I'm open to suggestions, but to date there hasn't been any. There is, however, tons of evidence that a leftist killed Charlie Kirk. just as Charlie feared they would. I believe Charlie Kirk, and I have the receipts. No, I didn't have a dream where he came to me and told me that the left killed him. No, he didn't come to me in a dream and say Candace Owens betrayed him. That never happened. In fact, I don't need dreams of any kind because I hold in my possession never-before-seen messages from Charlie Kirk to his security team on September 9th, 2025. I'm going to share the message with you. today, which is the first time this information's ever been publicly revealed. On September 9th, Charlie's security team wrote to him, yes, law enforcement has been fully supportive and agreed to a security plan and posture. Tomorrow's event will be covered by both my team and the campus PD. If additional support is required, patrol units will be available. I have 11 on site. Charlie responded with this, okay, great. Remind them that they are there for one person's security only. Because I'm somewhat worried the left is trying to kill me. That was a message sent September 9th. Whatever could he have meant by that? Well, I think he meant exactly what he said, that he was worried the left was going to try to kill him. Now, we'll discuss this more later on in the debate, and maybe I have more never-before-seen evidence that exposes just how wrong and In my opinion, idiotic many of these conspiracy theories have been. But that's what happens when you rely on what's called the evidence of the gaps. In other words, they don't have evidence, they seem to just make up evidence. And what did they make up? Well, in my opinion, kind of whatever lined the pockets. And I think it's ghoulish to profit off of the death of a good man. But we came here today to debate. And so let's get to it. The debate topic today is: 1, my belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, and 2, Candace's belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson was a patsy and didn't kill Charlie Kirk. In sum, the audience is going to decide who has more evidence supporting their theory. My theory is that the state is correct, that Tyler Robinson is the killer, at least based on evidence so far. And Candace's theory that Tyler Robinson is not the killer and he is a patsy set up by the feds. To be clear, this is not a question of reasonable doubt. If it was reasonable doubt and that's all it was and that's all Candus was proffering, I wouldn't even be here having the debate with her. It's fair to have doubts as a trial has yet to occur and the state hasn't even begun to try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But Candus makes a more forceful claim. She claims that there's more evidence that Tyler is not guilty of murder and was set up as a patsy than there is for the state's case. And I just think that that's absurd, and she will not be able to demonstrate that in any way. In fact, she has almost no real evidence at all of her theory, whereas my theory is supported by compelling witness testimony, physical evidence, multiple confessions, all of which are independently compelling but which are even more convincing as each piece of evidence corroborates the others. You'll notice the term overwhelming was included in both theories. This is because Candus demanded I defend My use of that term, which I think is fair, in describing the evidence against Tyler Robinson. She, on the other hand, only wanted to defend her theory as merely viable. That is, until I showed her clips in which she said she believed the evidence of her theory that Tyler Robinson's a patsy was supported by overwhelming evidence. Only then did she agree to defend that position. Regardless, we're both defending the claim that there's overwhelming evidence on our side, so it's worth defining that term. When I say the evidence against Robinson is overwhelming, all I'm saying is that I mean that as of right now, I find it very convincing. I see almost no evidence at all, only speculation, unverified claims, and suggestions of things that could merely be hypothetically possible— dreams, vibes, feelings, things like this. Almost done, by the way. I have no problem defending the state's case and welcome Candace bringing up any challenges she would like. But if I'm honest, the reason I was willing to pay the $300,000 for this debate was to finally have a chance for someone to demand Candace be held accountable for the unbelievable theories and claims she's been making. Candace's investigation's indistinguishable from a leftist operation. She couldn't be doing more damage to the right if she were trying. She uses her considerable platform to relentlessly attack one of the most influential conservative outreach organizations for young people, and she's making a mockery of the online right-wing commentary class. She's harming Republicans in an election year by dividing them. She's attacking the very organization Charlie spent his life building, And she's attacking the people he loved, including his wife. And it cost me $300,000. But today, I hope that she finally answers for some of that.

+2 R-2.2 · Ad hominem in opening (attacks investigation and motive) · Andrew Wilson

+5 R-3.5 · Withheld text exhibit deployed as evidence · Andrew Wilson

Thank you, Andrew.

Candace, did you get it out of your system?

I did.

Okay, great. Well, I'm not gonna waste time with the preamble because I think I just want to get to the substance of the debate. And I will just speak to the audience. I have obviously had an audience since we've been covering this case. People know that there was a personal friendship between me and Charlie. And diminishing the pursuit of something that makes sense regarding what happened on September 10th by throwing it to, this is just people who are conspiracy theorists, these are people who are just trying to generate clicks. I, I don't think that people should be satisfied by that. I want people to remember that it's important to think. We've been lied to by the government a great many times over, I mean, just the last couple of years. If you just think of the things that we've learned about our government, And I do wanna say this. What's been the most disturbing element, I think, for everyone is that not only does the narrative not make any sense, which I'm going to demonstrate, I don't need to waste time with a preamble going through the points or trying to insult you or pretending that I've been running a podcast saying it's just dreams and vibes like I'm Miss Cleo. And that's the reason why it's taking so many influencers. It looks like a billion-dollar industry of influencers to dispute everything Candace says. It's not because I'm on my platform saying I had a dream last night. I don't think that that— I think that diminishes you as an argument. Obviously. Obviously, we have presented a lot of evidence. You just presented a text message and said this is evidence. Well, that's how this entire thing began. You're talking about how Israel got into the conversation. It was because immediately after Charlie died, one of the first things we saw was this push to make us all think and remember how much he loved Israel. It's because the prime minister of Israel, who's fighting like a 27-front war, felt that he needed to come do a little mini tour and to. be strangely to state that I did not kill Charlie Kirk when nobody was having that thought that I can remember. Nobody was going, I wonder if Bibi Netanyahu killed Charlie Kirk. And then we had a round of influencers who lied and said Charlie was not changing on Israel, that he wasn't having any disagreements regarding that topic, that the day he died, he just loved Israel so much. And I demonstrated via a text message, which you just mentioned, And you're now contextualizing and pretending it was just about Tucker Carlson, which is not true. It was a part of a broader shift that Charlie was having over the last, I would say, actually on your show it began.

Mm-hmm.

Since October 7th, which is when I began asking myself more questions about Israel as well. And so, yeah, when all of these things happen in the immediate aftermath, and then I drop a text message after everyone is denying that, Tucker Carlson then comes out and confirms the conversations that he had with Charlie. Megyn Kelly then comes out and confirms the private conversations that she had with Charlie. People then begin to ask a reasonable question, which is, why are we lying about this? If they were forthcoming with that and they had said, hey, yeah, Charlie was starting to ask questions, I think after October 7th, it's reasonable that people are starting to reexamine our relationship with Israel. We wouldn't be here today. But it has been lie after lie after lie, debunk after debunk after debunk. Yes, I did share that I had a dream that Charlie was betrayed. It's not a dream anymore. It's a reality. I look at what the organization has become, the people that they are partnering with, the lies that they are telling, the extraordinary people that they're sending out to say that I never— I hadn't speak to Charlie since 2018. And it begins to look like a conspiracy. And just as a historical fact, that entire term was created by the CIA to gaslight people after the assassination of JFK. So it's not exactly one That makes me nervous. Like, calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is essentially saying that they demand further answers. They're not accepting the fed-slop. So I'm grateful that you came today. I don't need to, like I said, take cheap shots and discuss your manner of debate or your strategy. And I'm also grateful that you shared that you had that text message today, because everybody watching knows that I, I have been demanding not a debate, just an open conversation with Turning Point USA. should be here. It shouldn't be you in that chair. It should be the person that took Charlie's place. Maybe Erica Kirk, maybe Andrew Colbett. He's a spokesperson. And rather than doing that, they send us another influencer. So let's see how it goes.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-007

Just out of curiosity, are you— between 0 to 100, what is the likelihood that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed him?

+6 C-3.1 · Direct answer to moderator's likelihood question · Andrew Wilson

Based on the evidence right now, um, I don't know, I'd say 75, 85%.

Candace?

0%.

+6 C-3.1 · Direct answer to moderator's likelihood question · Candace Owens

0%.

I'm at zero. So with what we've seen in terms of the evidence, I'm at zero percent.

So not, not only, you know, that maybe somebody was behind him as a patsy influencing him, you're not even saying that he didn't even shoot Charlie Kirkland?

Right. I would— if you said, was he involved that day, as I have consistently said on my platform, I would say yes, he was. I don't know what role he played, but as the shooter, zero percent.

↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-013

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Candace Owens · ruling prints at U-135

Do you have any evidence for it?

Uh, for what? My percentage—

the fact that he didn't, he didn't shoot and kill Charlie Kirk.

Yes. Which I'm hoping we're going to get to all of the evidence that he feels that he has. I mean, I don't— I'm not even convinced that Charlie was shot from the rooftop on Losey that day based on the evidence that has been—

Do you think he was shot?

I, I do not think that Charlie was shot from a .30-06 from Losey.

Yeah, but just shot at all?

I don't, I don't know. I think that a projectile hit Charlie. And I'm open to other people's presentations, but I have not seen any compelling evidence that Charlie was shot by a .30-06.

+3 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty on whether Kirk was shot · Candace Owens

Can we see maybe if we're gonna have an olive branch to each other, if maybe we can establish what we consider the facts of the case to be first?

+1.5 C-2.1 · Sought and named common ground on the facts · Andrew Wilson

Yeah, sure.

Okay. So you don't— you're not sure if he was actually shot. You're open to alternative theories.

He was definitely hit with a projectile of some description. If we're talking about was he shot from a gun, a .30-06, I would say definitively no.

Okay.

It defies, it defies common sense to think that he had a Superman neck. And even if he did have a Superman neck, which has been demonstrated, uh, I think actually recently a YouTuber actually set up Svalhalla steel cages and shot it and it went through. So under no circumstance will I—

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-023

So at least not a .30-06?

Definitively not. A .30-06, you'll see 150 feet.

But you're not necessarily closing off the avenue that he could have been shot at all?

Maybe a smaller—

Smaller caliber. Okay. And then there's some things that I'm going to make concessions on that I do think we need more answers on, and I'm fine with that. And we can get to those things as well. The other thing is in the timeline, one of the things that we dispute, I think, on the timeline is that you think that Robinson drove hours away to a steakhouse in the timeline. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. And what's the compelling evidence that you think you have there?

I spoke to the owner of the restaurant, and I have seen the receipt. I know the conversation that I had. And I think it's enough that, you know, it will be presented, obviously, if this goes to trial. But yes, I do believe that he was in Panguitch, which is near his grandparents' home.

Did he give you an unedited copy of that receipt?

I have seen an unedited copy, a copy of that receipt. It was not given to me from the owner. But I want to— before you— we get into like all the timeline stuff, I want to address what you think is evidence so we can keep this on par with what your claim is since—

Well, I think that that's a piece of evidence that's in dispute, and that's why I'm—

Yeah, but we're trying to get to whether there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did this. Yeah, whether then starting with—

if you want to use the first part of that for the internal critique, yeah, we should go over the actual evidence that we feel The first reason that I think, and I think it's compelling evidence, is that Tyler Robinson's rifle was found near the crime scene. So I would consider that to be very good evidence. And also the fact of the matter is, is that I dispute this claim that a .30-06 could not have made this wound. I think that that's absurd. 150-grain Remington Core-Lokt absolutely could shatter when it hits the neck of any human being. When you say that there's some steel neck and it's a smaller caliber, you have to make a counter-explanation. Why wouldn't a smaller caliber also go through bone?

It could. I didn't say it can't.

Right, exactly. So if that's the case, then ammunition is going to be the critical key here. And if we have frangible ammunition, which we do in this case, a flex tip round— well, I'm sorry, not a flex tip, a soft point round from a 150-grain Remington Core-Lok. That's just a small jacket that goes around the actual lead piece. These— this thing could have split apart in air for all we know. But definitely upon impact. And we have the medical examiner who confirms this in a summary. And my team can bring that up, the summarization, which means he would have to be a part of some kind of conspiracy as well.

↳ P5 raised again here · first raised at U-023

↳ evidence for the P5 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-044

Okay. So just to start with your point about saying that the gun was found near him, I mean, near Losey Center, or I guess off in the woods, that gun— did you watch the testimony? Did you watch the preliminary hearing?

I covered it live.

+4 R-2.2 · Ad hominem: attacking Wilson's competence to dismiss his point · Candace Owens

Okay. So forgetting what the summary of the medical report was, did you watch the testimony that was given by the Caitlin Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha Carner, any of those people who went into the science of—

Yes, I recall. You're talking about the bullet analysis. Yeah. When they went into the DNA.

Okay. So that's kind of the most relevant part.

Okay.

I'm not denying— I've never denied on my platform or anywhere else that a gun owned by Tyler Robinson was found near the crime scene. Right. That doesn't— that doesn't remove— if you think somebody set up as a patsy, I— you could take a gun out of this room right now and you could walk out and plant it in the woods near a crime scene.

↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-044

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession: rifle near scene consistent with planting · Andrew Wilson

I agree.

That's not convincing evidence.

I concur. I concur with the fact that that's a possibility.

So you are— you, I think, have said on a platform that you were a gunsmith. Okay. And for how many years?

Many, many years.

For many years. You also said that you were an Army sniper.

I wasn't a sniper in the Army.

Okay.

And I never said that.

Sorry, your wife tweeted that you were an Army sniper.

Yeah, I don't know, like 15 years ago she said something.

Does it change 15 years later?

She said that it was colloquial.

So Army sniper is a colloquial term?

Yeah. I'm not an— I was never an Army sniper.

Okay. Um, what did you do in the Army? Did you teach this? She then corrected and said you taught rifles in the Army.

Not— no, I didn't teach rifle. No, I taught rifles as a private citizen.

Okay.

Uh, and I was an NRA instructor for many, many, many years alongside my, my gun shop.

As with your expertise, when she, uh, gave testimony on the stand, Samantha Karner, that there was dust and there was debris that was found in the gun barrel. And then when we had the person who, and this was, I believe, Kaitlin Oliver, who explained painfully about the DNA, the prints.

↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-079

Well, let's start with a point in time.

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption during Owens's answer · Andrew Wilson

I'm not done. You said something, so I'm going to finish my thought, right?

You don't want to do a point in time?

No. Well, sure. If you want to respond to it. But I want you to respond to 2 points. I want you to start with 2 points.

Okay.

Dust and debris in the gun barrel.

Yeah.

Secondly, the fact that there were 5 sets of prints, 5 plus actually by the end of the testimony, 5 sets of prints, uh, for which we already had the woman who worked for the FBI forensics testify that above 2 prints, if you're taking a sample, it, it's no longer a science, right? She testified that when they took the sample of what was on the trigger, they saw 5 plus prints. And among those 5 plus prints, Tyler Robinson's was the most degraded.

Mm-hmm.

So I would like you to explain how Tyler Robinson's prints could be the most degraded when she said, actually, you could have DNA on something that you've touched, you could have DNA on something that you've never touched. And to get DNA degradation, we've— they've looked at pieces, um, uh, items 20, 40 years on that don't have degradation. Yet Tyler Robinson's prints Amongst 5+ other prints were the most degraded on that weapon.

Yeah. So let's get into all 3 of the claims. First, with debris. When it comes to debris, firing a rifle doesn't always blow the debris out of the barrel.

↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-079

Okay. That— so I, I— you think there could be degree, uh, I'm sorry, debris and dust?

Yeah.

He just fired the weapon.

Sure.

Okay.

Not only that, he left it in a forest. Now, I don't know if, if you agree with me, but if you leave a rifle in a wooded area, it's also possible that debris could get in that way. But I'm not even sure that that's what the case is. I think it's far more likely that you fired the shot, it just didn't blow all the debris out. And it often doesn't. You'll find this if you, if you take grandpappy's, you know, dirty rifle, and it's all dusty inside the bore and you go fire it, you'll often look down the bore and there's still dust.

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-084

Okay.

Happens all the time.

Okay. And the prints?

Yeah, so the prints, we don't know all of the details on just yet.

We do. It was, it was excruciatingly long.

We don't because they haven't gone to trial, so we don't know, uh, on the print front. But Tyler Robinson's DNA was on there. You made the claim that Lance Twiggs' DNA was on there, and it was not.

Uh, well, when she gave the testimony— no, first let's go to your first point because that's wrong. We can get a fact check on that. What do you mean we don't know until it goes to trial about the degraded prints? She testified, and she— this is the person who took the prints.

Yes, but the problem is, is that inside of this particular testimony, you agree with me that there's going to be much more of the DNA analysis, right?

But you also would agree that her fact is not going to to change that among the prints, his was the most degraded. So I'm asking you to address that. How could that be possible?

↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-081

Let's give it— let's just grant this for a second as a possibility that his fingerprints were degraded.

It's not a possibility. It's a fact. The person who took it—

I'm just granting it for the sake of argument.

You should grant it because it's a fact that she presented.

So now it's granted. So what?

What do you mean, so what?

Yeah, so what? What does that prove?

It proves that if his prints were the most degraded amongst 5 of them, you're going to have to explain how that's possible if he's the one that recently fired the weapon.

↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-081

Yeah, so wait a second. You're saying that it's an impossibility that if his fingerprints are the most degraded—

I'm telling you to explain it. You're the, you're the gunsmith.

Well, wait a second. How would a gunsmith give an analysis on fingerprints or DNA? Do you think that I work in a DNA laboratory?

↳ evidence for the P8 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-104

So your answer is, I don't know. You can just say you don't know. You don't have to.

But I did. But I did.

No, you said, so what? So say, I don't know. I ask you, do you have an explanation for that, Candace? Well, I think that what it would prove is that it is a more viable theory that people who had stronger prints on the gun may have used it more recently.

Did they tell— did they say who else had fingerprints on the gun?

They named Matt Robinson explicitly.

Okay.

And then— and this was a part of the testimony where she was speaking about how they got samples of elimination samples from the home of Amber Robinson, Matt Robinson, and Lance Twiggs. Those are the 3 names they named.

So are you saying that Twiggs—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption during Owens's answer · Andrew Wilson

Would you like me to finish my statement?

I just want to make sure I'm clarifying.

I'm trying to finish the answer, but it can't be clarified until the answer comes out of my mouth.

Okay, so go ahead.

This was a portion of her testimony where she was explaining how they got elimination samples from the home, and she named Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson, and Lance Twigs as the elimination samples that she was using. Um, and so she explicitly said— she said some of them, some, so we can assume 2 out of the 3, uh, were— their prints were found on the gun. She explicitly named Matt Robinson. as someone who had prints on the gun and then said there were 5 people that they had taken that sample from. And again, what's also relevant here is the earlier testimony, which came from, uh, the FBI forensics analyst. I believe it was on day 2, where she said that when you're using those mixtures and those samples and you get up to 5+, it's really hard to make any sort of a determination. So both of those things are relevant. If you can't explain why his prints are the most degraded and you're saying he is the shooter, it's not really a so what. It's an open-ended question that people have a right to pursue. It's not a conspiracy. It's actually proof of my claim that there is evidence that he was set up as a patsy.

That wouldn't prove anything about him being a patsy.

They said it's evidence to support the claim that he could have been set up as a patsy.

So this is why I said earlier, so what? Because even if it's the case, this doesn't have an explanation for it yet. That doesn't actually give you any evidence in your corner for Tyler Robinson being a patsy.

↳ evidence for the P8 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-104

Okay, hang on, hang on, hang on.

I didn't cut you off, right? You would need to actually explain how this would demonstrate Tyler Robinson— this is tied into Robinson being a patsy. Are you claiming that these fingerprints were Lance Twiggs or that he had any DNA there?

I, I'm saying that it could be Matt Robinson, it could be Amber Robinson. That sort of information is going to come out during the trial.

How would that tie into the idea that he's a patching up.

Yes, because if his is the most degraded prints and the information that I shared on my platform is true, that this gun was given to Tyler Robinson as an heirloom. I had conversation with members of the Robinson family, Twiggs family, both of them. You know, like I said, we're not just dreaming. And if we're having those conversations and they told me that that gun was only given to Tyler Robinson because it was a family heirloom, okay, so it was his grandfather's gun or great-grandfather's gun. I don't remember the difference. I don't remember which one it was. And so he got it because he's the firstborn. So, but he's not much of a shooter is what I was told. And so he has this because he inherited it essentially. So if I get something from my grandpa and I put it up on the shelf and I own this, you could see that could be—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption during Owens's answer · Andrew Wilson

How do we get to the Patsy part?

You don't let me ever get to the end of the sentence. So how could we get to the Patsy part? Okay.

I'll wait patiently till we get to that.

So that could be a reasonable explanation as to why there was dust in the barrel because he doesn't often shoot this weapon, and he is indeed a fisher. Um, and it could also be a reasonable explanation for why we have Matt Robinson's prints on this. Obviously Lance Twiggs, even if he has prints on things, they live together, that doesn't really mean anything. But that could demonstrate that somebody took his weapon and put it somewhere. His prints are the most degraded. Somebody else's prints— there, there's more presence of somebody else's prints. And that could demonstrate that somebody is taking items from his house and putting it into very—

↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-081

But it also could demonstrate nothing. So the problem, the problem that you have here is that this is pure conjecture.

No, this is—

hang on, this is not evidence that Tyler Robinson is a patsy. It's only evidence that you have conjectured up that, uh, well, if it's the case that these are the, the more degraded prints, then therefore that means must be patsy because parents' finger— dad's fingerprints on gun.

I didn't say—

Describe how this actually links in to Robinson being a patsy.

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-132

Okay, I just described that for you, so I'm not— I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you, so I'm going to move on from that. But to just go back to your point about this is not evidence, you can't make that claim because you're— the entire basis for why you think that there is evidence for Tyler Robinson being the person that took the shot is based off of a hearing under Utah 1102 rules, meaning that they are doing the exact same thing that I am doing. This is the state. You said you're here to represent the state. Well, did you watch the preliminary hearing?

I didn't say I was here to represent the state.

The state's position, you think, is strong and convincing?

What I'm here to do is represent my own opinion, which is that based on the evidence presented so far by the state, the state has presented evidence under Utah's 11-02 rule. But this doesn't demonstrate any paternity.

No, that's very important because that rule is hearsay. So you can't say at the same time, Candace, you're not allowed to. And what that means under the Utah rule, which I'm sure you know because I'm sure you watched the preliminary hearing and yourself understand what that means, is that the entire hearing was hearsay. It means none of that information that was presented is going to be allowed. The majority of it, the overwhelming majority of it, is not going to be allowed at the trial. They're allowed to present when it's just a probative hearing.

+7.5 R-3.2 · Asymmetric rigor: worthless-hearsay bar for the state, phone-call bar for her own case · Candace Owens

I don't think all the evidence that was, that was put in was hearsay.

Okay. You didn't watch this case.

But not only that.

No, no, no. That's— this is a huge point.

I want to—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption during Wilson's turn · Candace Owens

well, it's crazy that you don't know this.

Backcheck. If all the evidence was put in—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption during Wilson's turn · Candace Owens

this was every single day. Utah Rule 1102.

there.

So they said they had— there's a medical examiner's explanation of the shooting that's in the back. Rob, if you want to pull it up, and then Candace, if anybody from your team wants to pull something up, no problem as well. But they're requesting it. If you guys got it, pull it up, uh, so we can show it. And in the interim, can't— is that it?

Yeah. So I'll read this.

Just what are we looking at, just so we know?

Yeah, so the— this says the bullet, or at least part of it, Sequentially perforated the anterior left of Mr. Kirk's neck, strap muscles of the left side of the neck. This is a summary, by the way. Uh, left common, uh, cartoid on the left internal external jugular veins. The bullet also obliterated the left side C2-7 vertebrae, transacted the cervical spinal cord. Medical examiner observed a significant portion of Kirk's cervical spinal cord was traumatically absent. Mr. Kirk suffered from other severe injuries, including bilateral apical and posterior intercausal hemorrhages, pulmonary apical hemorrhages, multiple disruptions to the thyroid, etc., etc. So there, the summary of the examination is that he was shot. Okay, that was what they were pulling that up.

Okay, and I don't— I'm not disputing that he could have been hit with a projectile. I, I'm— we're not disputing that, so I don't know why this was brought up as a fact check. Uh, could you bring up 1102 Utah rule? Because this is an unbelievable point that you're making by saying that I am not allowed to infer off of evidence.

You can infer. I'm trying to follow the inference.

But your entire reason, like, you asserted that you believe there's overwhelming evidence on the basis of what we saw in the preliminary hearing. The entire preliminary hearing was hearsay.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-145

Yeah, I'm fine with your inferences.

But no, you just literally said I couldn't do that. Yes, I can.

No, I didn't. I'm just saying from your inference, how do we get to Patsy?

This is how you got to shoot her. Tyler Robinson did it the same way.

No, no, no, no, no. I didn't get to shoot her from that.

Yes, you did. You— again, this is something important, so we should pull up a fact check about what the 1102 Utah— and under their constitution, for the sake of a preliminary hearing, they do not have to have hard evidence. They don't have to put people on the trial floor.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-145

They may have to.

But no, no, that's why the entire hearing was basically hearsay. Officer Baggett was saying—

But not all of it, like I said.

The overwhelming majority. I mean, outside of the one that you don't want to give. Please don't cut me off. What's in dispute though? Outside of— no, that is what's in dispute. It means that your entire brand of saying you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence, falls apart when the entire preliminary hearing is based off of hearsay. In fact, Lance's testimony before they had about an hour debate, actually, maybe it was more than an hour debate before he sat and they said, this is not going to be allowed. You wouldn't even be allowed to do this. We'd be able to cross-examine him. The questions that they're asking Lance are all leading. And what did he say? Well, I'm the magistrate under Utah Constitution, you know, 11-02. It is my job to allow all of this so we can see if the state has enough here that we can then move to a trial, which will then— they would not allow this stuff. They would say we get to cross-examine Lance.

Lance, but you're arguing things I'm not disputing.

No, but the entire substance of your argument is that people can't infer off of evidence. That's what you're saying. It's not— when you say, Candace, here, I'll give you the argument, which is a fact. Yeah, I'm not saying that. off of that. Didn't say that Tyler could have been a patsy.

You're just, you're just literally making stuff up.

+4 R-2.2 · Accusation that opponent is fabricating · Andrew Wilson · low confidence: excluded from score

So here's what the position is. I'm asking this. I am doing exactly what the state did. I am looking at a piece of evidence and I am saying—

But you're not showing me how you get there.

Can you describe to the audience what Rule 1102 is?

So this, just so everybody who's watching this at home understands what I'm saying, even if he doesn't, what Andrew is arguing is that I don't have the right to extrapolate from a fact like Just making it up. Yeah.

Just purely making it up. I'm asking based on—

Andrew, can I show my evidence? You just showed yours. Reliable hearsay.

You'll get a chance.

Reliable hearsay in criminal preliminary examinations. The entire preliminary hearing that you just saw was on the basis of reliable hearsay. And what that means essentially is the people who are making the statements can just say, Patrick told me that he did this on Monday. Patrick's not here, uh, and that is— they can allow that into the hearing. That's just because it's just meant to be probative. And so it's the state saying, here's what we have inferred. So you are allowed to take a piece of evidence and then you are allowed to infer off of that evidence. Okay, case in point, that's a demonstration of— to give you— that's a demonstration of what I just did. I said the prints were the most degraded off of Tyler Robinson, and from that, what I am inferring is that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson was set up.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-145

That doesn't— that's the point in contention.

That's not a point in contention.

That's the point in contention.

It's not a point of contention. If you're saying it's a point—

What is the point in contention?

It's not the point in contention. I'm telling you, that was what the entire hearing allowed for. So the evidence that he is describing—

We're asking you—

That he is using to argue his case is all based on inference, not fact.

Great.

Inference, not fact. So what they are inferring off of the facts.

So again, we're going to take this And I'm just going to even grant it because it's irrelevant. I'm asking how you get to the inference that even if you dispute that piece of evidence, that means Patsy. I'm looking for the logical chain for how you get to that inference.

What I am telling you is it's the exact same way that when you tweeted, I think that this evidence is overwhelming, when they say that looks like Tyler Robinson's car, he drives a similar car, Okay, they are inferring that that's Tyler Robinson.

Can you walk me through the inference so that I understand?

It's not a fact. It's not a fact. When you show a blurry image, which you kept citing that we have—

No, no, I'm talking about your inference that the fingerprints, even if they're degraded, equals Patsy. How do you get that inference?

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-132

I didn't say it equals Patsy. I think it is enough evidence that it should be explored, which is exactly what this preliminary was in the inverse.

That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is when you said, I'm using this as evidence that could have been a patsy. I'm asking, how do you get the inference to patsy from that?

Because what I am saying is that it shows that somebody else had more DNA presence on that gun than Tyler Robinson did. So it is plausible, which is all they're doing, they're presenting plausibility based off of the facts, okay? It is plausible that somebody just took his gun and put it there. That's it.

↳ evidence for the P9 verdict on Candace Owens · ruling prints at U-135

Is there equally—

That's how it works.

And is there equally 100 other plausible explanations?

I think that's the reason why most people are exploring when things don't make sense. So yes, at the beginning of that, this is how, this is how the court process works.

So if there's 100 other plausible explanations, then, Candace, why is it that we should go with this idea that it was a patsy?

I, I'm not saying that we should go with the idea that it was a patsy. I am saying that there is—

Oh, I thought that was the whole defense, your whole claim today.

No, my whole claim was that there is more evidence that he has set up, that he has set up as a patsy.

How does that equal evidence of patsy?

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-132

I don't know how many times I can say this. Like, I, I'm saying that I am using the exact same mechanism that you are accepting for some reason in the Utah courtroom.

Yeah.

Right. To say, I'm going to look at the evidence and I'm going to infer an alternative theory. So you just saw the states and you're accepting it, and they are— they have not presented any concrete facts. You listed on your own Twitter that what you found to be convincing was something that looked like his car pulled into the driveway, a blurry image.

No, I didn't.

The standard white guy coming up the steps that could literally be anyone.

This never happened. Can we get a fact check on that? Can we pull up his tweet where he goes over and says, that's what convinced me?

When you actually didn't say it's what convinced me, but you said this is the evidence that you found to be overwhelming. And you named, I believe, actually 5 things. I think you said it was his car. You said it was—

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-241

There's multitudes of things that I find compelling evidence. You just said you didn't say it.

So we're going to get a fact check on that. You did.

Go ahead.

You said the blurry images coming up the steps. Quite literally, when Officer Bagley testified, they talk about what I'm talking about, making inference. This is the most I thought was the most absurd testimony I've ever heard. And pardon me, it was actually Hull, David Hull. Uh, they asked him a question: how did you know the guy in the maroon shirt was the same as the guy that came up the stairs later that was wearing the American flag black shirt? And he said, they're wearing the same shoes.

Why is that absurd?

That's how you decided these 2 are the same people? Oh wow, what a scientific— they're both wearing Converses. Okay. That's an absurd thing to say. That is not evidence that these are the same people if we're both wearing Converses. That was what he said. That's what flew on the stand.

But I still don't understand how that would be absurd.

It's an absurd thing.

For instance, if somebody were to change their clothes but keep the same shoes on, wouldn't you utilize the shoes to try to track that person?

The idea that on a college campus, 2 people wearing totally different outfits but both wearing Converses can't happen is such an absurdity that I don't even need to argue that. I'm just going to let people— why is it absurd?

Just concede that point.

Obviously, it's absurd. I know these are the same people because they're both wearing Converse.

Yeah, I'm not sure if in context that's what happened, but even if it is—

See if you can get a fact check on it.

But even if it is, again, if we're utilizing inferences, whenever we're dealing with logic and we're dealing with making a logical inference, we're going to take the entire collaboration of evidence and then we're going to make inferences from that. You would do that with any type of logical proposition. Otherwise, you could never have a true or false claim.

↳ evidence for the P13 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-280

You just told me I couldn't.

+5 R-1.1 · Strawman: attributing to Wilson that inference is disallowed · Candace Owens

So when we're— I never— that never happened. You're just making stuff up. So anyway, when we're talking about logical inferences, what I'm looking for is the logical inferences that you have that Tyler Robinson's a patsy based on the totality of evidence that you have.

We can keep going through your other evidence, but we should find this tweet where he please— where he lists the reasons that he was convinced.

So let's start with the .30-06. I think that that's fine.

Your team's looking for— do you remember how long ago that was?

Uh, the tweet tweets of the, uh, 5. Did you delete it or no?

No, I didn't delete it.

Okay, cool. Just look for— he said the— unless it was his car, it was his, uh, it was the car and it was definitely the staircase photos and it was when the trial was going on.

Okay, she has it. If you got— Skylar has it. If you want to pull it up so we can see it.

Somebody said, so give me the clear evidence right here. I want you to provide it right here. All I heard from the investigator was we believe this to be Tyler Robinson. Is belief something you go as a fact? You wrote The car pulling in, that's a totally blurry image. Robinson getting out of it, you have no idea if that's Tyler Robinson. The fact that he is seen 4 other times on camera, the fact being just a standard white boy with brown hair was seen getting— walking up staircase. The DNA on the roof, we should discuss that. And on the screwdriver that he left behind, it's overwhelming, man.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-280

Yeah, but that's not an exhaustive list.

Well, just so we're clear, you did tweet it.

But it's not an exhaustive—

Yeah, but just 5 seconds ago you should concede.

You said I only said this one thing and said that that was overwhelming.

+2.5 R-1.1 · False attribution of an in-debate statement to Owens · Andrew Wilson

Actually, that's not what I said.

It is. You could even pull your own clip.

Can you, can you fact-check if that was said or not? I did not hear her say that.

So the thing that's funny here is like we still aren't getting to any of these inferences.

So why are you pivoting? But just say you were wrong. It's cool to just say I was wrong.

I was. I'm not wrong. So back to the tweet, the tweet aspect here, it was really funny. That's not an exhaustive list of why I find it—

I didn't say it was exhaustive. I just said you said it.

And on top of it— well, no, you didn't. You said that I only said this one thing and then said based on that it's over. Well, I didn't. You didn't mention that I mentioned the screwdriver, DNA, all these other things. You never mentioned any of that. So no, you're actually incorrect there. But on top of that, moving over to the actual evidence itself—

Are you, uh—

Yes, I'm okay. Anyway, back to the evidence itself.

Yes, actually, I'm glad you're asserting that you're okay. I wasn't worried about your health. I'm just saying that I just said you tweeted this. You said no, I didn't. We fact check, and now you're like just gonna gaslight me and pretend that I said—

There's no gaslighting.

It wasn't exhaustive. I never said that. I just said you did say this.

Zero gaslighting.

I didn't say you couldn't have said more, but I would like to address what you said in that tweet.

I mean, this is your time. If this is how you want to spend it interrogating my position, you can do it that way.

I'm just addressing what you asserted on your Twitter was like the hard evidence that convinced you was overwhelming.

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-241

That's literally your defense claim. Well, that's not what you said. That's not actually in fact what happened in that exchange. I was here for it.

So what's your position here?

Yeah, so my position is that based on all of the evidence which has been demonstrated, at least all the evidence to my knowledge, that I am actually not seeing anything that's compelling as an alternative theory. I'm not seeing anything which is convincing me of something otherwise than what the state is presenting as evidence. That's my position, if that's what you're asking me.

So just going back to what you did actually tweet, is it fair to, like, to— for me to ask questions about that?

Is that the only tweet you're going to ask me about?

Well, we're addressing your claim that the evidence is overwhelming, and this is a tweet where you listed what you felt was overwhelming. I think that's fair. I feel like that's fair.

But not exhaustive, just so you know.

And I never said it was exhaustive.

Go ahead.

You said I did.

Sure, whatever you want.

But yeah, so going back to that, all of that, as you say to me, well, Candace, why are you addressing and making inferences Off of the testimony.

No, I never, never asked you why you're making inferences. I asked you how, with the inference you made, you got to the conclusion.

Okay, so I would like to know how you got to the conclusion, uh, and I'm just gonna throw it right back at you because for some reason you permit yourself to do it. And that's what I'm demonstrating, is that you permit yourself to do it and then you say when I do it, it's a conspiracy, right?

No.

How are you able to infer off of blurry staircase images that that is Tyler Robinson?

Yeah. So in that particular case, what you do is you take that evidence, you combine it with other evidence. So it's not just that Tyler Robinson is seen in the staircase.

Why are you calling him Tyler Robinson in the staircase? That's what I want to get to.

Yeah, because, I mean, we'll just use this. If you don't agree that that's Tyler Robinson, then you would just have to humor me. I think it is, so I'm using the name.

But why do you think it is? Because you make everybody— you call everybody serious terrorists.

That's literally what I'm trying to explain to you.

Okay.

So if you're asking for my inference why I think it's Tyler Robinson, is because, A, Tyler Robinson said in his text messages, you, you'll be able to see me on security footage at the campus. Said it in his own messages. On top of that, Twigs— yes, you can pull them up if you want to fact-check that. He did say— Yeah, I would.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-280

I'm sorry, I actually think I really did miss that. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just, I don't remember him saying you're going to see me in—

+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged not remembering, invited a fact-check · Candace Owens

Yeah, I'm paraphrasing. You want to pull that up? Yeah, I think that's right. By the way, um, Twigs himself said that he had some— That he had some, um, maybe a tiny bit of doubt, but it sure looked like Tyler Robinson inside of this various, uh, surveillance footage that he saw.

↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-302

So Lance, sorry.

There's hang on.

Yeah.

So there's multiple. There's multiple reasons why it is that I believe that that's Tyler Robinson, not just because of blurry footage.

Did you have a dream? Just kidding.

No, it's because I combined multitudes of evidences.

Okay. So let's address those multitude of evidences. The first one we're working on a fact check on because I I do not ever remember him tweeting that's me in the stair. I mean or texting texting that that's me in the staircase. I think that.

I didn't say that. I said he— I literally didn't. What I said is that he texted over, you'll be able to see me in footage at UVU. And I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he said.

Yeah. Could we get a fact check on that? The second thing you said was Lance's testimony where— and actually what Lance says is, I'm not 100%.

I agree.

But in terms of what he wears, again, me pointing out the absurdity, he wears wears Converses, he wears sneakers. If his boyfriend is not 100%, I'd like to understand why Andrew Wilson is overwhelmed by it. That's what I'm trying to get to. And lastly, I would like to remind you that Lance's statement would not be permitted. This was a huge part of the preliminary hearing, that they were leading. All the questions that were asked, asked of him were leading, so they would be struck down at the actual trial. And also, I would like to remind you that he got use immunity for that. Use immunity.

I understand.

Which means, like—

That happens, by the way, all the time.

And I'm wondering why it particularly happened for Lance in this testimony. And I would also like to point out that something that's remarkable about this, again, leaning to my perspective that Lance has a lot more, which I have said many times, Lance has a lot more involvement than the feds are letting us know. I think more is going to come out. I don't think he's that sad either. Because they interviewed him on September 11th, and then for whatever reason, just ahead of what was supposed to be slated as the preliminary hearing, which was initially supposed to be in May, they bring him back to do this interview, which in my opinion should have never been allowed. And I actually agree with the defense that it's a violation of his constitutional rights not to allow them to have cross-examined him. But I understand Utah 11-02, do what you do. It's all hearsay. But to allow it in that way, for him to just be able to also have use immunity, knowing that he's not going to be— he's not gonna get in trouble. He could literally get up there and lie about anything and he's not gonna get in trouble because the use immunity was given to him in April. I believe April 28th is when gave that testimony to the defense. I think they shot it on like April 20th, 2026. That is not compelling to me for somebody who has use immunity to give a testimony and to say, I'm not really sure, but definitely like he wears jeans and stuff.

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-299

That's not what he said.

He did actually.

You can get a fact check on that.

Yeah, so, so a couple things we have. We have Rule 801, Tyler's messages, that says it's not hearsay. But first, go to what Candace is asking about Skylar. I think you have it. You just texted me if you want to pull it up. You said you have the text. If we can put that up on the screen. Thank you.

It was me. Look at the pictures from the surveillance footage. It was me. Okay. I literally said to you, it's not an oof. I said I didn't remember this, and I'm happy to have a fact check on that. Okay. I didn't call for the fact check saying you're wrong. I literally said I don't remember that from the television.

Well, I'm just saying to you, like, I'm trying to be concise for you.

And then also bring the 801 one that you just said. What was the other one?

Yep, the 801, uh, Tyler messages saying it's not hearsay. If you have that as well. There you go.

Wait, what are we saying is not hearsay?

A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay.

It was hearsay. They said it in the trial.

Hang on, hang on. Okay, okay, uh, Is consistent with the declarant's testimony and the declarant denies having made the statement or has forgotten, or is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut express implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated or acted in recent improper influence or motive in testifying. So then wouldn't that mean that a bunch of this wasn't hearsay?

So the issue with his testimony—

I just want to make sure. Yeah, would that make sure— would that mean that a bunch of this wasn't hearsay?

So the opposing party, which down the line, like I said, they talked about this for about an hour and a half, and they discussed how if Lance was in court and he was giving his first party, you know, giving his testimony as the opposing party, whatever, all this would be fine. They had an issue with how the questions were being asked and that they were not allowed to cross-examine him.

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-299

Mm-hmm.

So that is why his video testimony would not be accepted in the main trial. And what I said to you is this entire preliminary hearing is under Utah's 1102. So they are allowed to just use hearsay.

No, you didn't say that. You said most of it was hearsay, actually.

Yeah.

The overwhelming majority.

Well, I mean, I mean, that's— I'm leaning now into my opinion that some scientific aspects, which they kept asserting, like the Federal Rule 403 or 402, some of those parts weren't quite scientific.

Sounds like you're backtracking quite a bit.

No, I'm not backtracking at all. What do you feel like? Let me help you. Where do you feel like I'm backtracking? It was— it literally was done under Utah's 1102.

Yeah. Nobody disputed that. What the dispute was is whether or not most of it was overwhelming Yes, it was.

Yes, that's a fact. I'm not backtracking on that.

What are the things?

How many times did you watch the preliminary hearing? It's like, yeah, they constantly— I'm 11:02, 11:02, 11:02, 11:02, 11:02. And the reason for that is because it's allowed. I'm not saying it's illegal, it's allowed at this stage. But I'm just reminding you that when you're going to sit across from someone and your claim is going to be, where is your hard evidence? This is what I heard and I agree with what I'm watching. You are watching the state put on a hearsay preliminary hearing, and that— and And all of those things are not going to be allowed, right? Even when they got into witness statements and things of that nature, there's a reason why they swear you in and they say, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth. Did you, you know, write this statement? So it's the overwhelming majority of what you saw was hearsay because other people were representing other people's statements. They were saying they had conversations. We don't know where it came from. All allowed at this stage. Okay. But it's hearsay.

So even a lot of that stuff may not fall under hearsay under what we just read, right?

↳ evidence for the P10 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-146

But the evidence that you're speaking about, like when you're just— when you say that we're going off vibes, you don't know Tyler Robinson, okay? His boyfriend is not 100% it was him. So I'm going back to your points that you made that this was overwhelming evidence for you. That doesn't make sense to me.

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Candace Owens · ruling prints at U-226

Well, overwhelming just means—

You can't consider another option that there could have been another white guy wearing Converses on campus?

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-280

Yeah, do you agree with me that I said that what overwhelming means to me is that it's just very convincing to me.

Yeah, and I find it to be completely unconvincing.

And that's fair. I understand that.

I looked at those blurry photos that they presented and said, your, your statement on right now is that he's wearing Converses and he also— that's just crazy.

These aren't the evidences that I find the most convincing.

Well, you said that in your Twitter.

That's not the only thing I've ever said on my Twitter about this case.

Right, but the The question that was asked of you was pretty direct. Yeah, right. What, what did you find?

This is not an exhaustive list of all the things.

That's not what you said in the tweet. You can tweet longer too. It's not like we're limited now to 240 characters anymore.

So wait, so anything that I tweet and all other tweets that I've ever made are now excluded because I used the word overwhelming in this one? Well, even though all of this information I've said so publicly over and over and over again is what informs my position for why I'm convinced on the case. That's bizarre to me.

I feel like this is Andrew versus Andrew. Somebody asked you a question. What are the points that you find to be the, you know, the most overwhelming? And you answered.

You mean from that day, from that particular day of the hearing that I was responding to?

Okay. Is there something you have you find to be more overwhelming? Let me ask you that question. Yes.

Okay. What do you—

okay, go ahead. Go on. What do you find to be more overwhelming?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Can we do this? Do we want to get into it or do we know— do we want to do a quick ad break?

I'm—

are you guys good to keep going or—

I'm fine to keep going, but we can also—

Would you like to take a quick break?

Doesn't matter to me either way.

If we're going into a different topic that may be another 30 minutes, 40 minutes. I don't want to stop you guys in the middle of it.

Yeah, let's end there. What you find to be more overwhelming.

Yeah, yeah. So if we're— for me, it's the confessions, the text messages. All of that is what I consider to be, uh, from my opinion, that's the most convincing for me.

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-003

Okay, we should discuss the text message confessions when, uh, we get back, if you'd like to.

Okay, that's a good idea, folks. We're going to take a quick, uh, ad break. We will be back in 3 and a half minutes. Thank you.

All right, you guys, for nearly 2,000 years, Christians have lived continuously in a small village just outside of Jerusalem called Taibe. They remained through the Roman Empire, the Crusades, the Ottoman Empire, and countless changes of power. Today, that Christian presence is in serious danger. One father in the West Bank put it simply. He said, quote, I don't want to leave. My family is buried here. My church is here. In Taibe, the church is more than a place of worship. It's a school, a medical clinic, a food distribution center, And a safe gathering place for families. When the church can no longer serve the community, families begin to leave, and a living Christian presence in the Holy Land begins to disappear. But you can help. Just $35 provides a full day of protection and support for vulnerable Christian families, and $83 a month can help sustain that protection throughout the month. I support the Vulnerable People Project because 93% of every donated dollar goes directly toward protecting vulnerable families and communities on the ground. If preserving a living Christian presence in the Holy Land matters to you, visit vulnerablepeopleproject.com. Again, that's vulnerablepeopleproject.com. All right, you guys, do you feel like you're working harder than ever but still falling behind every month? Between grocery prices, bills, and credit card debt growing, it can feel impossible to get ahead. Minimum payments aren't designed to get you out of debt. They're designed to actually keep you stuck. But PDS Debt can help. They can reduce up to half of what you owe on credit cards, personal loans, and medical bills. And it starts with a free 30-second assessment. At pdsdebt.com/candice. Stop juggling multiple payments and get one lower monthly payment. The savings begin the day that you complete the quick assessment. If you're carrying any balance on your credit cards, it's costing you money every single day. There's no minimum credit score that's required. PDS Debt is the top-rated company in the industry with thousands of 5-star reviews and an A+ rating on the BBB. So get your free 30-second personalized assessment today at pdsdebt.com/candice. Again, that's pdsdebt.com/candace. I also want to tell you guys about the wellness company because by now you've probably heard that there is an explosive outbreak in the U.S. this summer. More than 18,000 confirmed and suspected cases of cyclosporiasis have now been nationwide, and Michigan health officials have confirmed the first 2 United States deaths associated with that outbreak. The CDC says the illness is caused by cyclospora, a microscopic parasite commonly spread through contaminated fresh produce. Can cause severe stomach cramps, nausea, fatigue, and other debilitating symptoms. If you get sick, the CDC recommends Bactrim. That's why the wellness company created the medical emergency kit with generic Bactrim plus 7 additional prescription medications to help treat more than 25 common illnesses and medical emergencies, all prescribed before you need them. Getting your kit is simple. You complete a secure online medical questionnaire. If it's approved by a licensed physician, your kit ships directly to your door. So don't wait until you're sick to wish that you were prepared. Visit twc.health/candace and use code Candace at checkout to save up to $45 off plus free shipping. That's twc.health/candace. Kits are available for United States residents only.

Okay, we're back. Fantastic. I think we're back. Uh, by the way, just an FYI for those of you that are watching The Crucible, there's 30,000 concurrent there watching. Support, uh, Andrew Wilson. That's your, your fans of his. Click that subscribe button and help him grow his business. If you're watching Candace, I think there's 225,000 to 250,000 concurrent right now. We'd like to see that 300,000, 400,000 number on there. Click that button as well to subscribe and share it with your friends and family. And if you're watching it on PBD Podcast, do the same there as well. This allows us to have more conversations like this. The mainstream media hates the fact that we're having these conversations right now, just so you know. They want to control it. This is free-for-all. This is what's best for the audience. That's why we like freedom of speech. Having said that, let's go back into the text conversation you were having, right? Okay, let's stay there, and then we'll go into the cross-examination stuff in about 30 minutes.

Okay, that sounds fair. Um, okay, so yeah, my— I, I used basically 3 pillars for the totality of the evidence. Okay, so if you want to know exactly what those 3 pillars are, this is going to be, uh, the testimony with the text messages and, um, the confessions. This is going to be the physical evidence, and this is going to be the totality of the summary of the case. Okay, so, uh, right now we're, we're focusing on one of these pillars in my defense, which is fine. I understand that I have to defend my claims as well. So when we're talking about the messages themselves, they seem totally valid. I have no idea why they wouldn't be valid. And I have not heard any good explanation for why it is that these messages should even be questioned. The defense hasn't questioned them as far as I'm aware. Nobody has actually questioned that these messages came from Robinson to date, except perhaps you and other people who are kind of in that camp.

+7.5 R-3.2 · Asymmetric rigor: verification demanded of Owens, trust extended to his own evidence · Andrew Wilson

Mm-hmm.

But why should I question these exactly? I'm not sure.

Okay, so first let's just go over legally what the point is of a probative hearing. The defense is not putting on— they're not there to say or to argue or to defend themselves at all. They have to address what is being presented by the state. Okay, so they're not here to then say, let me give you an explanation for these text messages. The relevant portion of what the defense did do was actually be before we got to the preliminary hearing, I had mentioned that it was initially supposed to be scheduled for sometime in May. They asked for an extension. That reading through those filings of why they were requesting an extension and why I actually believe their extension should have been granted because they did not receive discovery on their text messages. That was one of the reasons. There were many reasons why they wanted to have an extension, but this was crucial, right? So forget just the general sense that that these messages feel off. And, and yes, you are allowed to have an intuition. You are allowed to have a sense and just go, this is very weird. We're being told this kid had like above a 4.0, Tyler Robinson. He wanted to get away. I think the text messages almost run, uh, head-to-head with themselves. Like, he wanted to get away with it, so he thought the best thing to do would be to text a full confession of what he did, uh, down to what I didn't even remember saying. Yeah. And that's also me in the surveillance footage. Which it felt a little too on the nose. People have common sense. You just don't text message. But then we're also supposed to believe that he put a note under and burn this and get rid of the evidence. But don't worry about that because I'm about to text you a full confession. It felt off. It felt weird off the bat, the manner in which they were texting. We're told he's like a gamer who's using a Dremel to carve expressions, catch fascist.

But then suddenly he's writing like a Also, as a healthy diagnosed player, he did get— he did actually get the $500K code, correct?

Yeah, I'm not a gamer, so we'll say that if we start debating that, you'll be way over my head. But yes, but my point being is just that, just first, it's a general sense of why people had a reaction to these messages, uh, that seemed like they were written by Jane Austen rather than like a kid who games and writes catfascists.

But do you see how that's intuition?

That is. I am— I just said that. I said just put it— parking aside the intuition of just something feels wrong here, which you should You should follow your intuition. You should actually do that. If you say—

I think that's—

The COVID vaccine is running out, feels like it's coming out too fast, and there's too many celebrities telling me to do it, I'd like to take a pause, that's good. That is, you are allowed to do that. I believe in intuition.

But hang on, hang on, hang on. Let me respond a little bit here, 'cause you've been going for a minute. Let me at least respond to a little bit of this. So the first thing is, is like when people bring up the COVID vaccine, not trusting the COVID vaccine en masse was the science. That wasn't just intuition. That was the science. There was tons of competing science. Now they tried to suppress it, that's true, but there was tons of competing science for why you shouldn't take a risky mRNA vaccine and masks and things like this.

Well, no, the science they kept telling us was what the other side was saying.

Now, when you're talking about intuition though, when you say trust your intuition, I'm actually giving a different message. You actually should be very wary about trusting just your intuition. It is true that intuition can be useful, but it has to be tempered with logic, reason, explanatory power, and evidence, not just intuition.

That's why we're parking it aside. Intuition is the first step. Something feels off, right? Okay, that was my first step with COVID I don't like the way it's being pushed. It shouldn't require a celebrity campaign, by the way. Another element of that is why people don't feel good about the Charlie thing. Why do we have so many influencers saying things? It's over. Why are you guys all using, uh, the same adjective? Can you switch it up? I'm overwhelmed, I'm overwhelmed. Like, chill. Like, you could say, I found some parts compelling, I think this should go— like, I found some parts compelling, maybe we should, you know, see at the trial. That would be kind of—

Don't you think fed slop's a buzzword for the other, for the counter industry?

Everyone on the same day of watching this trial, which was, I would say, not overwhelming at all— nobody came in medium, right? No one came in like, there were some interesting aspects, this was a little suspect, I, I— but I do think it's enough to go to trial. They all came in like they were passing away and were going to die from being overwhelmed.

They're trusting their intuition.

Okay, well, actually, and that scenario, they're looking at the preliminary hearing and have a reaction to it. It wasn't their intuition. But like I said, parking aside, just getting to the substance, parking that aside, parking aside just a general intuition that some of these might be text messages. Then we look at the filings which came from the defense, and they were requesting an extension saying, we have gone to the prosecution and we have requested all of this stuff in discovery. Yes, you are saying that you took Lance's phone, okay, and that you collected his phone on September 11th and that you sent it off or whatever. You took a picture of the text messages, and we are being given these text messages to review. Crucially, Kathy Nestor said, I have not even been given access to my client's phone during this hearing. She said, I haven't even been given access to my client's phone. She can't tell you— as a part of their discovery request is, it's not enough to say to me, uh, Candus, I just got a text message from Candus, and I say I didn't send that text message. Maybe that's what her client's saying. We don't know because we're not at the trial, right? Maybe he didn't send those messages. Could there be someone who logged into his Discord? Could there be someone who logged in to his Apple? George could be sending text messages right now. We are married. He has every login that I have. And remember, he's up for a death sentence. So if I'm able to sow reasonable doubt with common sense, he may come during the trial and when they actually have to address these points, say, I did not write those messages. I was here. Lance, my boyfriend, was logged into my phone, logged into my Apple ID and my iCloud, sending messages. I know that we have the capability because my husband does it. He has capability to send messages from my phone. It is not convincing to the public when, for whatever reason, the FBI would not— FBI combined with the SBI, it was not the prosecution's fault, they made that clear during that hearing— would not allow them that discovery request to be able to see where did that message come from. Because you're saying my client was here, right? I want to know if that message actually was generated from his iPhone. When he was waiting to retrieve his, you know, rifle, hoping that the pooch doesn't have a bad sniffer. Like, it's just weird messages. I want to make sure that yes, it was actually him. He was holding his phone and his boyfriend didn't just log in to his computer when he was home. Lance was his boyfriend. That is a, that is a crucial fact here. That discovery was not met by the time we got to preliminary hearing. So I remain unconvinced by these text messages. Just as you feel convinced by them, I feel unconvinced by them.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-369

Okay, so then the idea here is the reason that you don't think that these are valid text messages, and you don't, right?

I, I, I, I— it has not been proven that these messages are valid, and they don't sound valid to me. I don't think anyone, even if someone was selling like a, I don't know, pot on the corner, would be smarter than to write a full-fledged confession. He even writes, I thought I would get away with it, and I was hoping never to tell you until old age. And then we're being told that he wanted to commit suicide. And okay, but he just said he wanted to get away with it, but he's not smart enough to, I don't know, maybe not text a— like, it's such a confession like we've never seen. I think this would be like the first time ever somebody has start to finish written an entire, here's, I'm in the surveillance footage and I'm here and I'm wearing my Converse. You know, I'm being a little facetious here, but it was a little ridiculous. It didn't pass the sniff test for me.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-369

You have kids. And you love them more than anything.

I do.

If it was the case that you thought that your kid was innocent, wouldn't you be out telling everybody and their brother that you thought that they were innocent? And also, wouldn't you say— wouldn't you maybe recant and say, hey, I didn't actually— he didn't actually confess to me. He didn't actually— none of this happened the way that the state is presenting it. What would've prevented the parents from testifying at that point?

Well, 2 things. I can answer that. And if you watch my show, I keep telling you it's not vibes. So right after the shooting happened, Lance Twigs, you know, the FBI put him into a house, safe house they paid for. They went to the parents as well, to Matt Robinson and Amber, basically said, your life's at risk. There could be somebody who jumps up and wants to avenge Charlie Kirk. And, you know, we're going to watch you. And they went into a federal safe house. What happened next is that they started thinking that the feds were maybe going to Like maybe not as honest as they thought, and how do you know all any of that? You see, you gotta you gotta watch the show, right?

Yeah, no.

How do you know that? I I I had a source within the Robinson family.

+4 R-2.9 · Anonymous source offered as satisfying a burden · Candace Owens

You have a source, an anonymous source, of course. So there's no way for us to verify that what you're saying right now is actually even true.

Do you find it to be reliable hearsay?

No, I don't find it to be reliable at all. It's just a source.

I'm just doing what the press is saying.

What you're doing is a cool story.

It's not cool.

Well, hang on. You're giving us.

You must have hated watching.

You're giving us. You're giving. You're saying that according to your sources, that the reason that the parents haven't recanted any of this—

Recanted what? They have no statement from the parents.

Wait, I just want to make sure that I— if, if it was the case it was being reported in mainstream media that your father came to you and said, hey, is this you? Is— what's going on here? And then he and one of his, uh, buddies took you in where you turned yourself in, you wouldn't go out and be like, no, that's not what happened?

That isn't what happened though. You're just wrong on this.

Okay. Maybe I'm paraphrasing. What am I wrong about?

So what is your— sorry, just so I'm clear, what— where is your evidence that the parents turned him in?

Well, no, no, I didn't say that.

You said it says in the mainstream media.

I said with, um, a sheriff friend.

Yes.

But the father did confront him.

The father confronted what?

Tyler Robinson.

And where did you learn this, that the father confronted him?

Well, I mean, that's part of the official documents. Our fact-checkers can pull that up. But yes.

But I'm saying, but when you say official documents, do you mean you saw this on CNN or you saw this play out in the hearing?

No, this was one of the things that I went through and fact-checked pre-debate.

Are you talking about, like, the charging documents?

I think it was in the— it could have been in the charging documents, but I did. But I do. We can pull them up.

No.

And yes. Are you disputing this?

We have that in the back to pull it up.

I can already tell you what you're talking about, the charging documents, because this is where we had to figure out where this story came from, because everyone was operating under the assumption that Matt Robinson turned him in. Until we got to the preliminary hearing and we understood, like I said, even for that, when you are charging someone, you can use hearsay. It's all probative, right?

Sure.

Nothing. So they didn't have statements. It's not like Matt Robinson, even though he was interviewed that night. Amber Robinson was interviewed that night by a fed, separate rooms. Tyler Robinson was interviewed by a fed. They did not produce statements saying, my son did this, my son, I believe my son did this. But what happened was they did interviews. But also the crucial person here who you just brought up, is Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell is the biggest unknown in this entire case. Everyone keeps saying they heard from Mike Mitchell this, they heard from Mike Mitchell that. So when the person wrote up the report that night, and it was Brian Davis who wrote up what became the charging document, after they transported Tyler Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's County office up to, I think it's Salt Lake City, I think it was 4:00 AM in the morning that they got up there. He then writes the, uh, charging— what becomes a charging document. So he's basically saying, we all spoke to a bunch of people and here's the information that we got, right? We've not seen that. So it could have come from Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell could be saying—

I don't know how this negates the point though. Why would the parents—

because you don't have a statement from the parents. You are, you are going—

Why wouldn't they just correct them?

It's not correct. It doesn't negate the point. The point is, is that we now got the preliminary hearing. If the parents were the ones who said, I'm turning my son in because he's guilty—

I didn't say they turned him in.

Yeah, this— I think you're talking about the over— you said it's been the narrative, everybody's known this. The narrative initially, which I think you agree with, was that, you know, Matt Robinson knew his kid was guilty and turned him into the police station. What actually happened in terms of Sheriff Brooksby, who was present there and gave a press conference, what happened was this Mike Mitchell character, uh, essentially peer pressured him. And we can get a fact check on this, we can find Sheriff Sheriff Brooksby's press conference, and he said, you know, they know it's you and you're gonna come in peaceably or people are gonna be banging down your door. He was an undercover cop, which I don't like that. I don't know what he did undercover. It's very hard to find anything about Mike Mitchell, but he worked with them for 20-plus years, the police officers. The reason why Tyler Robinson knew him was because he lived nearby and he was also his Boy Scout leader.

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-424

How does this negate that the parents could write this second? And by the way, if you have the evidence—

I'm gonna address that point. I'm just saying that your first first point, which is that the parents did this. Yeah, we don't know that the parents—

I never— I didn't say that they did ever.

Well, you're quoting the parents as having said— you said that Matt Robinson said that his kid was, you say, involved. I don't want to misquote you.

Confronted him about it.

Confronted him.

Yes.

And I'm telling you that we have not seen any evidence that that is true.

We can fact-check that.

Okay.

Because we do have evidence.

And I'm saying it's the charging doc, which could have been derived from a statement Mike Mitchell said.

2 things I have ready in the back. One is the charging doc, and the other one is a video of Kathy Okay, we can run Kathy to go back and then just to go backwards.

Yeah, Kathy first in court saying she didn't get her client's phone. Yeah. And then I think we'll go to the—

if you're okay with that thing not in dispute. These are all things that I'm not even disputing.

Okay, so we don't show it.

We never get to the thing that I am disputing.

Well, you were— I was just providing an answer. We were coming back in from a break because you were talking about the text messages as something that you felt was concrete. So it was just my rebuttal to you. you that it's not concrete because they haven't had a chance to actually answer that, and she didn't even get to see her client's phone. So that's effectively, again, the state saying these messages are real. You don't get the discovery on these messages just yet. She will during trial. They will actually—

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-369

Don't you think that would make their case fall apart if it was the case that they weren't able to actually pull the data off the text messages? Do you think the prosecution would go to court with fabricated text messages?

↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-366

It's called— it's called winners and losers. They may not be fabricated, but by the way, as, as as what they are saying. Like I said, if there was somebody logged into his phone, they may not be fabricated. That's the point.

So let's get to the— let's just get the parents fact check.

Yeah, so I was saying, I believe what you're talking about was derived from the charging doc which was signed off by Brian Davis.

Uh, let's pull it up.

Let's see if that's correct. What are we looking at here?

Robinson's mother explained, uh, that over the last year or so— I'm sorry, can you zoom in a little bit?

Is this the charging doc?

Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the shooter used matched the rifle that was given to his son as a gift. As a result, Robinson's father contacted his son and asked him to send a photo of the rifle, which makes sense with the text messages.

Mm-hmm.

Robinson did not respond. However, Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Robinson. Robinson implied He planned to take his own life. Robinson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home.

Yes. So this is proving my point. Is this— this is from the charging document, correct? Yeah. So what I'm saying to you is that 3 people got interviewed on that night. Mike Mitchell got interviewed. Amber Robinson got interviewed. And Matt Robinson got interviewed. Of the 3 of them, only one of them actually wrote a statement, which was referred to in this preliminary trial. He came in, I believe, in March. Mike Mitchell, and he wrote a statement, which I find to be very shady that they decided to bring it.

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-424

Got it. But why aren't the parents disputing that?

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-388

↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-457

Well, first off—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Andrew Wilson

That's the question I've been asking.

First off, the parents are not going to ever play in court, play to the cameras in court when they have a legal team that is going to be advising them not to speak to the court because you could— your son could go to prison for that.

But they're playing to somebody else who's your source.

I'm not going to address that.

They're playing to someone else who's your source but won't go publicly tell the media this is not true.

Well, what I did not say to you that I just said, I have a source, so I want to be very clear, and take it from somebody who was involved and permanently sued. Uh, when I have to take my lawyer's advice, I mean, there's so many things that I want to respond to when people are speaking about—

Yeah, but it's bizarre that they would utilize a source which would get the information to you but wouldn't just go to the media and be like, actually, that's all wrong.

I, I am telling you that you would nary find a lawyer who would advise you to go to the media.

Oh, these—

this, this mother, especially when your son—

if I thought that my kid was up for death, if I thought that my kid kid was in any way, shape, or form going to be ever— you couldn't shut me up. Or my wife, she would be like, that's not true, that's ridiculous, there's no possible— that never happened, these people are lying through their teeth. They'd be public whether you like it or not.

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-388

Yeah, I— that's for you and your wife. But when a judge issues a gag order in a case and your son is up for death and your lawyers could be advising you that if you say anything you could blow the case, you would have a more responsible consideration.

↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Candace Owens · ruling prints at U-464

I see.

And, and we're, and we're speaking opinion here. You're like, well, I wouldn't care. I'd violate it and I'd violate the judge's orders and see what would happen.

But I mean, if you have a source, it seems like they're violating it with them.

I didn't— I, I'm not speaking to a source, but what I am saying to you is speaking just relevant to what this is. We have not seen any proof that that statement that is included in this charging document— I think it is highly likely on the basis of the preliminary hearing that that all came from Mike Mitchell. And Mike Mitchell would be a part—

he's based on the statements of—

well, it's him saying the parents told me this. The parents could dispute that. That's going to come down the line, right? They're going to be able to seat the parents. I, I will say this, putting together context clues, if the state had it on, you know, 100% certainty that Matt Robinson and Amber Robinson said it, a 5-day preliminary hearing would be a good time to say we have enough evidence. And I can tell you why. Matt Robinson made this statement, and here is his statement that he signed. That would have been a good time to present that evidence.

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-424

That would also be a good time for the defense to say that's just totally fabricated. No, it's not.

It's the wrong time.

Why couldn't they?

That is completely the wrong time.

Why couldn't they?

Because what they're doing is they already said they didn't receive discovery. They literally can't. They literally can't because they can't. They did not receive discovery.

You're saying that they didn't receive that information?

No, no, they just received the text messages. But in order to—

That's not the text messages.

The probative information.

Yeah, we're talking about the information that we just reviewed. That's not the text messages.

They never presented it. the state never, never put it on.

Yeah, they didn't. The defense could easily still, still have presented this. Yeah, no, they could have said— No, no, no, they're not allowed to.

No, in a preliminary hearing, yeah, the defense is engaging with whatever evidence the state decides to put on. They did not put this on as evidence. Brian Davis was up there.

So they're not allowed to present anything?

They're responding to the state's evidence.

Are they allowed to present anything?

They are allowed to say—

Like if there was a conspiracy that they could prove, right then and there. Would they present that in one of these hearings?

No, it wouldn't be the right time.

I disagree.

I think that they disagree.

I think that they not only could do it, but they would do it. In fact, when I talked in depth with my attorney, they said that's exactly— if you had actual evidence that there was fabrications by the feds, that's exactly when you would introduce that.

So when in the document that they filed yesterday or a couple of days ago, the appropriate— like, what you're doing at this stage of the hearing is they the state is saying, we have enough evidence that we think this needs to go forth to trial. Hence the reason that there's this extraordinary— we allow hearsay because it doesn't really need to be perfect. It can be enough that we feel like we can move forward. Right. And okay, I disagree with that in general when somebody's rotting in prison, but whatever. The next phase is for them to meet in court and for the defense to essentially present an argument to the state that says, we find this filing to be defective in and of itself. We don't even have to defend ourselves because you, the state, have enough— you know what the laws are on the books, and this filing is defective, and you should get rid of these charges because they don't make sense based on what you can decide based on a law on the books. So then that's why they then file the dismissal, right? So in the dismissal, what they're doing is they are engaging— and this is what was widely misinterpreted.

Well, yeah, they're engaging as though— as, as it's a hypothetical. If this is hypothetically true, then yes.

So you're saying all of these charges—

I'm not disputing any of that.

So that's why you're saying—

No, what I'm asking specifically is like, who could shut parents up who are like, no way, there's no possible— this never happened, this is ridiculous. They would be shouting it on CNN, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, they would be losing their minds. And you're like, nope, the gag order would be enough to, to keep them quiet. Not enough for them to talk to your source, but enough to keep them quiet. I think that that's quite ridiculous, but But I'll even concede this whole point to you. Let's just say maybe this was misconstrued, right? There's a little bit of reason to doubt it because we're still waiting for the evidence for trial. If that's the case, then why not take the same standard for the evidence that you present? You're just waiting for trial.

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-388

Well, you didn't do that.

Wait a second. That's the reason we're here. Wait a second. I just want to make sure that I got this right. That's your argument to me, right?

My argument to you is what, sorry?

Your argument to me is that, hey, wait a second, Andrew, there's not enough here that convinces me, right?

Well, that's actually my rebuttal to you, is that you are saying, why are people engaging in what you term to be conspiracy theories? I, I term it to be thinking. They're just thinking because they're recognizing there are a lot of holes in these stories and that this is not strong evidence, right? This is the reason they're doing it. I'm explaining to you, this is the reason that they're doing it. I'm addressing what you view to be overwhelming evidence. And by the way, I want to be clear.

That which convinces me.

What? Yeah, well, but thus far, every point that you've brought up, every point that you've brought up, would you— did you feel like this is beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, you realize—

Remember what I said in my opening? It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just what I find convincing is what I find overwhelming.

So why are you so upset when people say they don't find it convincing?

That was the Limitation of the claims that you made, if it was just, wait a second, there's a little bit of problems, there's some problems in this case that I have questions for that I want answers to, nobody'd have a problem actually. At least of all me. I would be the least likely person to have an issue with you, any of your fans, anybody saying— in fact, I've had tons of Discord calls about this. My position's always been clear. Of course conspiracies exist. Some of them have way better evidence than others. But I've seen them myself. I know conspiracy. In fact, the federal government has hundreds of thousands of laws about conspiracies. They see them everywhere. We both know this, right? That's never the— what the problem is. The problem is when you make claims outside of, well, wait a second, I'm just questioning evidence here. I'm just questioning what the state's case is here. I'm just asking questions. It's when you make claims outside of that. Where you claim that there's good evidence or good standards you should believe because, and then it turns out that it's all nonsense or it's wackadoo stuff or it makes no sense. And when we have a chance to cross-examine your evidence that you've presented, I'm going to show a lot of that.

↳ P35 raised again here · first raised at U-557

Okay.

A lot of this conjecture that's based on literally nothing, that leads from no inferences whatsoever. Like, you couldn't even infer it logically. That's the problem. The problem has never been whether or not you just said, you know, there's not enough in this case so far until we get to the trial. I remain unconvinced. I'm sure there's tons of people who remain unconvinced yet until we get to the trial. I think that's fine. I think it's fine. There's people who are convinced too. That's never been my problem. My problem is the claims which are external to that.

Okay. Um, I'm not sure I really care if you have a problem with with what I think in my own spare time. I don't, I don't understand this, like, lecture that you just gave. Um, but beyond that, what I'm saying is that—

What lecture?

She is allowed to use—

I didn't lecture you.

This is what my problem is. You guys are not like, yeah, you guys think while it's still legal. You actually, you can, you are allowed to do that. So, um, but anyway, going back, going back to you saying I wouldn't have a problem, I think I just demonstrated pretty thoroughly that what you claim that you have a problem with is exactly what the state is engaged in at this stage. So it doesn't make— it doesn't make sense.

That's not the case.

In fact, so if people look and they say, I'm looking at the gun and I see and I'm inferring this, and someone else says, I'm looking at the gun evidence and I'm inferring that, they're both doing the exact same thing.

They're not.

You're just saying I want to do it for the state.

That's propositionally false.

That is not propositionally false.

I'll explain exactly how. It is the case that every proposition is going to have a true or false conclusion, period. That's just logic, right? It's the law of excluded middle. All propositions are going to be true or they're going to be false. When we get into when we're making inferences, we're making inferences based on propositions. We can actually come to true conclusions with false premises inside of a proposition. In fact, what we're talking about here is not whether or not you feel that you're convinced by this evidence.

But you felt like you were convinced.

Right? Sure. But here's the thing. When you ask me my reason, Andrew, why are you convinced by this? I can give you my reasons why I'm convinced by it, why it seems reasonable and rational to me to be convinced. You could even say, but Andrew, I'm just not convinced by it. If that was the limitation of your claims, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. That's why I wanted to have the conversation, in fact, was so that we could move into your actual claims that you've made, which transcend the idea of I'm just asking questions.

Before we get into that, your team has one thing they want to show before you go into that. So if you want to pull that up, this is the prosecution filing showing defense had full discovery by April 1st.

They did not. That's not true.

Wait a second.

Yeah.

To date, the state's prosecutors have disclosed all evidence that is presently and reasonably available to them as required under Rule 16 Utah R. Criminal, to be more precise, as of April 1st.

Yeah, that was, that was not, that was not 100%. That's why that they're caging that by saying what's reasonable. There was, I mean, there was an entire, and we can pull this up, like we should now play the Kathy Nestor clip because that's from there. So, and they were basically saying you don't need it at this stage, meaning it's not reasonable that you're asking for this when we're going into a hearing that's just going to be based on hearsay and stuff, things of that nature. But of course, by the time a trial comes, you're going to get all the discovery documents.

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Andrew Wilson

Where it's going to show cause.

Yes. So that's what they're saying there.

Yeah, I understand.

Okay.

So that's fine. And I'm even fine with it.

Yeah. We all And then, by the way, just now that the hearing is over, and you can also fact-check this, they now, at the end of the preliminary hearing, dropped like an insane amount of the discovery stuff they gave to them like the week after. You guys can give me the exact amount. I don't want to say because I don't know my— I don't remember how much it was. It was an absurd amount of stuff that they gave them right after the preliminary hearing that they had been asking for. Because that was one of the things that I kept saying on my show is, as we were watching that preliminary of the preliminary, why not just give them the stuff now so they can engage in these arguments? Because I feel like you, it's like, I want to hear what they have to say about the text messages. I want— why can't you just give them what they're asking for so that they can actually engage you? And, uh, it didn't happen. So, but the judge ruled that it wasn't necessary at this stage, and that was the whole point of that, uh, because it's preliminary to the preliminary.

Yeah.

Would you like to play the Kathy video?

Uh, well, he's saying he's not disagreeing, so I don't think we need to.

Yeah, there's no disagreement that she said that. Yeah. So I guess the disagreements now would move into the evidences that you have stated on the record, which transcend elements of reason.

Why are we having a transcendental conversation now? Because, I mean, first of all, your entire thing was about looking at the evidence, which never made sense to me again, because all of the evidence that you felt to be overwhelming was hearsay. That was bizarre to me.

You told me that I could take as much time as I want to question you.

No, but I'm just asking you just to lay the groundwork of what you're saying is problematic. Because you've made many, many claims. And I do still want to hold you for going through, because we've discussed the gun, we've discussed your—

And you can hold me to those things, but I would like to get into the things you just said.

And we should discuss the screwdriver as well.

So, and I'll explain exactly what the groundwork is. When you make claims which pass the idea of I'm just asking questions, because the state's evidence is not convincing. I think you have to answer for those claims because they are in regards to this case. You're saying, I have a claim, it is in regards to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is what we're talking about. Not just the case of Charlie Kirk, his assassination. You should have to answer for the claims that you've made in regards to the assassination itself.

Yeah.

You should. Yeah, agreed. So if that's the case, then I would, I would like to finally dive into some of that evidence and dive into it.

Well, just to be clear, and I'm happy to have you talk about, like I said publicly, you want to engage in some conspiracies. But I said I want to make sure that we get to the substance of our debate. The substance of our debate—

This is the major substance.

Demonstrating that all of the quote unquote evidence that you feel that you have, which demonstrates that Tyler Robinson— I mean, that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.

You don't find convincing.

I get it. It's— well, it's been invalidated by the testimony that we saw. And in your answer for when I explained to you that he had the most degraded Prince was, I don't know. Okay, well, there then, there lies my ability to process that.

It's just fine for you to not be convinced up to this point. All of your viewers, everybody watching, nobody's getting—

You're conceding.

Nobody's giving a dispute that if all your claims ever were, were just up to now, the evidence that the state's given, I'm just kind of not convinced. That is not what's been happening. What's actually been happening is that you've made tons of claims, uh, in regards to this case and in regards to the Kirk assassination, which are far above and beyond, I just doubt the state's theory.

Okay, yeah, I mean, sure, I do doubt the state's theory. I also am welcome to say what I think, you know, if you want to move into opinions, if you want to talk about Erica Kirk, if you want to talk about Turning Point USA.

I'd like to talk about all that.

And get into it. I'm totally happy to do that. But I just want to say that, like, I do not feel— because I've said what's important to me is that we exhaust this topic first of our actual debate claims— I do not feel that you sufficiently have argued that the evidence is overwhelming.

Sorry, this question for you, but I am sorry you feel that way. Candace, one question: what, what evidence do you need to see for you to say Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk?

That's a great question. Um, so I actually expected in this preliminary hearing actually the almost the inverse of what he was saying is true, right? So the— this is now the time the state is putting on their evidence. That's the purpose of this hearing, right? The state is using hearsay, but they're also putting on their evidence. So I was just expecting some sort of a slam dunk, like, we got him on camera taking the shot, we at least we have him clear on camera. You're telling me this guy drove 13 hours all around? Like, we can definitely show you a picture that it's going to be beyond a reasonable doubt before we even get to the trial. People are going to see and go, oh crap, like, it was really Tyler Robinson. Um, I was expecting to at least see evidence that— because I had reported early on that, uh, the source was saying that Tyler did not step foot on campus that day. It is my perspective that he had something to do with something. I, I do believe he was putting, like, disposing clothes at this stage, at this phase. I do believe he was disposing clothes. He was involved somehow. Um, I, I find Lance to be more, uh, suspicious, if I'm being honest with And also, like I said, the use immunity that was given to Lance by the feds, the fact that the feds didn't ask him any questions, the fact that I spoke with Lance Twigs's family and they were like, it's very weird that the feds are not asking him more questions. He's exactly the person that I would imagine to be involved in some stuff. Allegedly. I'll say allegedly. But when we got to the preliminary hearing, there was no— there was not a single piece of evidence that I felt was slam dunk. I was waiting for that. A photo. I mean, anything would've made me go, All right, I think this this could be the guy. If they had handed over the discovery on the text messages, since that was their big ta-da, we've got the text messages, that would be the first thing that I would hand over. But actually, who was holding them up? Like I said, it wasn't the prosecution. They're right to say we we were handing things over, and we heard the defense argue on behalf of the prosecution, saying it's not them and it's not the SBI. It's the FBI that's holding on to things. Is the FBI took everything? The FBI took the gun. The FBI took took initially the screwdriver. And then when I heard testimony about the things that they didn't, that they found that were suspicious, example being the backpack, that's something that really bothers me, that they say they traced the shooter, they traced the route that he went on, and then there was an abandoned— we know it looks like he's wearing some sort of a backpack. We know that there was an abandoned backpack found at the bus stop in front of a library, and they felt that this should be taken into evidence. They took The FBI, this was the testimony of Amanda Baker, I believe her last name is, but you might want to fact-check that because I think I'm blending last names. She's— so she was the forensics for the FBI. And then she says she gets a call on the 13th and they stop testing on this backpack because they find that the backpack actually belongs to somebody on Charlie's team. But if you know the map of the layout of the campus, you're going, Well, what the hell were they doing all the way up? This is nowhere near anywhere. And by the way, that's not an acceptable answer for why you just gave it back. That's not— that's like, why would you give it back? You're acting like no one's ever been killed by somebody on their team before, right? So I found that to be very strange that it was on the exact route that the alleged gunman ran and that their excuse was, we just gave it back because we heard that this belonged to somebody on Charlie's team. So that to me is, you know, This is why the investigation itself feels underwhelming. When you learn, and this is completely crazy to me, that some of the artifacts that Charlie was wearing were immediately returned to Erika. That's absurd. That is absurd. Everything should be in evidence. When you learn that the car that they carried Charlie in to go to the hospital, they had immediately towed, cleaned, and back up for resale. That's absurd. That should be sitting in evidence. And any police officer that you speak to will say, or a person that's been involved in a crime will say, I didn't get my stuff back for years. It had nothing to do with anything. It was just around. And they kept it into evidence until the trial was over and it has to be approved. I think somebody said by the attorney general has to sign off on giving you those objects back. And we were told this is all fine. And we see, and this is just one example, Erica holding the, Crucifix, that's that should be in evidence. Irrespective of if you feel bad for her and think she should have you know hold have it and it's sweet, that should be in evidence. Immediately paving over the crime scene. Is this just like the craziest thing ever? You're it's like this like defies common sense. You immediately and when you heard the guy who did it actually go up on a podcast and explain, I got the call. They said it was a paver emergency. I don't. I've never in my entire career heard of a paver emergency. They had already had someone come up and dig up the dirt. So by the time he got there on Sunday, the dirt had already been dug up for him to lay down pavers. That is what people are looking at and going, this is weird. There needs to be answers for why this was done. And he tells us the call came from the feds and the governor's office. UVUs washed their hands of it. And what he's saying sounds true because we heard during the testimony, uh, one person described the regions of who was in control of everything. The feds were in control of the courtyard. So in order for anybody to have paved anything, that was federal territory, so to speak. I'm maybe not using that in the best cop term, but the feds were in control of the courtyard. So these are things that I think should be answered for. Why are we doing things differently than you would in any other criminal scenario of keeping the evidence until we know more, until we're confident, you know, the various decoys, I did it, I did it. It just doesn't look right.

Okay, so go back to the question. So what would you need to see for you to say something?

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-571

If they had— I was expecting, here we have him, he took the shot, here it is. And then I'd be like, great, a clear image of him on the staircase where I'm like, that's definitively Tyler Robinson and he was on campus. We got nothing. We got literally nothing but hearsay of people saying—

+4 C-3.1 · Direct answer to a hard question · Candace Owens

But you're basically getting no case.

What?

You know, basically no case on planet Earth. You get the—

Sure.

Oh, we got a picture. Here he is with the murder weapon. him taking the shot.

Most of this doesn't take place on a college campus that has surveillance everywhere.

Yeah.

One clear image of his car plates.

But I don't understand when you're asked the question, what would it take to convince? It'd be the same question be asked to me. Andrew, what would take to convince you that the oppositional school—

Patsy.

Right, that he's a patsy or something like that? Just good, clear, concise evidence that's been presented, right, and is being presented that I could go through and link all together to see if there's actually some clear picture of there being a patsy. That's what it would take for me. Okay, just a good—

+4 C-3.1 · Direct answer to a hard question · Andrew Wilson

I don't disagree.

Just a good—

I haven't heard the defense.

Just a good evidentiary standard, and then of course I would change my mind.

So, so just to qualify this, so there is a possibility in the next few months that you may come out and say, guys, it's done, Tyler killed her? So you're saying yes today?

Yeah.

I think it's very important for the audience here that—

Without question.

↳ evidence for the P19 verdict on Candace Owens · ruling prints at U-574

For you, is there anything that you could see for you to say, yeah, this guy was a patsy, the government was—

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-571

Of course, I'm going to always follow evidence.

↳ evidence for the P19 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-585

Perfect.

So my whole thing is just this. It's really important to me. I don't mind people being truth seekers and justice searchers, and the internet has helped solve tons of crimes. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that. Right? However, there's also people who, they not only don't solve crimes, but they just come up with conjecture and they what's called flooding the zone. You flood the zone with tons and tons of conspiracy-based ideas and they go nowhere, right? And in fact, they actually take away from a legitimate investigation. Now, I'm not even saying anybody here is purposely flooding the zone. That's not even the claim. All I'm saying is, is that the claims made absent, absent, oh, this is just me not being convinced by the state's evidence, those become claims. And claims have to be defended, just like mine have to be defended. Yours have to be defended, and that's what we're going to get to now.

↳ P35 raised again here · first raised at U-557

Yeah, you want to get into it? Would you guys like to take an ad break?

We'll take an ad break and then we'll talk Erica Kirk and TPUSA and, and the conspiracies that have been conjectured by Candace Owens in regards to this case and Charlie Kirk.

Perfect, folks, we'll take a 3 and a half minute break and we'll be back soon.

All right, you guys, you have probably seen all the buzz around red light therapy lately. But what's even more compelling are the stories from people who say it completely changed their lives. One example starts with a woman named Natalia. She sat across from her medical team and got an ultimatum most of us will never have to hear: aggressive chemotherapy, steroids for life, or amputation. 5 years earlier, a plate of ceviche in Peru triggered heavy metal toxins and parasites that she never recovered from. 20 specialists and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, nobody addressed the cause, just the symptoms. With the support of medical journalist Jonathan Otto, she refused all 3 and went after the root cause instead— purging parasites, binding heavy metals, and restoring her gut health. Today she runs, swims, and cycles on the same legs that she was told that she would lose. Right now you can get the same holistic detox cleanse that she used, plus a Red Life Therapy Belt, completely free with every order. Not discounted, free. 120 LEDs, red and near-infrared, working from the surface down to the gut and thyroid. Head to purgemyparasitenow.com/candace, buy your detox and gut renewal restoration bundle today, and get your free Red Life Therapy belt plus your in-depth protocol. That's purgemyparasitenow.com/candace. I also remind you guys about PureTalk because you do not have to overpay for your wireless network, not when PureTalk comes in with the same service for a tiny fraction of the cost. And now, for the first time ever, PureTalk is offering any plan at just $15 a month for your first 3 There's never been a better time to take PureTalk for a test drive. It's fast, it's reliable, and you're going to love it. You can now get any PureTalk plan, including their unlimited data plans and even their top-tier $65 plan, for just $15 a month for your first 3 months. That's a savings of up to $150. I recommend making the switch today because this offer is extremely short-lived. Switch to PureTalk and enjoy your first 3 months of talk, text, and data for just $15 a month. Head to puretalk.com/owens to make the switch to PureTalk. Again, that's puretalk.com/owens to start saving today. And I have to remind you guys about American Financing because everyday expenses keep climbing and high credit card interest is not making life any easier. If your budget is feeling squeezed lately, there's a smarter way to take back control. If you're a homeowner, your home equity is your best financial tool. American Financing can help you consolidate high-interest credit card debts that you have some breathing room. Timing matters now more than ever with a strong chance of an interest rate hike this September. Waiting could cost you thousands, and with rates in the 5s, there's no better time to find out how much you could be saving. So ditch those 20% interest rates by consolidating. You can slash your monthly obligations. In fact, American Financing borrowers save an average of $800 a month. Imagine what that kind of cash flow could do for your family. There are zero upfront fees, and you may even delay up to 2 mortgage payments. So lock in your lower rate before September. Call 800-795-1210. Again, that's 800-795-1210, or visit americanfinancing.net/owens. That's americanfinancing.net/owens.

Okay, so we're officially back. Uh, Andrew, before we go into the other issues you want to talk about, is it fair to say you're good defending your position of the overwhelming evidence?

Yeah.

Okay, beautiful. You take the lead. Go for it.

Yeah. So I have a bunch of questions for you and I want to make it super painless. So no traps, no gotchas. I'm just going to ask them direct. And I think that as long as they're not loaded, if they're loaded, you should not respond yes or no. But as long as they're not loaded, if I just directly ask them, I'm hoping that you'll just give me a direct answer. So here's the questions that I have.

Wait, wait. Before we get into that, I would like to just reply to that. So just to be clear, We agreed to debate our claims, and then I agreed publicly that I have no issues having a conversation with you about other things that I've discussed that were outside of the court hearing and things like other evidence that's come across our lap and things that we've been speaking about. But I just do want to make it clear to viewers that for whatever reason you think that you have a right to sort of depose me.

I'm not deposing you. I just want to ask you some questions.

You literally said that I want to be be able to question you.

This is a meta conversation we're having.

Right. But okay, so now we're transcending. Let's use a word that you're saying. But this is what you're doing, right? So this part to me feels like a bit of a—

So am I allowed to ask the questions?

I've already said you can ask questions, but I made it very clear to you via email and with you in conversation that we should be speaking.

This isn't like you get to sit

in my face. Yeah, no, but I want to ask the questions.

I said if you wanted to oppose me, you should join me in opposing me.

I'm not opposing you.

Defense team, but you're like, I'm just gonna ask questions, can you answer it, blah blah. It's like, I don't know what you're going to ask.

I know, and if you have issues with it, because I'm not— I get it.

Yeah, I get it.

Just so we're clear, usually in, in the debate, if something's not loaded, I'm just direct.

Because you kept saying on Joe Rogan, they have no evidence, they have no evidence, and now you're like, let's move away from the evidence. You're actually talking about transcendental.

Yeah, okay. Anyway, so direct question, super easy. Was Lance Twiggs' DNA on the rifle, as far as you know?

We can't say that for certain.

As far as you know?

I already answered that in the first part. We can't say that for certainty. I told you the context of which they spoke about those things.

So no, as far as you know.

We can't say that for certainty until we know what other the 5 sets of prints were on.

So that would be no, as far as you know.

We can't say that for certainty.

You can say no, as far as I know, for certain.

Uh, we can't say that for certainty.

You can say that for certainty.

If you're— if your energy here is going to be like, you're my dad and you can tell me how to speak or what I'm supposed to say, you're, you're, you're just going to come up against the wall. I'm familiar with this debate strategy.

But I am just telling you— Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no? We're not debating it.

anymore. We're having a conversation. So I already addressed that in the first half of this about why—

No, we're still definitely debating. This is still—

No, it's not a debate. Now this is you saying I want to probe things that sit outside of the evidence. I actually already addressed this. You asked me. You're not going to go like where you're sitting and I'm on trial. I'm not on trial.

Okay, great.

So let's talk about the conversation.

Let's talk about the Foreign Legion.

Sure.

It was the Foreign Legion. Do you believe trying to kill you?

Yes. That's why I reported it to the correct officials in government. That's what I was told. And I handed over that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office.

What's your best piece of evidence for that?

Well, it was—

Positive evidence.

It was told to me by somebody who is high up in the French government. I passed off that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office. I also passed it off to Trump's office, Donald Trump's office. And that's all I can tell you. I wouldn't be able to probe any evidence because I don't have the power to do that. I'm not the federal government. And I would also like to say that this becomes this other piece of what you do, which is when people say this, I was told this, and this is the evidence that I have, and I'm willing to have that conversation and write the email to the correct government body that deals with this. Like, I can't hack into Emmanuel Macron's bank accounts and say whether or not the information—

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-641

I agree.

But then you go, Well, where's your evidence? He's like, well, my evidence is that I reported it. I did the right thing that you're going to do. So if somebody calls and says, hey, Andrew, there's a viable death threat against you, and that person definitively has the rank to be able to tell you this, and you say, well, what I'm going to do now is I'm going to report that to the feds, then I go, what's your evidence? It's like, well, I got the information and I gave the information that I got from who I got it to the right body of people. And that's what I did.

Got it. I just, I just want to make sure. I'm not trying to trap you. I just want to make sure I got it clear.

And that's why I say I want to know what you're doing now, because this has always been the thing. It's like, we actually can't win on the overwhelming claim, so we're just going to go and bring up everything that I think can try to embarrass her. I reported exactly—

I'm not trying to embarrass you. I just want to make sure that I get your positions clear.

I have not said— yeah, go ahead.

Now, you have stated multiple times that you believe that Israel is involved in the death of Charlie Kirk.

Can you give me—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption · Andrew Wilson

yes, we can pull up the clip. I'm sorry, I'm just saying—

can I finish the sentence?

Go ahead.

Can you give me the context for what you're— are you talking about, like, when I say, generally speaking, why people think that Israel's involved? Okay. Where's your question?

Yeah. Do you have any positive evidence whatsoever that Israel killed Charlie Kirk?

Well, I couldn't say Israel was on the ground and shot and killed Charlie Kirk. I would say that there are various things that we're trying to establish, one being a motive. And since I don't believe that Tyler Robinson and his transfurry is a convincing motive because he was fired up about politics, which Lance testified that he never spoke about with him. Nor do I believe that he was, you know, so into LGBTQ issues since Lance testified they never spoke about LGBTQ issues, that he stopped and ate at Chick-fil-A, which, if you are into LGBTQ issues, wouldn't be your lunch before you go kill Charlie Kirk for LGBTQ issues. Because, you know—

↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Candace Owens · ruling prints at U-007

Yeah, but do you have positive evidence?

I'm answering the question as I feel like I want to answer it. Like I said, you don't get to for an hour and a half pepper my questions and tell me—

But the question I'm asking you— about positive evidence.

I'm telling you that in any case, establishing a motive and what I— and again, I already explained this at the top of the show, but the reason why people find Israel to be an interesting question is because truthfully, Charlie's perspectives were changing on Israel.

Sure.

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-003

And he was starting to realize how much pressure was being put on not just our government to constantly fight their wars, but also being put on his organization personally. If people had come out and been honest about that, Rather than rabid claiming he never flinched and everybody's lying and this is not true, you would probably have people that just go, "Eh, that's life. People change their opinions." I understand. And then there was the rabid. I mean, not even that's like everything was about trying to convince the public how much he liked it.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-007

So then other than intuition, how you feel about things, do you have any evidence Israel was involved in killing Charlie Kirk?

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-659

I have already said, and if you're watching my show in the context of what I said. This is the general sense of why people think Israel's involved. We don't— nobody has made the claim that Israelis— there were also, you know, obviously Joe Kent.

↳ evidence for the P22 verdict on Candace Owens · ruling prints at U-672

I mean, Ian Carroll made the claim.

Well, Joe Kent, who I think would have the right to assert it, noted that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground that day. I think most people would like to probe that. Now, it could be maybe they were students, you know, and they were Israeli students in Utah that day. But we'd like to probe that narrative because what we've seen after coming from the Israeli government, the Israeli prime minister, kind of denying that he did it, which wasn't really necessary. He was quite busy. The phone call that happened, which no one wants to discuss, in the Hamptons the week prior, or not the week prior, I think it was around August 5th or 6th that took place.

Mm-hmm.

And again, the almost desperate lies about Charlie shifting opinion on Israel lead us to believe that there could be an Israeli angle in this. But we cannot say for certainty that Israel called the shots and this is how it happened. But it is definitively, I think, a thread that a lot of us would like to explore.

+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged uncertainty · Candace Owens

The idea is there's no positive evidence.

Whatever you want to say, however, positive, negative, however you want to say it.

Well, like positive evidence would be material evidence and other evidences which we've talked about.

Yeah, well, what we've said on our show is what we've said, which is we— this feels like a conspiracy building. There's no reason to lie about these things. And yet people are lying. Bibi ain't acting right. The Hamptons thing was weird. And the way they tried to shove the Israel narrative down our throat immediately, I mean, the day he died, posting a picture of him with an American and Israeli AI photo on the president's feed doesn't feel right.

So do you have any evidence that Erica Kirk or TPUSA participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?

I've never said they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk. So how could I say that I have evidence they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk.

Okay, so then you don't believe that they did?

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-677

I never have said that statement, so I'm not going to get you to ask me personal questions about things that I've never said on record.

Okay, fair enough.

Your team is sending messages in the back saying they have a video they want to play.

Okay, go ahead.

I don't know what the video is. If you're— yes, you said that there's a video you want to play That Candace said she has full confidence Israel was involved.

Yep.

Yeah, he said evidence that I that they killed him. I said there. That's why people think their involvement involvement.

If they have the clip, they can play the clip. Yeah, they're referring to a clip.

Yeah. Via whom? My guess is Pierre. Erica. I think that there's a reason Pierre knew that Charlie was dead first. I think there's a reason he was a priority. How? Why? I think France and Israel are involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination. And I'm going to put that out there with full confidence.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-659

Okay.

They also— involvement.

I understand.

Yeah.

So you think you, with full confidence, you think that—

Yeah. I think France and Israel. Yeah. I mean, the person that gave me that thing that I reported said that French Foreign Legion were on the ground that day. Again, this would be, this would be at a professional limitation for me to then go and probe that information that I handed over. I can't do that.

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-641

I'm not the National Government. But you don't have any positive evidence of that. Okay.

Okay. I don't— can you just stop? It's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying positive evidence. I've— just ask me what I think and I'll just tell you. Yes, I think they are involved.

↳ evidence for the P35 verdict on Candace Owens · ruling prints at U-568

That's a claim.

No, I said, here's what, here's what I think.

I have every right to ask you about your claim. Yeah, but I just— And if there's positive evidence for your claim.

I literally just said I think, and I am allowed to think.

Yeah, you're allowed to think, but you're making a claim.

I have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think.

I agree, you're allowed to think.

Okay.

Nobody's disputing whether or not Candace Owens is allowed to think. What I'm asking is that you have positive evidence.

What is your issue with this statement? I think that Israel is involved.

That's not just what you said. You said that it's with full confidence. Do you think that if you had full confidence—

Do you need confidence to think when you think?

But if I said, for instance, I think I'm going to be late to work, right, with full confidence, I would say my evidence for that is that I'm 20 minutes away and I need to be there in 5.

Andrew, Andrew.

That's how you would know whether or not you had full confidence.

I'm just going to tell you something.

Hang on, hang on. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. If it was the case that I said I have full confidence I'm going to be late to work, I would say my evidence that I'm going to be is that work is 20 minutes away, Right, and I have to be there in 5. So I have full confidence. That's why I would think that. So I'm asking if you think that Israel and France were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and you say with full confidence, I'm just asking for the evidence, or at least walk me through the mindset of why it is that you could think that with evidence.

I actually don't have to walk you through why I think. I can also, I can give you something that I think with full confidence. I think with full confidence that, you know, you lost the substance of this debate, and now you're moving toward things that I have said that I think, think, which I can do.

+4 R-2.2 · Attacking manner/motive instead of the point · Candace Owens

I'm allowed to do that. They're pertinent to this debate.

It's not exactly pertinent to this debate. It's 100% pertinent. It's not pertinent because our debate claims—

These are claims made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. That's the complete substance of your debate.

↳ P35 raised again here · first raised at U-557

No, actually, would you like to remind him of what our debate claims actually were?

And would you like to remind that you said I could ask you about any of these things to my heart's content?

I said feel free, but you didn't— you do not get to structure how I'm allowed to reply or ask me why are you allowed to speak.

I'm not structuring how you're allowed to reply. I'm just asking direct questions.

I have full confidence that you do not feel that you represented your claim well, and so now what you came prepared to do is to present yourself like a professor of fallacy.

I just want to know.

And to say, you are not allowed to say that. You can't.

You can say whatever you want. Well, nobody's disputing that.

It seems like you are disputing that. I'm asking specifically why you think that. I think that when this is all said and done, I've already explained to you, I explained at the beginning of this why I think Israel is is, is ultimately going to be proven to have involvement in this. Um, I just explained to you in the middle, and now you're wanting me to structure the sentence or provide evidence? You don't have to. You're just allowed to think, and I've explained to you my thought process. I don't need to structure it in a sentence. If you feel like a professor today, you picked the wrong day.

Don't you think that like tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people would want to know what Candace Owens' positive evidence for why it is that Israel and France were involved in the most traumatic public assassination of Gen Z's lifetime is?

That's why they watch my podcast.

So you're just going to drip to them like, here's why.

Every time we come across any of these discussions, they're watching this in context and they know why I'm saying it. So, for example, when you're bringing up— Candace, where's your evidence for France doing this? I just told you someone who was high ranking in the French government, right, who's nameless. Of course.

Of course.

Of course.

Of course. But so there's good reason to doubt it.

Conspiracy, though, if I then took it to the federal government, like, you can't just go out there making a claim to the federal government. You get in trouble for making false statements and things of that nature. So, and then you go, well, I'm going to probe that. Well, how can you probe that? This happened.

I can ask you. Well, that's not what I'm probing specifically.

This is my podcast. I am sharing my life and my experiences and what has happened to me. And you're basically coming in like you're going to, what, regulate what I— how I'm allowed to say?

If I'm trying to regulate anything, I'm asking very pertinent You're sounding a bit like a professor trying to regulate and say, Candace, you sound very defensive and like you just don't want to answer questions.

I, I did answer your question 3 times. I literally say it in the way that you wanted me to say it.

You just kind of obfuscate and you run away from it. But I would like for you to actually focus on it.

+4 R-2.2 · Attacking manner instead of the point · Andrew Wilson

Let's just go through every clip that you guys have prepared because I— it's pretty— I, I think with full confidence people will recognize the strategy that you're trying to employ. So let's get to the next clip you have prepared. Sure, they can pull up whatever clips, whatever it is that you guys have prepared.

But they're— but I would still I, on this point, I just want to make sure that you have full confidence that France and Israel were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-659

I think—

And you have no evidence for it at all that you'll give us?

Well, the high— I already did tell you where it came from. Like I said, I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

Did that same higher-up tell you that he was going to kill— that France killed Charlie Kirk, or just that you were in danger?

They said that the French Foreign Legion was involved and on the ground that day. I've already said that.

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-641

You just don't like hearing No, Candace, just out of curiosity, when you passed down that message to a Tulsi or Trump—

Tulsi's office. Yes.

Tulsi's office. Are you giving them who told you that, or you're just saying, here's what I heard from someone?

And I have this in and I have this information. And of course, if they wanted to open a file on it, which I thought was quite mysterious that Trump's office never got back to us, it was kind of weird about like from maybe that maybe they're not the correct office to— I did receive a response. months from, uh, Tulsi Gabbard's office. But I, I don't think there was ever any investigation into what I said.

So the call was, hey, I've been told some— the email?

Yes.

Email was, I've been told—

I have information. Yeah, that, that, that the French Foreign Legion was on the ground during Charlie's assassination. Um, uh, and that— I mean, it was a lot of information, but like—

You didn't give specifics who it was from?

Not in the first email because I figured they would like, perfect.

So if they do contact you, 100%, are you comfortable giving 100% who it is?

I would absolutely give them as much information as possible.

Can I ask a question? If whoever's the U.S. government, why are you not—

Yes, it's very strange to me.

You know, so if that's the case, now they may respond back and say we did, you know, that's their position.

That's why I did it in writing.

And so I'm glad that's the case because so, so if they—

And right away in Trump's office, his, like, Margot got right back to me. She said it was on his So he has that. There's no—

And if you do say that and they contact that individual, obviously you don't have to leak your sources here. Is there enough credibility where that person would be willing to talk to them and explain to them exactly what their sources are?

Yes.

Okay. I mean, that's—

It seems reasonable. And so why he's asking me to defend that is like—

I'm not. Never.

I think those are 2 different things. That's more something I asked.

Totally different claims.

Why are they not reaching out to you?

I've asked that many times on my podcast.

What do you think about that, Andrew? What the fact that she emailed, she gave it, and nobody reached out to want to contact the source?

Probably didn't think it was actionable, is my guess. But even if they did think it was actionable, great. Every lead should be followed up on within the confines of what's rational and reasonable.

Is it fair to say that this is maybe a different individual because this is a person that was involved with TPS? We don't have a relationship with her. No, no, her.

relationship.

Like, this isn't just anybody. So if an average person sends it, yes.

Yeah, but I mean, we don't know who the source is. We don't know anything.

Well, then, if it— wouldn't you, if you were in that department, wouldn't you want to even— you assign it to one of your guys?

There's no guarantee they didn't look into it. How do we know?

How could they?

They didn't come get—

she didn't give us the information, more of the information, because it was a long file.

Yeah, this is a separate—

this has got nothing to do with the debate.

This is more on, on, uh—

Well, I just I sent the email assuming that's— I'm saying, like, you go and you make a report, you think they're going to come back to you and say, hey, what's more information? We're investigating this. And that didn't happen, which is what I raised. No, I'm asking, did you send an investigation request? Especially because this was at a time where they were saying that they wanted to explore every possible lead. I even texted Dan Bongino. So actually it was 3 offices.

Let me ask one question about that.

The executive office, Dan Bongino, and Tulsi Gabbard's office.

Okay, so a follow-up to that is the following. If they contact you to say, is that specifically to the French government or Israel's involvement in the killing of children?

It wasn't. That wasn't about Israel.

Those are 2 separate things.

That wasn't about Israel. It was— they were saying the French Foreign— that person as a part of it was saying that it was the French Foreign Legion that was on the ground that day.

So I'm surprised that they called you.

Then I find that to be very strange too.

I do as well.

Because who would want to make a report? Like, I mean, I've never made a report with the federal government.

Let me ask one question. Let me just ask one question.

Let me just ask one question. one question and I'm, I'm gonna bring it to you.

Sure.

The question is, in regards to— I've not seen that clip, so I'm seeing it now, the full count. I'm full confidence, I believe that Israel French was involved. Is that also based on a source that somebody told you that Israel was involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, or is that a gut feeling?

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-659

Uh, so in terms of Israel, I mean, what I've said is what I publicly have said here. I do think that at the end of this, we are going to find that Israel was involved. I do. Now, when in terms of any of the hard evidence that's been presented, I think this has been a huge problem that a lot of us have had is that they won't even explore anything else that was going on in Charlie's life personally. So if we're not satisfied that Tyler Robinson did this in any way, then every alternative theory should be explored. Other evidence should be brought forward. We've done that in our capacity. Like when people keep saying she has no evidence, it's kind of crazy. I think we've broken in like more stories than any news source in the world. I mean, down to pictures, details, police officers, uh, what the dog's name was. Because we're not, we're not the only people that believe there's a conspiracy here. The police officers that were involved, the many police sheriff's offices, um, uh, that were departments that were involved that day, all believe there was a conspiracy. Down to the US Marshals believe there's a conspiracy. They were, uh, my sources at the US Marshals were saying they were basically sent on a wild goose chase that day.

But do you see how you say my sources?

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-392

Am I not allowed to have sources?

Well, the thing is funny—

So is CNN allowed to have sources?

Well, hang on. I have sources. If I said I have sources that claim none of that's true, in fact, my sources claim that her sources are lying, my sources claim that there is— none of them believe that there's a conspiracy, my sources claim all of them really think that Tyler Robinson was a lone gunman. If I just said that as a hypothetical, wouldn't you say, what?

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-392

Yeah, I think what probably adds weight is like then when I drop photos of the car that no one was supposed to see, people go, okay, her sources are legit. So, um, and then when what I say is then proven in court and nobody knew those things, uh, people are recognizing that my sources are legit. When I say Charlie, uh, was scared in the last days, and then I dropped the text message, which you've just learned about a couple of weeks ago, of him saying he was leaving the pro-Israel cause when everyone was lying about that, then they say, I think Candace's sources are legit. So I think what's happened is I've actually built up a rapport with my audience. that it's not vibes and dreams, and that's why they keep watching my content. Because I, like, for example, when I just the other day released the content of the shooter on the roof doing the lateral crawl, then they're going, I don't think these are just vibes. It seems like Candace's sources are legit. So I've proven myself in the market.

Yeah, I'm not sure that that would legitimize your sources as being legitimate when it comes to the idea that, oh, they all believe that there's a conspiracy going on, which is actually what your claim is now. How would that actually— hang on, hang on. I'm almost done. How would that legitimize— well, it's not his debate. How would he— how would it legitimize these sources that even if it's the case that you get some court footage or some things like this, why would it legitimize that your sources are telling you all the marshals believe it's a conspiracy, the police believe it's a conspiracy, everybody believes it? How would that legitimize any of that?

Well, what I am saying to you, and you are not— you are not forced to believe it, so let me just explain what I was answering here, and I think that you understood what I was saying. is I have, because people trust me, compiled a lot of information and presented it to the public. And this information has been proven true. We've presented photos, we have presented videos, never-before-seen stuff. The public has never seen it. And so what that does is your audience goes, okay, when she says that she has these sources, clearly she's telling the truth. Now, whether you would then go, well, I'm gonna believe her when she says they don't believe, they think that there's a conspiracy. That's up to you. You cannot watch my content. I'm I'm not here to tell you that you have to watch my content or believe everything I'm saying.

↳ evidence for the P18 verdict on Candace Owens · ruling prints at U-809

Well, don't you think questioners should get questioned as well?

By who? I'm not committing a crime, am I?

By just like well, I mean, collecting most of the people you ask questions of not actually committing crimes.

But what do you mean they should answer questions where? Like at a police station?

No, just like if you're if you want people to come in and answer questions for you, I have questions about. about this in the investigation. I have questions about this. I have questions about that. You want them to answer your questions. Doesn't it seem totally fair that you answer back the questions people have for you?

+4 R-2.1 · Whataboutism · Candace Owens

Well, they're not answering our questions, so it's also fair that they don't answer them.

So you're—

That's why I said Andrew Colvett should be in this chair.

He's not. But isn't that a double standard?

No, it's not, because he's not doing it.

Yeah, but what— that would still be a double standard if you're requesting that he does do it. Then that seems to infer that you think he owes you answers.

Oh, so differences are allowed again?

And they never weren't. So that seems to infer that you think that he owes you answers. If that's the case, then don't you owe answers?

Yeah, well, I feel like I'm answering your questions and his questions about— I mean, I'm talking about Andrew Kolbet. He is— his position is he's a spokesperson for Turning Point USA. So when the crowd turns against Turning Point USA on the basis of a lack of information or because there has been, I don't seeds sown of distrust, I would imagine, and forget answering my questions because it doesn't need to be me.

Aren't you sowing a lot of those seeds of distrust?

Well, I think they're doing a pretty good job themselves, if I'm being honest. You can blame it on Candace all you want.

Well, I don't love to do that. The thing is funny is that people act like I'm ground zero. I'll be fair with you.

I think they're being ground zero of people not trusting Turning Point USA.

I think that there was some PR there. I think there was some PR there. Sure, they could have done better. Absolutely. I'm not disputing any of that. One thing though that I am— I want to just directly ask you is, do you actually believe that anybody in TPUSA or Erica Kirk or Erica actually participated, had foreknowledge of, or facilitated the murder of Charlie Kirk?

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-677

+1.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession · Andrew Wilson

I'm not going to get myself into a legal pickle here. Everything I've said is on my podcast. How would that get you in a legal pickle? I think firmly that If I was the investigating officers, I would seat them all and I would ask questions. I would at this phase. I would. Okay. What does that mean?

Does that mean that you do think so?

I think it was not a sufficient investigation into what we know to be true of 80% of homicides. It's usually conducted by someone you know, right? And the fact that that was never even considered, that, like I said earlier, the backpack was returned.

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-572

How do you know that was never considered?

Because they gave back the backpack, as just one example. Uh, they gave back the backpack, they gave back the, um—

That doesn't show a conspiracy.

Well, I mean, it shows that the police trusted everybody and didn't just hold things up for a second.

They ruled them out as suspects that quickly.

↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-836

I, I'm not comfortable with that investigation. It's a pretty big organization. There's a $100 million incentive. People— this is—

What $100 million incentive?

What I'm saying is his, his organization, like, it had grown to— I think it was 100 and 100 plus per year. Yeah, per year. If that's something you want to factor in.

Your team wants to play video, if you don't mind. There's a, there's a video they want to play of, uh, Candace said it's impossible to not believe Erica's complicit. If you guys want to play that video.

Yeah, so right now their guys are going out and they're going to look for evidence, and then by May, which is fortunately around the corner, then she'll see what they found. So what the fuck is that performance? How could you sit up there and say, I, I, yes, I 100% believe Tyler Robinson did it? That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erica Kirk is not complicit somehow, because what—

That those 2 thoughts actually don't even follow. How would it be the case that even if Erica Kirk did believe that Tyler Robinson was 100% responsible for the death of Charlie Kirk. Let's just say she believed it with every fiber of her being, believed all the evidence, because she did. She just actually did. Would it then follow that somehow she's complicit in his death?

+5 R-1.1 · Strawman · Andrew Wilson · low confidence: excluded from score

I didn't say complicit in death. You added those 2 words.

Okay, it's what's she complicit in?

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-844

Yes, so sowing this narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty. So you're chopping up clips like I said you didn't have the confidence.

Okay, well, tell me, what does complicit mean?

We are showing a clip of her on Bari Weiss, which I can't remember the date that she did that interview. And Erika, when she is asked, do you feel with 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson did this? And she says, I do. Then again, context matters. I sit down with Erika for 4 hours under the assumption that she had some evidence, right? I'm like, I actually— this is why I did not engage in any Erica, everyone's questioning what she's wearing and all this stuff. I was like, I'm gonna wait here because I don't know, just it feels weird to think that. Do I— did I think that some of her mannerisms were weird and stuff like that? Yeah, but that's not— you can't convict somebody on weird mannerisms. And then when I sat down with her and I was expecting for her to say, well, you know, I'm obviously the victim on the case and we got to see the shot, you know, taken or this or that, whatever it is, great. That's why she has that much confidence 2 months ago. And when I sat down with her, it was nothing. It was nothing. Okay, so this is a conversation.

How would that make her complicit?

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-844

Complicit? Again, you said complicit in the death of Charlie Kirk. Complicit in what? Yeah, well, if you let me finish my sentence, I could tell you that. But my point being is that then you take a look at this and you go, okay, well, this is weird. Why would you have this confidence? And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, okay, great, I wanna go out there and defend you now. I want people to know that you can't say this stuff publicly, but you know more things. And she just blanks. And then she says, well, I'm gonna call the lawyer. And she called the lawyer. Again, all of this is on my show. So out of context clips is not gonna work 'cause I know what I say on my show.

Okay.

So we call her lawyer and her lawyer says to us, she calls him on the phone, pardon me. And it's me, her, and Justin Streif. And I'm like, okay, great. What do you guys have? He goes, well, we don't have anything yet. That's not— we're not at that phase yet. And I'm like, well, what do you mean you don't have anything? And he says, well, don't you know how it works? It's a probable cause hearing. So basically the state says that they're gonna bring this forward, and now our people go out and they look for the evidence to assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty. And so I asked her directly, her lawyer directly, the phone's in between us. I'm like, wait, so just so I'm clear, you haven't seen anything that the public hasn't seen? And he says no. So I'm going back in my head and I'm going, okay, so why is Erika saying with such a degree of certainty, like she was sent out to convince the public and people bit, by the way. I remember even Megyn Kelly was like, let's wait, she's going to have access to things. I did think she had access to things that we didn't have. Why express that confidence to the public as opposed to just being like, like, we don't know yet. I feel confident he's probably— he's involved. They made an arrest.

I don't understand. How would any of this make her complicit?

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-844

Well, I've already told you. She was— she's complicit in, in trying to fool the public into thinking this is some open and shut case.

How is she trying to fool the public into this if she believes it? Like, don't look anywhere else. If she believes that Charlie— that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk, if she believes that, how would that be complicit in anything?

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-844

I, I do—

Are you saying that you think she doesn't believe it?

I, I don't believe that at that stage she sat down with Barry Weiss that that's believes. No, but that's my opinion, right?

↳ evidence for the P24 verdict on Candace Owens · ruling prints at U-855

But so when you just say complicit, you just mean she believes that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk? That's it?

That's what we were talking about. That's why I said if your strategy was to dice up clips and take it out of context and make it seem like she was complicit— yeah, but then why not just play the full thing? Like, why?

Because we don't have like infinite amounts of time, I'm guessing. You probably don't want to watch.

I, I'm going to go back to my theory that you didn't feel confident that you you could defend your claim that it was overwhelming evidence. So now you're trying to move towards doctored clips and getting me to respond to them.

There's no doctored anything. I'm just making sure that we got this right, that what you're actually saying is that Erica is just complicit in believing—

When I reexamined her actions backward, because I did not have this perspective of her at the beginning, which is why it's so funny to me that you guys make it seem like I'm ground zero. People thought Erica was sus from day I forgive him, and I was not a part of that. I did not lean into that. I did not contribute to that. I was getting Actually terrible messages from my fans being like, Candace, you and Charlie always say to go with your intuition. You won't address this how we all feel about her. Things changed for me when I saw that Zoom call. I will tell you that for sure. And the fact that she lied to me. So I sat across from her and you know got to. I wanted to have that conversation publicly, but they're probably grateful they didn't do it publicly. She told me. some lies. And so the next thing that happens naturally when somebody lies to you, you go— when any person lies to you, whether it's a toddler, people only lie when they're trying to obscure something else.

Have you addressed what that lie was?

Yeah, I've talked about— we have a list of lies that we've been told by Jodi. We can find that.

And the meeting with her?

Well, no, I didn't want her to cage up. I didn't want to do this, and because I didn't know what to expect. Like, I didn't know if she was going to be like, I'm overwhelmed with everything, you know, and I don't know who to trust, the organization, and I don't know what I'm doing. Like, I didn't know. I didn't want to—

Just out of curiosity, before anything happened with Charlie, how close were you and Erica?

Not very close.

So there's not a relationship?

No, there— I mean, there— I, like, I would say it's totally normal. Like, it's not like there was any issues at all. Uh, she was always— we were always nice to each other. It just is our life went to a different phase, right? So Charlie and I hitting the ground, running around, traveling 4 days a week. Now I get married. I find love of my life. I get married and I get pregnant. I've been pregnant. I haven't stopped being pregnant. And what you want out of life changes. You don't want to be running around for 4 days a week and traveling on a plane nonstop. You suddenly want to start building at home and live. I was desiring that suburban life.

Did you guys ever do the double dates? You, George, her, and Charlie? Was there ever double dates between the 4 of you?

No, I, I was, uh, engaged to George quickly. We were planning our wedding. I was kind of in my bubble with George. George traveled with me and Charlie, but Erika and him were just starting to date at the beginning of 2019. George and I were planning our marriage.

Mm-hmm.

So George really got to know Charlie. I wouldn't say that I really got to know Erika. I was just rooting for them because I knew how much Charlie wanted to find love. And so I was kind of his wingwoman throughout that phase. And I was just happy. And I never was under the impression, obviously, that they were going to get married when they were dating. So it wasn't like I was I would have was conscious. I really need to get to know this person, and so it was just kind of normal that by that time, because of where I was in my life, that I wasn't spending any time getting to know Erica per se.

So the complicit part about Erica to you—is that a gut feeling?

You think it transformed when she lied?

You can take the lead. I'm just asking questions.

Yeah, I know. I don't go for it. I actually don't under. I still don't understand what she's—you think she's. complicit in.

Yeah, so when I say Erica's complicit, and that's my opinion, when you tweeted Erica's too retarded to kill her husband, yeah, would you like to explain how you developed your evidence, your positive evidence for the fact that Erica was retarded?

Um, yeah, sure. So yeah, I just think all women are retarded.

Oh, so you're allowed to just say stuff? Who knew? So, and by the way, and what dramatically transformed your opinion of Erica after, uh, going to the headquarters, because you were pretty hostile about—

I wasn't hostile towards him.

You don't think calling somebody too retarded—

No, come on, that's like normal tongue-in-cheek stuff for me online.

Oh, you're being tongue-in-cheek?

Yeah, usually when I call someone retarded, I'm being tongue-in-cheek. Yeah, like for instance, you got supporters— I mean, if you were— if you want to use the same exact argument, you would take a supporter like Owen Benjamin he called you bad names and called your husband bad names. Are you just— you're just like, well, that's no biggie?

I've never answered him on anything that he said. I'm saying that you now are her biggest defender. So do you still think—

I'm not her biggest defender.

Do you still think she's too retarded?

No, no, no, no. I didn't know Erica Kirk. I'd never met her before.

Okay, but you had an issue with Turning Point being led by a bunch of fembots saying— talking about the feminist angle. Still do. And then suddenly you go to the headquarters. Still is a terrible idea. You go into the headquarters. Now all of a sudden you've got text messages that you're sharing with them. You say that you and your wife are getting involved with management. No, I'm not involved in any management at Turning Point USA. Well, I'm pretty sure there is a clip of you where you say that your wife went to their recent conference and sat down. And then when you were on Joe Rogan—

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-884

No, hang on. I'll explain what happened just so that you understand. Yeah. So I was invited there to do some debate That's literally what I was invited there to do on recommendation. So I went down, did some debate. That's the first time I ever met anybody at TPUSA.

↳ evidence for the P28 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-939

Okay. And then you said you sat down with Erika.

Well, I didn't sit down to her. I talked to her in a hallway.

So you didn't sit down and speak with Erika?

No, I didn't have, like, some sit-down long conversation. We talked in a hallway.

Okay. Is that when you gave her the hug?

Yeah, I gave her the hug right there. My wife did too. We were both very sorry for what happened.

Okay. So at what point did you start receiving text messages from that you cited in your opening statement?

Oh, I just reached out to TPUSA and said, I'm prepping for a debate. Is there anything that's pertinent that I can use here?

Do you find it interesting that people have been asking for, you know, basic answers to questions, and you're saying that you walked into their headquarters and reached out and they—

It's amazing, isn't it? If you reach out in good faith and you're not demonizing them and saying that they're complicit in the murder of people's deaths, that, that perhaps they're actually willing to release things to you that are pertinent, other than thinking that, you know, perhaps you're diabolical.

Well, I don't know. I just didn't have any— I feel like if I was going to release that information, I didn't, I didn't demand that it be released to me. Um, I actually never demanded that it be released. I just simply said that this is what was going on in the last 48 hours. Maybe to the media they could release it. They could release it to PBD. They decided to release it to a guy that called Erica too retarded in June. So what? Yeah, I just think it kind of shows that Turning Point is sending you as their horse. Well, I don't worry. They just don't have— they don't have the courage to have the conversation. Like, I don't— if they were just releasing something in good faith to answer questions, you have any evidence? It's not evidence that you're sharing your opinion that she's too retarded. I can't share my opinion that I think it's going to register as really obvious to the public that rather than presenting that throughout the course of everybody wanting to know what Charlie was going through through his last days, they decided to give it to you to come to my house as some sort of a surprise. Well, do you think the public's not smart enough to see through that?

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-884

Do you think that if you know—

If you're talking about terrible PR—

If you know that there's a huge debate that's coming up that's going to be probably one of the most viewed that year, and one of the debaters calls you and says, I'm taking this position, this is the position that I feel like there's the most evidence for, and Candace also agreed to answer many of my questions in regards to this. So if you got pertinent evidence here that I can use, I'd definitely like to take a look.

But what is that?

amazing to me. It really was actually amazing to me how if you approach people in good faith and just say, hey, I'd actually like to know what the facts and details are around this, they actually do talk to you. It's amazing.

Yeah, I, I just do not believe, A, that you— that they are doing this in good faith. I don't believe that anything you have done has demonstrated that's in good faith. It demonstrates that you walked into Turning Point USA headquarters and came out a different man because you were critical of the organization. You were critical of Erica. And now you're sitting here going, Candace, I want to interrogate you for an hour and a half about everything you've ever said about America.

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-884

Have you ever been critical of somebody that you hadn't met and then you meet them and you're less critical of them?

And the inverse has happened too. I was less critical about Erica and now I'm more critical about her.

But I'm asking you, isn't it the case that there's people you've been critical of and then you've met them and you're less critical after you meet them?

Too retarded. I feel like if you think that she's dumb and you— let's just talk about your record. I mean, you're a person that has spent time in what most people would term to be the manosphere talking about feminists.

Well, yeah, I debate against feminists and red pillars and a lot of the actual— so I'm a Christian ethicist.

And then you go on to Joe Rogan and you're like soft explaining away why Erica had to take over Charlie's company when they don't have a parent at home. So now you're a feminist icon. Like, you just go into the headquarters and you just shift all of your perspectives.

bizarre criticism. Like, nobody's in the bigger girl boss position than you.

↳ evidence for the P26 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-931

I'm actually—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Interruption during opponent's turn · Andrew Wilson

No, you're in the biggest of the girl boss positions. Like, you don't have to do this, you just do do this. You could definitely not do it at all and be fine, right? But you still do.

I, I would say that you are making a comparison that cannot be compared because, because Erica's husband was just assassinated in front of the world.

Which makes sense. Why should we take the organization?

No, that— it makes sense why you would go home to your Kids, just so you know.

↳ P26 raised again here · first raised at U-918

Wait a second. That's, that's bizarre.

Because they don't have a parent. They don't have a parent. They've just suffered a trauma. You don't go into the office.

You want to protect your husband's legacy, right? And you're trying to find some new role.

The legacy is his children, not the organization.

↳ P26 raised again here · first raised at U-918

It's both.

No, it—

Yes, it is both. It's totally rational and reasonable to believe that it would be both Turning Point USA that is part of Charlie Kirk's legacy. He worked his whole life for it.

This is why people think she sucks.

And his children. For you, though, to say that anybody's a girl boss, right? That's like the pot calling the kettle black.