Transcript of Candace Owens vs Andrew Wilson: The Great Debate. New

Okay, so we're officially live. Uh, Candice, 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 Candus, 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 1 is anybody out there that loves Charlie, respects Charlie, his legacy, what he did, We have a lot of love and admiration for what he did.

He changed the lives of many people, young men, young women. You worked with him 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 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. So you have the ability to say, I agree, I disagree, comment, do 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, 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 three 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. Uh, 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, Candus'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 Candus'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 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. Uh, almost done, by the way. I have no problem defending the state's case and welcome Candus 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 is 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.

Thank you, Andrew. Candus.

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 wanna get to the substance of the debate. And, uh, we'll just speak to the audience. I, I've 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, um, over, I mean, just the last couple of years. If you just think of the things that we've learned about our government Um, and I do want to 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 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, um, to dispute everything Candace says— is 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 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. Uh, 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, to state that I did not kill Charlie Kirk when nobody, um, 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, uh, and you're now contextualizing and pretending it was just about Tucker Carlson, which is, 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, um, since October 7th, which is when I began asking myself more questions about Israel as well. Uh, 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 re-examine our relationship, uh, 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 Uh, 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, um, 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. They should be here. It shouldn't be you in that chair. It should be the person that took Charlie's place. Maybe Erika Kirk, maybe Andrew Colbet. He's a spokesperson. And rather than doing that, they send us another influencer. So let's see how it goes.

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

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

Candus? 0%.

Zero percent.

I'm at zero. So with what we've seen in terms of the evidence, I'm at 0%.

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, I don't know what role he played, but as the shooter, 0%.

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 gonna 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, 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.

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

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 Spalhalla steel cages and shot it and it went through. So under no circumstance will I—

so at least not a .30-06?

Definitively not a .30-06.

Okay.

But you are hoping— 150 feet?

No. 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, um, there's some things that I'm gonna 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, uh, Robinson drove hours away to a steakhouse.

Yes.

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. Mm-hmm. Um, and I, uh, have seen the receipt. I know the conversation that I had. And, uh, 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, uh, 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-Lok 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 150-grain Remington Core-Lok. That's just a small jacket that goes around the actual lead piece. These did— 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.

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

Yeah, I covered it live.

Yeah. Okay. So forgetting what the summary of the medical report was, did you watch the testimony that was given by the, uh, Caitlin Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha Karner, 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. 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? You 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 —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. Yep. And then when we had the person who— and this was, I believe, Caitlin Oliver— who explained painfully about the DNA the prints. Well, let's start with a point. I'm not done. You, 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. I want you to respond to two points. I want, I want you to start with two points. Okay. Dust and debris in the gun barrel. Yeah. Secondly, the fact that there were five sets of prints— five plus, actually, by the end of the testimony— five 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+ prints, and among those 5+ prints, Tyler Robinson's was the most degraded. 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, 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.

Okay, that— so I, I— you think there could be debris Uh, 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 he 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. 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 testimony on the prints.

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 was 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 change, that among the prints, his was the most degraded. So I'm asking you to address that. How could that be possible?

Let's give it, um, 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— 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 gonna have to explain how that's possible if he's the one that recently fired the weapon.

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?

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? Yeah, I don't know. I actually don't 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? 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 three names they named. So are you saying that Twiggs— would you like me to finish my statement?

I just want to make sure I'm clarifying.

I'm, 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, um, 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, uh, 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. 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 Apache. Are you claiming that these fingerprints were Lance Twigg's 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 Apache?

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, Twigg's family, both of them, you know, like I said, we're not just dreamin'. Um, 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. Uh, 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. Uh, 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—

How do we get to the patchy 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— 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'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 public places. 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 Apache. 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 'cause parents' finger— dad's fingerprints on gun. I didn't say it must be— describe how this actually links in to Robinson being a patsy.

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. Uh, but to just go back to your point about this is not evidence, uh, 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, based on the evidence presented so far by the state, the state has presented evidence under Utah's 1102 rule.

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, Candus, 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.

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— well, it's crazy that you know that.

Fact check. If all the evidence—

we need more than a fact check. This was every single day in the fall, 11:00 PM.

They want to go 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 interior 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 intercostal 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 is 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, 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. Yeah, I'm fine with your inference, but no, 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 shooter. Tyler Robinson did it the same way. Yes, you did. You— again, we— 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. But no, no, that's why the entire hearing was basically hearsay. Officer Bagby— not all of it, like I said. The overwhelming majority, I think, outside of the one that you don't— that you don't want to get— please don't come here. 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. Uh, 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, 1102. 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 to me. When you say Candus can't talk about the Brady Prints, which is a fact. Yeah, I'm not saying that. I didn't say that. That Tyler could have been a patsy. You're just literally making stuff up.

So here's what the position is.

I'm asking this. Rule 1102, what is it?

You want to write a gist?

How do you get there from the inference? I'm doing exactly what the state did. I'm 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?

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 I'm making it up, just purely making it up. I'm asking based on Andrew, based on your evidence you just showed yours— reliable hearsay. You'll get a chance. Reliable hearsay in criminal preliminary examinations. The entire, uh, 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, 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.

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 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.

We're— so again, we're gonna 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?

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— well, in dispute. What's in dispute is when you said, I'm using this as evidence that he 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. Those are equally— that, 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.

If there's 100 other plausible explanations, then Candus, 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, though.

Your whole claim today, my whole claim was that there is more evidence that he is set up, that he is set up as a patsy.

How does that equal evidence of patsy?

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.

You can 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, you named, I believe, actually 5 things. I think you said it was his car.

You said it was— well, there's multitudes of things that I find compelling evidence.

You just said you didn't say this. 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 when 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 two are the same people? Oh wow, what a scientific— they're both wearing Converses. Okay. That, that's an absurd thing to say. That is not evidence that these are the same people if we're both wearing Converse. That was what he said.

That's what flew on the stand. But I still don't understand how that would be absurd. If somebody— 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 two people wearing this totally different outfits but both wearing Converse can't happen is such an absurdity that I don't even need to like argue that. I'm just gonna let people— why is it absurd? Just concede that point. Obviously it's absurd.

To say, 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, you could get a fact check on it. But even if it is, um, again, and it was— we're utilizing inferences. When, 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.

You just told me I couldn't do that.

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 Apache 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 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 of the, uh, 5— did you delete it? Or no, did you delete? Okay, cool. I just look for— he said the— 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. 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, um, Robinson getting out of it, you have no idea if that's Tyler Robinson. The fact that he has 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.

Yeah, but that's not an exhaustive list.

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.

Actually, that's not what I said.

It is. You could even pull your own clip.

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 we still aren't getting to any of these inferences.

So these— Why are you pivoting? But just say you're wrong. It's cool to just say I was wrong. 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— are you, uh— yes, I'm okay. Anyway, back to the evidence. You're okay? Yes, I'm fine.

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 got fact-check, and now you're like just gonna gaslight me and pretend that 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 the—

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. That's literally 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, um, 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, that's my position. Okay. 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? Uh, is that the only tweet you're gonna 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. But no, I feel like that's fair, but not exhausted, just so you know. And I never said it was exhaustive, even though you said I did. Sure, whatever. Um, 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 that person serious. 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, 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— yeah, I'm paranoid.

Yeah, by the way, um, Twigs himself said that he had some on the staircase, 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.

So, sorry, there's— hang on, hang on.

So there's multi— 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, uh, 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, I, I didn't say, 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 the, 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, uh, he 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 I would 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, are, um, letting us know. I think more is going to come out 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, 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 getting in trouble. He can literally get up there and lie about anything and he's not going to get in trouble because the use immunity was given to him in April.

I believe April 28th is when they gave that testimony to the defense. I think they shot it in like April 20th, 2026. That is not compelling to me for somebody who has used immunity to give a testimony and to say, I'm not really sure, but definitely like he wears jeans and stuff. That's not what he said. He did actually. You can get a fact check on that. Yeah, that's right.

I think he said much more than that.

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 Candus is asking about Skyler. 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 surveillance footage.

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

And then also bring the 8:01 that you just said. What was the other one?

Yep. The 8:01, 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?

They said are not hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay.

It, it, it was hearsay. They said it in the trial.

Hang on, hang on. Okay. Okay. Uh, 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— 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. 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, he didn't say that.

He said most of it was hearsay, actually. Yeah, the overwhelming majority.

Well, I mean, and 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 were quite—

sounds like you're backtracking quite a bit. Oh, 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 overwhelmingly hearsay. Is that the case? It was.

Yes, that's a fact. I'm not backtracking on that at all. What are the things— how many times did you— I mean, you watch the people here, it's like they constantly— I'm 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102. 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 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, but even a lot of that stuff may not fall under hearsay under what we just read, right?

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. Well, overwhelming just means you can consider another option, that there could have been another white guy wearing Converse on campus.

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.

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 Yeah, 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 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 you said in the tweet.

You can tweet longer too. It's not like we're limited now to 240 characters.

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, they want— 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? Do you—

okay, this is something you have— you find to be more overwhelming? Let me ask that question. Yes, yes. 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.

So what do 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, from my opinion, that's the most convincing for me. Okay.

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

Okay. That's a good idea, folks. We're going to take a quick 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 Tybe, 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/kandice. 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+ A+ rating on the BBB. So get your free 30-second personalized assessment today at pdsdebt.com/candice. Again, that's pdsdebt.com/candice. 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 cyclosporitis 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, uh, 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, and other, other people who are kind of in that camp. 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 before we got to the preliminary hearing. I, I had mentioned that it was initially supposed to be scheduled for sometime in May. Uh, they they asked for an extension. That, that reading through those filings of why they were requesting an extension and why I actually believe their extension should have been granted, uh, 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 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 '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.' It, it felt a little too on the nose. I just— people have common sense. You just don't text message. But then we're also supposed to believe that he put a note under because— 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. That it 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, uh, to carve expressions, catch fascist, but then suddenly he's writing like a—

also as a Hellraiser 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, just 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 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 follow your intuition. You should actually do that. If you say I think 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 now, but hang on, hang on, let me respond a little bit here because 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 and masks 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. 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 you, it has to be tempered with logic, reason, explanatory power, and evidence, not just intuition.

That's why we're parking it aside. Intuition's 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 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, in that scenario, they're looking at the preliminary hearing and have a reaction to it. It wasn't their intuition.

But like, how do you know that?

Just getting the substance— parking that aside, parking aside just a general intuition, somebody might be sending 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 got 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 our 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 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, 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.

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, um, 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, it didn't pass a sniff test for me.

You have kids and you love them more than anything. I do. If it was the case that you thought that the— 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 they state is presenting it. What would have prevented the parents from testifying?

Well, two things I can answer that. And if you, if you watch my show, I keep telling you it's not vibes. So right after the shooting happened, uh, 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 gonna watch you. And they went went into a federal safe house. Uh, what happened next is that they started thinking that the feds were maybe gonna, like, maybe not as honest as they thought. Um, and how do you know all any of that? You gotta, you gotta watch the show, right? Yeah. No, how do you know that? I, I had a source within the Robinson family.

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.

I find it to be reliable hearsay.

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

I'm just doing what the process is.

What you're doing is a cool story. It's not cool. Well, hang on, hang on.

You're giving us— you must have hated watching it.

You're giving us a cool story. 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, '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? 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 mainstream media. I said with, um, a sheriff Yes, but the father did confront him.

The father confronted what? Tyler Robinson. And where did you learn this, that the title—

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 that— 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 on 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? 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, uh, 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. Um, 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 the— what became the charging document, he, uh, after they transported, uh, Tyler Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's County office this, uh, up to— I think it's Salt Lake City.

I think it was 4 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 The, the misinformation—

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 Brooksby's, uh, press conference. And he said, you know, they, they know it's you and you're gonna come in, uh, peaceably, or people are going to 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. Uh, the reason why Tyler Robinson knew him was because he lived nearby and he was also his Boy Scout leader.

The parents could write this second. And by the way, if you If you have the evidence— I'm going to address that point.

I'm just saying that your 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.

Two things I have ready in the back. One is the charging doc and the other one is a video of Kathy Nester saying she hasn't seen Tyler's phone.

Okay, we can run Kathy to go back and then just to go back. Yeah, Kathy first in court saying she didn't get her client's phone. Yeah, and then I think we'll go to the—

you're okay with that thing not in dispute? These are all things that are not even disputed. 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, something that you felt was concrete. So it was just my rebuttal to 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 your 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—

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? It's called—

it's called winners and losers. They may not be fabricated, but by the way, 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— they just could be somebody else. The parents fact check that.

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

It. 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. 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. Yeah. 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'd say to bring—

why aren't the parents disputing that?

Well, first off, that's the question. 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.

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

I, I'm, I, 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, I did not say to you that— I just said I have a source 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 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.

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. I see. And, 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 happens. It seems like they're violating it with them. I didn't— I, I'm not speaking to a source, but 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, uh, made this statement, and here is his statement that he signed.

That would have been a good time to present that evidence.

That would also be a good time for the defense to say that's just totally false. 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— 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, uh, the probative information.

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

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 they're—

no, no, you're— no, they're not allowed to.

Are you sure? 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. Ryan Davis was up there. Uh, so they're not allowed to present anything? They're responding to the state.

I'm asking, 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 it's— I disagree. I think that they not only could do it, but they would do it. In fact, when I talked in depth with my 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 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? Um, and okay, I disagree with that in general when somebody's rotting in prison, but whatever. Uh, 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—

so they're saying all of these charges—

I'm not disputing any of that. So that's what I am— you're asking why you're saying— no, what I'm asking specifically is like, who could shut a— shut parents up who are like, no way 'Hey, 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 I'll even concede this whole point to you. Let's just say maybe this was misconstrued, right? If there's, um, there's a little bit of reason to doubt it because we're still waiting for the evidence for trial 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. Well, you didn't do that.

Wait a second, wait a second.

I just, I just want to make sure that I got this right. That's your argument to me, right? My argument to you is what? My argument— 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 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, would you— did you feel like this is beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, you realize— remember what I said, it's going to be— 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?

If 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 it. 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. 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, it makes no sense.

And when we have a chance to cross-examine your evidence that you've presented, I'm gonna show a lot of that. 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 not sure I really care if you have a problem 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 she is allowed to use— 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 just doesn't make 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's not propositionally false. 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. Middle. All propositions are gonna be true or they're gonna be false. When we get into, when we're making inferences, we're making inferences based on propositions. We can make, 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 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— 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— where should you show cause? Yes. Yeah. So that's what they're saying. Yeah, I understand.

Okay. So that's not even— and I'm even fine with it.

Yeah, we all, we all know. And then, by the way, just now that the hearing is over, and you can also fact check this. They now, at the, 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, uh, um, I don't remember how much it was. It was an absurd amount of stuff that they gave to 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, 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. So the— yeah, so I guess the disagreements now would move into the evidences that you you have stated on the record, which transcend elements of reason. Why are we having a transcendental conversation now?

Because, I mean, because they're all related. 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 wanted to question you.

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

uh, you can hold me to those things, but I would like to get into the things—

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. 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.

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— 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. Again, it's— well, it's been invalidated by the, by the testimony that we saw. And in your answer for when I— well, you haven't validated— most degraded prints 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 No, 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, like to talk about all 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've 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 them 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 suspicious, if I'm being honest with you. 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 Twiggs's family and they were like, it's very weird that the feds are not asking him more questions. He's exactly the person, um, that I would imagine to be involved in some stuff. Allegedly. I'll say allegedly. Uh, but, uh, 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 have made me go, all right, I think this, this could be the guy. Uh, 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.

As the FBI took everything, the FBI took the gun, the FBI took initially the screwdriver. And then when I heard testimony about the things that they didn't— that they found that were suspicious, um, example being the backpack, that's something that really bothers me, uh, 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 it. Uh, 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. Uh, she's— so she was the forensics for the FBI, and then she says she gets a call on the 13th and 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, that the the alleged gunman ran, and that their excuse was, we just gave it back because we heard that this was some— this belonged to somebody on Charlie's team. So that to me is, you know, this is why the, the investigation itself feels underwhelming when you learn— and this is completely crazy to me— that the— some of the artifacts that Charlie was wearing were immediately returned to Erica. 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 I— 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, uh, crucifix. Uh, that's, that should be in evidence, irrespective if you feel bad for her and think she should have, you know, have it and it's sweet. That should be in evidence. Uh, immediately paving over the crime scene, is this just like the craziest thing ever? You're, it's like, this is 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 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. UVU's washed their hands of it. And what he's saying 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 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, 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, uh, 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?

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— 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's him with the murder weapon, here's him taking the shot.

Most, most of this doesn't take place on a college campus that has surveillance everywhere. Yeah, one clear image of his—

but I 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 story, 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, I don't disagree with that. We haven't heard the details. 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 him. So you're saying yesterday— yeah, I think it's very important for the audience here that— without for you? Is there anything that you could see for you to say, yeah, this guy was a past government?

Of course, I'm gonna always follow evidence. Perfect. So my, my whole thing is just this. It's, 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, you know, they, 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 the zone with tons and tons of conspiracy-based ideas and they go nowhere, right? They, and in fact, they actually take away from a legitimate investigation. Now, I'm not even saying anybody here's purposely flooding the zone. That's not even the claim. All I'm saying is, is that the claims made absent, absent, oh, uh, 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.

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

Let's 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 3.5-minute break and we'll be back soon.

All right, you guys, you have probably seen all the buzz around red light therapy lately. Recently. 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 three 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 RedLife 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 PurgeMyParasitesNow.com/Kandace. Buy your detox and gut renewal restoration bundle today and get your free Red Life Therapy Belt plus your in-depth protocol.

That's PurgeMyParasitesNow.com/Kandace. I also remind you guys about Pure Talk because you do not have to overpay for your wireless network, not when Pure Talk comes in with the same service for a tiny fraction of the cost. And now, for the first time ever, Pure Talk is offering any plan at just $15 a month for your first 3 months. 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. Talk. 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.

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. Is, right? So, uh, 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 supposed to, I just want to ask you some questions.

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

This is a meta, meta conversation, right?

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

Am I allowed to ask the questions? I'm going—

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

This isn't like— I want to ask you—

if you want to depose me, you should join me.

I'm not deposing you.

Defense team, 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, I'm Joe Rogan, they have no evidence, they have no evidence, and now you're like, let's move away from that.

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, 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 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, I'm familiar with this debate strategy.

But I am just telling you—

yes or no, yes or no. We're not debating 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.

This is you saying I want to probe things that sit outside the evidence. I actually already addressed this. You asked me. You're not gonna go like where you're, you're sitting and I'm on trial. I'm not on trial.

Okay, great. So let's talk about the, uh, 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. Um, 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, 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— I agree. But then you go, well, where's your evidence? It'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 should Where'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.

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— 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 is 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, uh, 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, uh, because, you know, do you have positive evidence? I'm, 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, but the question I'm asking is 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. And he was starting to realize how much pressure was being put on not just our government, uh, to constantly fight their wars, but also being put his organization personally. If people had come out and been honest about that, uh, 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, everything was about trying to convince the public how much he liked it.

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

I I've 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 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, 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. And again, the almost desperate lies about Charlie shifting opinion on Israel. Israel lead us to believe that there could be an Israeli angle in this, uh, 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 say there's no positive evidence. I, I, whatever you want to say, however, positive, negative, however you want to say it, I like positive evidence. Material evidence and other evidences, which we've said is on our show, is what we said. Which is, we— this feels like a conspiracy building. There's no reason to lie about these things, and yet people are lying. Uh, 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.

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.

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.

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. Yes. You said that there's a video you want to play that Candus said she has full confidence Israel was involved?

Yep. Yeah. He said evidence that they killed him. I said, this is why people think their involvement.

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

Yeah. Via who? 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, um, I'm gonna put that out there with full confidence. Okay. I also know— Involvement. I understand.

Yeah. So you think he— you with full confidence, you think that— Yeah.

I think Israel's— That France and Israel— Israel. Yeah, I, 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. I'm not—

but you don't have any positive evidence of that, right?

I don't— you can you just stop? It's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying positive evidence. I've— I've just asked me what I think and I just tell you yes, I think they are. That's a claim. Claim? No, I said here's what— here's what I think.

I have every right to ask you about your claim. Yeah, but 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, I agree, you're allowed to think. Okay, so nobody's disputing whether or not— what I'm asking is, what is your issue with this?

Evidence. I think that real is involved. That's not what—

that's not just what you said. You said it's with full confidence. Yes. That I think that if you had full confidence to think when you think— if— but if you— 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, that's how you would know whether or not you had full confidence.

Let me finish.

Let me finish. Let me finish. If it was the case that I said I, 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, um, 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, which I can do. I'm allowed to do that. Pertinent to this debate? That it's not exactly pertinent. This is 100% pertinent.

It's not pertinent because our debate claims made out— made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. That's the complete substance of the debate.

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?

But you didn't— you do not get to structure how I'm allowed to reply or ask me why are you structuring how allowed to reply.

I'm just asking you direct questions.

I have full confidence that you do not feel that you represented your claim well, and so now what you came here 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. I'm asking—

it seems like you are just— I'm asking specifically why you think that. I've already explained to you, I explained at the beginning of this, why I think Israel 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— no, 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 gonna 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, well, 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 this conspiracy though, if I then took it to the federal government, right? 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 happens.

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 gonna, what, regulate what I— how I'm allowed to say? If I'm trying to regulate anything, I'm asking a very pertinent question. 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 didn't say it in the way that you wanted to say it.

You just kind of obfuscate and you run away from it.

But I would like for you to actually focus on 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 I would I 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. I think— and you have no evidence for it at all that you'll give us?

Well, the high— I, I already did tell you where it came from. Like I said, I can explain it to you.

I can't understand that same higher up tell you that he was going to kill— or that France killed Charlie Kirk, or just that you were in danger?

They said that the French Foreign Legion was involved in on the ground that day. I've already said that. You just don't like hearing it.

No, and it's just out of curiosity, when you, uh, passed down that message to a tall 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—

and I have this, 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 too. I did receive a response from, uh, Tulsi Gabbard's office, But I, I don't think there was ever any investigation into what I said. Got it.

So the call was, hey, I've been told some— the email. Yes. Email was, I've been told somebody—

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, I, it was a lot of information, but like—

but you didn't give specifics who it was from.

Not in the first email. Cause I figured they would like— yeah. Perfect.

So if they do contact you, 100%, are you comfortable giving 100% who would absolutely give them as much information as possible. Can I ask a question? If whoever's the US 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. I did.

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, Margo got right back to me. Shit, it was on his desk. 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. 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 been.

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

Two 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 sources.

Probably didn't think it was accurate. 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 TPLC, had 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 to say—

there's no guarantee they didn't look into it. How do we know? We don't know. How could they?

They didn't come get 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— you keep saying like you go and you, 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, and which is what I raised. I'm asking, did you send— 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?

That wasn't about Israel. Those are 2 separate things. That wasn't about Israel. They were saying the French Foreign Legion, 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 called you, then I find that to be very strange.

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.

But wait, just ask one question.

Let me just ask one question and I'm going to 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— 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?

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. Uh, 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, um, 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. Every other evidence should be brought forward. We've done that. In our, in our capacity. Like, when people keep saying she has no evidence, it's kind of crazy. I think we've broken 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 are, 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 U.S. Marshals believe there's a conspiracy. They were, uh, my sources at the U.S. Marshals were saying they were basically sent on a wild goose chase that day. But do you see You say my sources are not allowed to have sources? Well, the thing is funny, CNN allowed to have—

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 hypothetical, wouldn't you say what?

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 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, or the police believe it's a conspiracy, everybody believes it? How would that legitimize anything?

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, um, is I have, because people trust me, uh, compiled a lot of information and presented it to the public, and this information has been, uh, 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 going to 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. 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, aren't most 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? Like, what are you saying? If you're—

if you want people to come in and answer questions for you— I have questions 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?

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

So you're—

that's why I said Andrew Colbett 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— if you're requesting that he does do it, then that seems to infer that you think he owes you answers.

Oh, so inferences 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 Colbett. 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 know, 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, I think they're doing a pretty good job themselves, if I'm being honest. Uh, you can blame it on Candace all you want.

Well, I don't love to do that.

The thing is funny is people act like I'm, I'm Ground zero. I'll be fair with you, 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, 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, uh, facilitated the murder of Charlie Kirk?

I'm not going to get myself into a legal pickle here. Everything I've said is on my podcast. I, I think firmly that if I was the investigating officers, I would, I would seat them all and I would ask questions. I would at this phase. I would.

Okay, does that mean that you do think so?

I, I think it was not a sufficient investigation and into what is— what we know to be true of 80% of, uh, homicides, it's usually conducted by someone you know, right? And the fact that that was never even considered, that the— like I said earlier, the backpack was returned. How do you know that was never considered? Because they gave back the backpack. As, 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? 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 organization, like, it had grown to, I think it was $100 million. Plus per year. Yeah, per year. If that's something you want to factor in.

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

And 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 Erika Kirk is not complicit complicit somehow, because what—

that those two 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?

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

Okay, it's what she complicit in. Yes.

So sewing this narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty. So you're chopping up clips. Like I said, you didn't have the confidence to come up with the date.

Chopping it up.

What does complicit mean? We are showing a clip of her on Barry Weiss, which I can't remember the date that she did that interview, uh, and Erica, when she is asked, are you— you know, do you, do you feel with 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson did this? And she says, I do. Then again, context matters. I sit down with Erica for 4 hours under the assumption that she had some evidence, right? Like, like, I'm like, I actually— this is why I did not engage in any like, 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 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. You know, that's why she's being— 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?

Complicit? Again, you said complicit in the death of Charlie Kirk.

In what?

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, why would you have this confidence? And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, okay, great, I want to 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 going to call the lawyer. And she called the lawyer. Again, all this is on my show, so out-of-context clips is not going to work because I know what I say on my show. So we call lawyer, and her lawyer says to us, uh, she calls him on the phone, pardon me, and it's me, her, and Justin Streif. And he's— 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, uh, assert that Tyler Robbins 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 Erica saying with such a degree of certainty, like she was sent out to convince the public? And, and people bit, by the way. I remember even Megyn Kelly was like, uh, you know, let's wait, she's going to have access to things. I did think she had access to things that we he didn't have. Why express that confidence to the public as opposed to just being 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?

And then what? 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's she trying to fool the public into this if she believes—

like, don't look anywhere else—

that Charlie— that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk? If she believes that, how would that be complicit in anything.

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 what she believes.

No, but that's my opinion, right? 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 completely— everything. 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 gonna go back to my theory that you didn't feel confident that you could defend your, your claim that it was overwhelming evidence, so now you're trying to move towards doctored clips and getting—

well, there's no doctor anything. I'm just making sure that we got this right, that what you're actually saying is that Erica was—

when I re-examine 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, um, 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 Chay. We can find that. In the meeting with her? Well, no, I, I didn't want her to cage up. I did, I didn't want to do this. And 'cause I, I didn't know what I to expect. Like I, I didn't, I didn't know if she was gonna be like, I'm so overwhelmed with everything. You know, and I don't know who to trust, the organization, and I, I don't know what I'm do— like, I didn't know, I didn't wanna in—

Just outta 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, I find love of my life. I get married and I get pregnant. I've been preg— I haven't stopped being pregnant. And what you want out of life changes. You don't wanna be running around for 4 days a week and traveling on a plane nonstop. You suddenly wanna start building at home and live. I was desiring that suburban life.

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

No, I, I was, you know, engaged to George quickly. We were planning our wedding. I was kind of in my bubble. 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 are planning our marriage, 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, you know, 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 person, like, 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 actually don't under— I still don't understand what she's— do 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? First, because you were pretty hostile about— I wasn't hostile towards them. 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 one— and he 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 she's not her biggest defender?

Do you think— still think she's too retarded?

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, uh, by a bunch of fembots saying— talking about the feminist angle. And then suddenly you go to the headquarters, you come, 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're— you and your wife are getting involved with management.

No, no, I'm not involved in any management at Turner.

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 Jerome—

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

Okay, and then you said you sat down with Erica.

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

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

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, 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. I don't know, 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 have— they don't have— I don't have the conversation. Like, I don't— if they were just releasing something in good faith to answer questions, do 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 surprise. Do you think the public's not smart enough to see through that? Do you think that if you know— 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 take a look. It was actually amazing 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, can't just— I want to interrogate you for an hour and a half about everything. Hang on, hang on.

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

Uh, and the inverse has happened too. I was right critical about Erica and now I'm more critical about it.

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?

Uh, too retarded. I, 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 feminism.

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

And then you go on to Joe Rogan and you're like, 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 perspective.

That's 'cause that's a bizarre criticism. Like nobody's in the bigger girl boss position than you.

Yeah. I, I'm actually, no, I'm—

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

Why should we take the organization over?

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

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

You want to protect— they don't have a parent. They don't have a parent and they've just suffered a trauma. You don't go into the office.

You wanna protect your husband's legacy. Legacy, right? And you're trying to find some new one.

Legacy is his children, not the organization.

It's both. No, it— 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's us.

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

That came out of your mouth.

No, that was you. You brought up girl boss.

Girl boss came out of your mouth.

Yeah, I'm just saying, I'm telling you that you brought up this idea that I'm defending some feminist nonsense. I'm not. I'm pointing out that they're—

by the way, she's not qualified to take over his company.

There's always objective outliers to each situation. In fact, it's the exception that proves the rule. And the interesting thing here is like, I'm still just as critical of feminism inside of TPUSA as I've always been, and I'm just as critical of any pro-Zionist position as I've ever ever been. None of that's ever changed. By the way, I would think it's the most rational, reasonable thing on planet Earth to do if you wanted to actually see an organization change, to try to work with leadership or reach out to leadership to try to do so. Doesn't that make the most amount of sense?

I would like to state for the record that I think Erica is underqualified from, uh, to run that, to run the organization. And on, on the more emotional aspects I agree with the, what seems to be a majority opinion, because I'm not gonna say it's scientific, that any woman that would leave her kids and go right into the office after their husband was publicly assassinated does not have their priorities straight.

Okay, well, I understand that you can have those criticisms, but I'm not understanding still how that would make her complicit.

I don't, I don't have to keep answering the same question.

Okay, your team is asking to play a clip, so if we want to play this clip to just finish this segment on the Erica Kirk topic, we can spend some time on that as well. So if you guys are ready in the back, we're ready.

And causing that 30-06 diameter, as would happen with a pet and explosives, as we've demonstrated to you in the past, it accidentally, because of how Charlie was crouched, went up and hit his neck. And that ruined everything. That ruined everything. It was problematic. It's the reason why Teraldon had to scramble to get the cameras down because they were never supposed to see it. They, they could have said reasonably that a 30-06 got eaten by Charlie, much more reasonably obviously than saying that the chicken bones in his neck stopped it because he ate vegetables. They panicked. That was what then, that's why Terrell's nervous on the phone with me. Again, this is my theory and I am now very much sticking to it. Okay, they panicked. It's the reason Erica had to step out once. That's why she would have gotten on the phone with Terrell so quickly, because I was going, why is Terrell saying, well, I didn't want Erica to relive— oh, that's why I did it. He didn't have an answer. He was nervous. It was crazy. But he acknowledged that he spoke to Erica immediately. Why did you speak to Erica immediately?

So do you believe that there was a shaped charge that killed Charlie?

Hey, can I ask you why you keep starting clips sentence, probably to get to where the clip is. No, it doesn't seem that way because you can always start a clip at the beginning of a sentence. Like, you're just sort of like— it's completely out of context.

Wait, I didn't— yes, I didn't prepare the clips, but yeah, I think I didn't. But it's fine to ask it to back up.

Like I said, this, this— the inter— I don't need to say what's happening here because the internet will clock it. But, uh, in this episode, we are now going— and that's why I said we're now going to look at some alternative theories. I made it very clear that this was a theory that I didn't want to look at. This is, I believe, I 'cause I don't have every episode in my head, but I'm pretty sure this is an episode where we presented the evidence that was in the car, the photos of what was in the car, right? And so, we are now inferring off of what we see in the car that this very much does look like, uh, that we are— see a bunch of shattered Rode microphones, which was an early theory that I was actually interested in, but couldn't really wrap my head around what was, uh, the shaped charge explosive, as I say at the beginning of the episode. Like, I just— it was just too much. Just not my expertise, and I was concerning myself with timelines and stories and statements that didn't make sense. Without question, Cheryl Farnsworth, uh, is, is someone who made me think that we were missing a big part of the story.

So I'm walking them through, uh, John Bray's theory. If we started to insert what we are actually observing with the evidence that we're taking a look at and what took place that day— so we're completely in the hypothetical article right here, uh, and you're now introducing this.

If that's the case, if you're just hypothetically exploring it, that's why I'm just asking directly.

Yes, but if you— but that's obvious when you watch this episode. So that's why it feels like I'm in the middle of an interview with CNN when they like pull up random clips and they're like, what's this? What's this? You watch the episode, you know what it is.

Do you think that your alternative theory— I think John Gray's theory should be explored.

Yes. Okay.

Do you, do you think that Charlie Kirk was killed with an explosion?

I think, I think that that is a possibility, yes. Okay. And it should be explored. He's done a lot of work on it. John Bray has done good work, and I think that that's why that theory is now starting to gain steam since we released the second set of the photos of what was in the car. I think it's viable.

So this was the big thing I wanted to get into with you on the explosives too. What, what is it about that theory that's actually compelling to you? So I looked into the explosive mic theory multiple lines. And the biggest thing that stood out to me is there's no explosion. There's, there's literally no explosion. In fact, there's videos when the shot rings out, um, that kills Charlie— at least it sounds like a shot to me— people are actually like looking up towards where the, uh, the gun is being fired. They're looking away for where the sound is. Like, where's the actual explosion?

Well, for every person that you say looks away, there's going to be a person that was looking forward. Uh, we have former Marines that have gotten on and said, it looks to me like there's an explosion under his shirt, right? You obviously saw, um, uh, Rob O'Neill go on to— I'm forgetting which platform it was— where he said, it's the first thing I thought was the man that killed Osama bin Laden. And I think he's qualified to say what he believes he saw. Uh, we, we should actually, since they're pulling clips, we should run that clip of Rob O'Neill and what he said and what he observed in his experience. Yeah. So I'm gonna take that. And also there were people who test— like immediately spoke to the media that day who said the same thing, that they thought that something happened under his shirt. That was actually, if you go back to like my first episode when I was just observing what I saw with my eyes, I was asking the serious question. I was seriously saying, why is it like somebody shot him from underneath? Why is his shirt moving first? It doesn't make sense to me.

And, uh, I'm not—

That's because of air dispersal from the bullet. So when a, when, whenever a bullet is shot, a projectile shot, you can actually run this experiment yourself if you have a rifle. Take like an empty box of ammunition and put it on the table and then fire it near the muzzle and that box will actually blow off the table.

Okay. So question for you, does that box go sideways off the table? It can.

It, it can. Yeah, it, it can. It depends on the dispersion.

You, you, £3,000 of energy or £2,000 of energy coming at you. That's how much it carries.

Well, 30 ounces. £2,000 of energy.

I, well, we can fact check that. How many, how many, how many pounds of energy is it? A 30-ounce box? G6, uh, being shot 150 yards away? That's a great question for Grok. I'm gonna say when we looked at it, it was between 1,500 and 2,000, I'm pretty sure, pounds of energy coming at you, and you just go upward into the side. I don't really buy that. I mean, and I'm gonna just say I just think that that's not— yeah, right, but possible. It doesn't go through on top of that, so there's another miracle. You didn't get blown backwards, you didn't—

it didn't go through.

But I also want to say that you're saying this can happen, and Rob O'Neill is infinitely more qualified, I think, to speak on that Why? And well, because he's actually shot and killed people.

Why would that have anything to do with anything? Well, because did he slow down all the videos of the people he shot to see if their clothes moved?

Well, why are you able to assert your position as a fact?

Because I'm gonna, I'm gonna tell you how projectiles work. He's not even gonna just— I guarantee you this guy's not even gonna disagree with what I'm about to say. If it is the case that you have energy and you have mass and the mass is moving in the air, the air has to go go somewhere. It doesn't have a choice.

I think you're like totally BSing right now, man. Not only am I not BSing, I'm telling you the truth.

If a bullet is moving in the air, air has to move out of the way of the bullet.

But maybe not at the bottom of a shirt here. I don't know. I, I just, I disagree with that. I'd like to say for the record, I've watched some of you do these sorts of things where you assert something with a lot of confidence, and you can fact-check it. It's completely— bullets displace air. Not about whether it displaces air, it's where it dispersed the air. Underneath his shirt here. It's not underneath. Okay, but bullets this big and You're telling me it's going to hit his neck and then it's not underneath his shirt?

It starts up here and the collar's moving, and then you see the wave here as he's moving backwards. No. Yeah, that's not true.

It's not. And we obviously can't show that clip. I disagree with you.

Okay, I understand you can't show it for TOS purposes.

Exactly. Uh, I disagree with you. People can go watch and make up their own minds. We don't need to debate it, whether or not it— that was the first thing I said was, why is his shirt moving first? That didn't make sense to me. It, it almost looks just like this. It goes across his necklace, breaks breaks first before Charlie even reacts. If you watch it in slow, his necklace breaks first, which I thought was very odd. And then you see a puff here, and then the next thing you know, there's a— there's the, uh, entry wound on his neck. I, I would not confidently assert that I see smoke. I've never said it on my platform that an explosion generally has smoke. I don't think that there's any quality version of video that would get us to be able to answer that question other than Terrell's 4K footage that he from the front.

So there's a lot of, um, if you look at the Israeli pagers, it's assumed that it's a similar, if not the same, type of explosive that was used inside the pagers that would have been used inside of this road mic.

I think that you should, since you love debating, you should debate someone like John Bray, who's worked on that theory for 11 months, and ask those sorts of questions of how a shaped charge would work. Uh, I presented the evidence of what was in the car, and I also, at that episode that you're clipping said, John Bray has done an unbelievable amount of work on this. And I think he has debated a ton of people actually regarding this topic. So that's the route that I would send you on. For the purpose of my show, I do believe to answer your question that it is a hypothetical. I mean, that it is a theory that should be thoroughly explored. There's two clips your team wants to show.

One of them is the Rob O'Neill clip since we're on it. So if you guys are ready in the back before we go to break. If you want to pull it up, this is a good time to do so.

And good to see General Holt. A lot of things bother me about this. Nothing in particular. And it's not like I'm out there saying big lie or conspiracy or someone did it. I'm just saying I've been in a lot of shootings. I've killed more than a handful of people. And this thing looked shady off the bat. Off the bat. I mean, just— I've killed people closer than I saw the camera, and I've never seen a shirt move like that. That looks like an explosion to me. The, uh, just the fact that no one started doing, uh, first aid to Charlie Kirk— they were more concerned about getting SIM cards out of cameras, removing cameras, and then, uh, getting him off the X somehow. There didn't seem a lot of concern for it, for his life. It seemed like just clean it up, and then— I mean, I've been told they paved it over a couple days later. And then you get Erica Kirk, uh, behind all the razzle-dazzle, and really quick to forgive the alleged shooter, which technically says, uh, that was him because I forgive him, but that you can't forgive Candace Owens for having an opinion or asking questions.

And they mock people by saying, oh, I'm just asking questions. Yeah, I'm a SEAL Team 6 sniper. I'm asking a lot of questions. No one wants to answer them. And you're able to— he's actually said very little about the explosive there. So he observed—

he said he's shot people up close and he's never seen a shirt like that, and it looked to him like an explosive.

That's what he noticed. But when I play that video at full speed, I can't see a shirt moving. I can only see a shirt moving when we slow it way down. So if I'm in real time, I'm just assuming this, right? I mean, if I was in real time and I was in like a close quarters combat, you kill somebody situation, and I shot them, would you even see the shirt move?

Well, I just feel like 5 minutes ago you were arguing that it was because the bullet carried air. Now you're saying you don't see the shirt move at all.

Yeah, but that's if you slow it down, the disbursement of air, that's where you're going to see it, right? It's going to be very quick, very, very, very, very fast.

Yeah, that's not what I saw, and clearly it's not what he saw, and he thinks that there could be an explosive. So I'm just saying to you, when you— people disagree with you, your opinion's not a fact, that's all.

I understand.

I think that's a good place for us to— if you— if we have another break, and then we can keep answering your questions.

Yeah, I mean, I think, um, yeah. Sounds good.

Perfect. We'll do a quick 3.5-minute ad break. We'll be back for the last segment. Cool. All right. Thank you.

All right, you guys, I wanna tell you about Ethos because life has a way of changing your priorities when you least expect it. One day you're focused on what's next for you, the next you're thinking about a home, a family, and how to build a future that feels secure. As your world grows, so does your perspective. That shift in mindset is what led me to make life insurance a priority. It's one of those things that's easy to put off, but having it in place gives me peace of mind knowing that the people that I care about would have financial support if the unexpected ever happened. Getting covered today is simpler, faster, and more affordable than many people realize. That's why I love Ethos, because with Ethos you can apply online in just minutes. No medical exams, no waiting rooms. Just answer a few health questions and you could be covered the very same day. Ethos has 4.9 out of 5 stars on Trustpilot with over 5,500 reviews. What really stands out to me is that Ethos helps match you with coverage that actually fits your life your goals and your budget. With up to $3 million in coverage and plans starting around $30 a month, protecting your family can feel a whole lot more doable.

Peace of mind should not be complicated. So take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com/candice. That's ethos.com/candice. Application times and rates may vary. And I wanna remind you guys about Tax Network USA because I know a lot of people owe back taxes. Maybe you have years of unfiled returns. Maybe you file every year and you still can't get ahead. Because the balance keeps growing, or maybe you withdrew money from a 401 or IRA and suddenly got hit with a tax bill that you didn't expect. Whatever caused the problem, one thing is certain: the IRS penalties and interest keep adding up every single month. If you don't have a plan now, you could end up owing even more next tax season. Before the IRS starts sending more letters, garnishing wages, or freezing your bank account, call Tax Network USA. They've been helping taxpayers nationwide for more than 15 years, resolving back taxes, unfiled returns, and serious IRS problems. Problems. So whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, their team has resolved over $1 billion in tax debt. Right now they're offering a free IRS investigative call to find out exactly what you owe and what options you have to fix it.

So call 866-686-1651 or visit tnusa.com/candace. Again, that's tnusa.com/candace. I also want to tell you guys about Field of Greens because I am always looking past the headlines and asking one simple question: what is really in the product that I'm putting into my body. Think about it, when you buy a steak or a bag of vegetables, you see nutrition facts label. When companies take fruits and vegetables and turn them into a formula, you'll often see a supplemental facts label instead. That makes you want to know more. Where do the ingredients come from? How are they processed? And can I trust what's actually inside? That's one reason I love Field of Greens, because their focus is on quality, transparency, and bringing together fruits and vegetables in a convenient daily formula. And it actually tastes good. Wild berry is my favorite, but strawberry lemonade is a popular choice as well. No complicated routine, just one scoop mixed with water. If you wanna try it, use code CANDICE at checkout for 20% off your first order by visiting fieldofgreens.com. That's code CANDICE at fieldofgreens.com. All right, fantastic.

So, well, Andrew, if you wanna go with your last couple thoughts.

Yeah, so I just have two, two more clips to play. Okay. Right. And then I, uh, we can do final thoughts. I'm guessing. Um, I, yeah, I feel like, uh, we got where we were trying to go, or at least for the most part. So, um, the two other clips I do want to play— the Twigs clip, that one is important to me. The Twigs DNA clip. Yeah. And they're going to pull it up just to have you respond to it.

Well, you don't have to play it because like, if, if you're saying that when I initially watched it, I thought that Lance Twigs's DNA, like he was directly responding to that because the testimony was a bit confusing. They started by saying that they were going to to, um, uh, like explaining how they got the samples. And they said Lance, Matt, and Amberson— uh, sorry, Lance, Matt, and Amber Robinson— how they got their DNA samples. And then they started speaking about the gun and said, you know, multiple prints were found on them. And then they moved and they said Lance Twigs's DNA was found on the screwdriver. Uh, when I went back and re-watched it, I realized, well, they haven't officially said that Lance or Amber are on the gun. So I think I've already conceded that we know that. So I think like, but if you're— if you want to know, this is directly—

you're saying it is on the gun?

Twigs? I feel like I've already said to you, like, I've made that concession. But just to be clear, whenever I make a mistake, I just correct it. So that's why when you were asking me 3 times, I've already said we don't know yet, and I've corrected that mistake. So if the purpose of you showing this is to demonstrate that Candus makes mistakes sometimes, when she's taking in a lot of information and she's reading through legal documents and she's trying to remember 9-hour testimony.

It's just demonstrate something else. It is in fact the case we're all going to make mistakes. I'm going to make mistakes. I've already—

I've already—

you're gonna make mistakes in the case. Yeah. But in this case, you were very adamant that his DNA was on the gun itself.

Yeah. So I'm just saying that it's not ruled out. We know that there's 5+ prints. I've said this so many times. I had to rewatch the testimony against like 9 hours a day. It got very scientific when they were speaking about this, and I think I wrongly extrapolated that they meant all three of them were on the prints when the only person they officially named was Matt Robinson. So we don't know yet if, um, Lance Twigs has his DNA on the prints— official DNA on the gun officially just yet. Okay, I've already conceded that.

Sure, so that's fine. And then the last one is one with Erica Kirk.

Sure, this is like the Erica Kirk— like, all right, you could just sit down with me, Erica, but we can do it this way.

This goes back to a previous claim that you made. Yeah. I'm bringing it up.

Straight to jail, straight to jail for questioning at least Erica. I don't care who's mad. I really do not care who wants to be upset after this episode. Really, you'll be wasting your breath. You can spend a billion dollars on influencers because this is all becoming increasingly inexplicable. You are asking me to be an idiot actually, and I cannot do that for you. Someone once commented beneath this show that if the situations were reversed and there were this many verifiable lies, straight, straight to jail. Yeah, so that's the show intro, and straight to jail, straight to jail is a Monopoly term.

Okay, you know, so do not pass go. Yeah, do not collect $200.

Yes, it's, it's obviously tongue-in-cheek. And then we explain that actually I think that she should be brought in for questioning because of inconsistencies. So this is the exact episode when I started to think that she should be sat down and questioned, uh, and I, I still believe that. I still hold the perspective that Erica should be sat down and she should be properly questioned. Do you know that she hasn't been? Um, no, actually, that would be a great thing for the spokesperson of Turning Point USA to say, that she's already— why do they— I mean, my guess would be she hasn't because they returned everything to her.

But why do they owe you that though?

Why do they— they don't owe me anything. That's my show you're watching. Just, you know, the clips that you're pulling my show. So if I want to say something on my show, I can say that. I didn't say they owe me something. I don't think that's ever—

unless you say like you need to be sat down for questioning and you don't even know if they haven't been, that's strange, right?

Do you know if they have been?

No, I have no idea. So you're just saying what if they haven't been? Yeah, if you're— if you're just filling the air, if your entire thing is junk— if you're— no, it's not junk. If, if the query is why is it that Erica Kirk's not being sat down for questioning, but you have absolutely no knowledge whether or not she's been sat down for questioning or not. What that does is it creates an innuendo, it creates an inference, it creates out to the ethos that this should be happening because something's wrong here, when you actually don't have the knowledge that anything's wrong at all.

I just think that my opinion is that she should be sat down and questioned, but you're not sure if she hasn't been. Yeah, and you're not sure if she has been either. So like I said, I feel like now you're just kind of filling the air.

To my knowledge, during points like We want to make sure that you go in there and you defend Erica.

And I have to say, I don't think you've done an extraordinary job of that.

But I'm not here to defend Erica.

The thing is though, it's like, since 4 out of 5 of the clips that you had on the ready when we asked you guys ahead of time— I mean, I want to just assert how professionally we have dealt with this debate. As you can see, we have not planned any gotcha clips for Andrew. I expressed to him that what we were going to do was just to use people for fact checks, and it— because I might not remember something, um, or I do remember something and you're saying no, and that That is what I think will register to people as very clear. We did not take out of context clips of Andrew to try to represent—

I was going to bring claims.

No, when you said you were going to bring claims that you want me to speak to, you didn't say I intend on sitting you down with out-of-context clips, which we said to you before in an email. Any clips you want to share with us, send it over. Let's assert a debate claim so that we can both be ready to respond to it. This just—

that's not really what happened. Well, that—

what's not— what didn't happen?

Yeah, this, this, uh, the way that you're framing the exchange, that's not it. That's not actually what happened. We were negotiating. It is true we negotiated out, uh, the claim itself, right? Which one's going to take which position. I wanted to make sure that I had at least an hour and a half on mine and you got the time for yours to question me. We did. We got through your hour and a half on mine, roughly an hour and a half now on mine. That's basically how this went.

But in the beginning, I did not take an hour and a half to just pull out of context this with Andrew. I actually debated the substance of what's going going on in this trial, in this hearing. And I, I do think that you fell— I think you fell short of that.

There's nothing out of the—

hang on, there's nothing here except holding you to account for your claims. Yes or no? Well, we were supposed to be dating, uh, to be debating the case and whether or not there was overwhelming evidence. These are your claims about the case. No, you then admitted that, that now you're getting into another sphere and you're— you want to talk about the transcendentals and things that I said.

And we got through—

and like 4 out of 5 of your clips are about Erica Kirk. So the general perception is your turning points horse. I see you just— quite a few of them were. Was there 3? Just America's or 4?

So you're just making stuff up?

Can we get a count of how many were about Erica? I feel like it was 3. 3? Okay, yeah, 3.

I said 4, but those are extraordinary claims. That's which why you're asking.

Okay, well, right, okay. But the point being is now you're veering into trying to get me to defend my opinions, and then you completely shirk responsibility when you point out yours. No, they're not claims.

No, they're claims.

Erica is too retarded. You go, that's just whatever, and then you move on.

That's a claim that I'm responsible for the claim.

Well, earlier when I brought it up, you said that it was tongue-in-cheek. Yes, sure.

I— that's me responding to your criticism of the claim. That's all I'm doing here.

Was interested.

And, um, and I'm happy to get into also the Patsy stuff now if you would like to.

The team has one more clip. They want—

they want 7 days. They got one.

We were getting into the Patsy stuff and you stopped it, and I was explaining to you— oh, they have one more clip. Okay, let's go.

They want to hit the minimum of 4 clips you were saying with Erica.

So 100%, this is absurd.

Okay, and this is the one you were saying from 7 days ago. Okay, while they're looking for that, do You want to continue?

Yeah, I mean, can I ask a question? I know it's been— or like, can I ask a question? Are we— not really.

We're just— I'm just gonna— okay, we're gonna hold to the actual contract itself.

The contract does not say that you are allowed to just question me without me being able to respond to you.

I've never said you can't have a conversation. You've been able to respond to every question I've asked you. And by the way, the, the other thing is, is like, let's have it your way.

I want it to look like— still happy— we've done everything Andrew wanted too, so that people can fairly assess the situation. So you have it your way. I will not ask a question.

Totally fair with me.

So are you good with her asking a question, or no?

He said no. Waiting for the clip.

Okay, so you want to wait for the clip first? Okay. You guys have it in the back? Okay, beautiful. You mean the Jeopardy team told me they had it?

So that's what I heard. Okay, there we go.

Come on, guys. Did this crime, okay?

Because Lance Twigs has his DNA on the rifle. Lance Twigs. And to be clear, Lance Twigs' DNA was not as degraded as Tyler Robinson's DNA was on Tyler's rifle. It's Tyler's rifle.

Oh yeah, it's not as degraded on the rifle.

Yeah, because I thought he was one of the things, but I, I've already— that, like, that's what I mean when I say that, like, it just seems like you're not actually here trying to engage. Because I, even before you got to this, and I knew that you had some secret clip planned, I said to you, when I rewatched the testimony, I realized that they didn't explicitly say Lance Twigs. They said 5 other profiles were on it and that his was the most degraded. So I hope your team feels fulfilled in playing that. Uh, is there any more? I'm happy to play every clip that he has on the ready. Anybody?

You said, you said you had some new evidence at the beginning of the—

oh yeah, we should show that text message that you read just because I think that's important for the public. You shared it out of context.

I'll do it on my show.

I'll share the, uh, so you're going to read it on my show but not show it?

Correct. Okay, I'll show it on my show, but that's, that's what I'll do.

I'll show it on my— can I ask why?

Well, because I want to drip out the evidence, you know. It's— that's got to drip out that evidence, keep people coming back for the show, right?

I don't know if snark serves you so well.

I'm just saying, like, um, yeah, I'll, I'll release it there. Um, yeah, that's, that's my intention. But yeah, I'm fine with closings if you want to do closings.

What I'd I also would just, if I may ask a question, is that permitted? Go ahead. Just so I also have clarity, since your basis has been evidentiary, you keep saying that you have evidence or like you are following evidence, which one of the charges against, or all of them, do you think Tyler Robinson is guilty of?

The specific charge? Yeah. Yeah, so I think, what I think is that, um, Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.

Yeah, but of the 7 charges that he's, he's being charged—

yeah, can we list them real quick? I'll tell you exactly which ones. We'll pull them up.

Well, do you know any of the charges he's up for right now?

Yeah, of course, but I want to make sure that we have them listed.

Yeah, but, but like, that's— can you name one? Because my, my general perspective is that you don't actually care about this case. You're not following that.

Is that it? That's the, that's the question?

You're just not following It seems pretty like if you're going to engage and you're going to say the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson is guilty, I just think that you should— can you tell me one? Then let's do the counter.

You can really hang out. This is a great conversation.

No, no, no, you just got to ask me, play clips out of context, put me in the hot seat. So please just answer the question.

Name all 7 since you've been following the case. Okay, sure. You name, you name one. Yeah, you name all 7.

I'm happy to do that, but can you name one?

Uh, I think he's, I think he's been charged with murder. That's actually incorrect. Okay, great. Now name all 7. He doesn't even— this is like, name all 7.

And, and, and I, I— can you name all 7? I, I can't. Then do it. Sure. You don't have to do it.

No, do it. I'll count them. Go ahead.

You don't have to put your fingers up. I can— name them. Yeah, sure, name them. Uh, the first charge is aggravated murder because that's what carries the death sentence in the state of— no, that's not— that is literally not murder. Okay. And so just for people— no, don't— I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on. And just to explain to people the difference of why that really matters and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all is because aggravated murder, uh, it's, it's narrowly defined. Anyone has a question? A death sentence? I'm not— I'm going to answer the question. Okay, you're just going to recognize that your strategy of thinking that people are intimidated when you try to put a time constraint doesn't work, and you'll be better the next time.

I got it, I got it. Give me, give me the other ones.

The more you cut me off, the longer I'll take. Do you want to just wait for me to finish of why that's a big difference so that people don't walk away?

List the charges.

Yeah, I'm gonna do that. You just don't get to pretend that there's a time constraint for me to do that.

Well, how, how long it take you to list 7 charges?

Because I'm speaking. You just got—

it sounds like you're just delaying it because you don't know.

I, I know all 7 of them, and I'm gonna say again because you're gonna get embarrassed, I— you don't have to rush this. I'm also showing an example of a very flawed debate strategy. I actually want a no time constraint. I got one. Great. The second charge is the felony discharge of a weapon. Uh, the next 2 charges are for obstruction obstruction of justice. Okay, the next two charges are for witness tampering.

And the final specific charges though, that is them—

obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, witness tampering.

Okay, and there's no other specifics to them?

Well, I can tell you why he's being charged.

No, no, just the, the charges. And then seven?

Yeah, you see, the bad thing is when you try to be an a-hole and it doesn't work. What's the seventh? The last charge is, uh, violence in front of a minor.

Okay, got it. So then he's being charged with murder. You just say aggravated murder. That's the distinction. You just want to—

it's a massive— it's like you can't even— you cannot say murder versus aggravated murder. This gets to the entire crux of why him being up, up for the death sentence. And I actually find the defense's filing about why this is not aggravated to be, uh, very compelling of why it's not aggravated murder. Actually, that the state was going to even try to pull this off, they should have charged him with just murder. Um, and then I do also again want to stress to audiences that that debate strategy of thinking that you have to speak faster, or somebody puts your hand up and they try to pretend like it's some sport— I think he thinks it's a blood sport. It's not. It's about being right and being principled when you're engaging. And you can make mistakes. I make mistakes all the time. But at least be genuine in pretending that you care about this case enough to know one of the 7 charges that are up against Tyler Robinson when you say the evidence is overwhelming that he's guilty. If you would like to move to final statements, I'm fine. I want to make sure Andrew has had the time that he has requested.

I think your team would like to pull up the 7 charges that he just asked you about. If you guys want to pull that up just to confirm the 7 you went through. Can you guys zoom in a little bit for me?

Aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, obstruction of justice, which is counts 3 and 4, 5 and 6, tampering with with a witness, and count 7, violent offense in the presence of a minor.

Yeah, yeah. So 5, 6, tampering witness, third-degree felony. Now, I did notice something I just was curious about. If— I'm just wondering, when you pulled out your phone just before you asked that question, did somebody by chance text you that question?

You can check my phone. I'm just curious. No, you can absolutely not. I didn't— I have not had one communication with a single person, not even my producers who are in there this whole time we were here. You want to check my phone? I'm happy to do it because you're just going to get double embarrassed.

Where's my phone? You want to see it? I'm just curious. You can literally do that.

Here you go, PBD. You're the moderator. Take it. Let's see if anyone was texted at all during this debate. All right, about the violent charges or anything.

I'm looking through this.

You give me permission to go through my phone.

I don't need to cheat. The last one has nothing to do with it. It's just That's a compliment.

I haven't even read my text messages. That's a compliment. He's reading them.

You're okay, you're giving me permission. I'm just going to read 3 elements to 11:32 because after that I don't need to read it.

Any other texts? Could have been Telegram, could have been something.

All I have is Signal. You can check that too. I only have Signal. Telegram I used in Russia and that was it. I downloaded it for my—

I'll take your word for it.

Yeah, I don't need to like— I deeply care about this case. I don't need to pretend.

I get it. If you deeply care about the case, I just You know, I have— my other question is about steakhouse receipt.

You just said that you were done asking all your questions.

Yeah, nothing there. There. Yeah. Do you have the steakhouse receipts? My question.

Um, I have said several times that I have— I have never said I have the receipt for the steakhouse. I have said the person who's working on that story is going to be forthcoming with the receipt, and that was what I was responding to. And he then dropped the receipt. He redacted elements of it, and I said stay tuned.

He's the one working on that story. Okay. So you, I never, you haven't actually confirmed that Robinson was at that steakhouse.

All I did, as I said earlier in this conversation, was I spoke to the owner when, when I broke that story. I think it was back in January. I spoke to the owner, understood what had happened, um, and that there was a receipt. That's it. That's the extent of what I shared is what happened. Okay.

So to be clear, there's no receipt.

You don't— No, I, I just said the opposite. I said there, there is a receipt.

Well, you don't have a copy of the receipt.

I— the receipt was published online.

Yeah, right, with blurred out.

The person working on this story that blurred that out is what I was referring to when I said stay tuned and keep following his stuff because he went to go do what I hadn't done, which was he interviewed the actual server.

So there's no evidence that Tyler was at that steakhouse?

I would say the receipt with his debit card number, it would be some hard evidence if that is—

I agree with that. Yeah, so that's it.

But you're questioning me.

But is there, as of right now—

He paid, if you're asking me, did he pay with a credit or debit card, the answer is yes.

No, no, no. Proof that that was actually his debit card that he paid with?

I think you should follow the person that, um, is behind that story.

Well, the reason I'm asking you is because you always include it in your timeline that he traveled to the steakhouse.

Yeah, we've been building a timeline with things that we feel are—

but is there any actual evidence?

Utah 1102 approved. I think speaking to the owner, knowing that there's a receipt, seeing the receipt, uh, is good enough to put on our timeline.

But the receipt itself, the question I always had about it is, couldn't you just call the merchant? Like, if I've ever had a merchant account, I just call the merchant account processor and say, what's the name on this.

Yeah, I would, I would stay tuned. I, I feel that the— having spoken to the owner— that the evidence is compelling enough to put onto my personal timeline of what took place on that day. Uh, that's where it's going to stay, and if it gets debunked, I'm happy to take it off, if that's what you mean. That's how an investigation works. Um, like I said, I did more than enough. It would definitely pass the test by the Utah 1102 rule, for sure, for certain, to be submitted as hearsay. Yeah, well, yeah, beyond that, because they didn't even have receipts. They were like, Bob told me the question.

But the question is, the receipt itself, it has not been verified to have been Tyler Lawrence's receipt.

I just want to say you're holding me to a higher standard than you are.

I'm not even holding you—

I'm just asking specifically. Yeah, I, I've been very forthcoming. I've told exactly what happened. I spoke to the owner, I got the tip, and I—

so should that be added in an official timeline that you did?

My timeline, it's my show, and we can add and subtract what we want, and we do.

You can do what you want, sure, but I just want to make sure, should you include a thing that you know hasn't actually been verified to be Tyler Robinson's? You should.

If we're trying to build a timeline, you should.

Yeah. You don't think that that falls—

and then you should remove it if you— if someone somehow debunks it. But I think that the— there is very strong evidence that that is where he was. And that—

what's the strong evidence? Just the two people who said that they saw him?

You know, I'm, I'm actually all good with being— I, I, I feel like I've sufficiently answered your question about how I got the information, what happened next, uh, with the next stage of this investigation being somebody accessing his— knowing what his debit card was and confirming it. Yes, and I do believe that that will happen. If it does not happen and it gets debunked, I'll remove it from my personal timeline that I share on my show.

That officer, the first officer that was up on the roof, do you remember his name? Officer Bagley. Yeah. What was his first name?

Christopher.

Christopher. Um, when Christopher got up on the roof, you talk a lot about how his camera died.

Well, he talked a lot about that during the preliminary hearing.

Yeah. Do you think that he planted that screwdriver up there? No. No. Who do you think planted it?

I— if we're just going on my— am I allowed to have an opinion? Of course. At this stage, I would say that I, I don't buy his, um, assertion on the stand that he didn't check to see if anybody went onto the rooftop before, um, he got up there. I, I do think that it's possible, it's at least plausible, that the, the, uh, screwdriver was planted. I don't believe him. What I can say strongly is that his, uh, cam died at just the right time. His body cam died at just the right time. I think that as you were just grilling me about whether or not I'd got the merchant receipt for a debit card, that kind of makes difficult that we just have to sort of trust that a screwdriver was found and we don't have have any should-be evidence of a police body cam. But like I said, you accept that stuff and then are like, did you call the merchant and get— like, it just seems like you—

well, I'm not adding— hold—

like I said, you hold the prosecution to a— wait a second— to a bit higher standard than you do to people.

Confirmed evidence to an official timeline that I'm putting out either.

What do you mean an official timeline? This is my timeline. I made it at home.

So then it would be official to your show? Sure. Yeah, okay, great. So then your, your official timeline, Candus Owens' official timeline includes a steakhouse stop that has not actually been confirmed at all.

Well, yeah, it hasn't even been discussed by the prosecution, so it's, it's not like you're debunking that it happened.

Well, there's no, there's no evidence for it. There's no good evidence for it at all. There's no camera there, and the steakhouse receipt itself has never been confirmed to be Tyler Robinson's.

I'm assuming this is just like a talking point they gave you and you got to like keep pushing this, or like—

I've been following it very closely on edge.

The receipt— you didn't— you weren't even following the charges of Tyler Robinson, but you really wanted to know. I've been following it very because— wait, I'm calling owners and having a conversation.

You're following combo ads. I literally followed the entire trial or the preliminary live. I was live with an attorney. We covered all of it. You think because I have a momentary where it lapse, where I'm like, oh, it's murder? No, it's aggravated murder.

Come on, you didn't know any of the charges. It means you didn't follow the preliminary hearing at all.

No, it doesn't mean—

you don't know any of the charges that are against him when this is like the— this is like getting literally to the crux. Aggravated murder versus murder. It's a death sentence.

And not only that, let's point this out, uh, one of the major things here is that this is your official timeline. It's mine. Yes. Who else could it be? Who else? There would be Candus. I just don't know what is this—

my timeline.

What's your issue with that?

Well, so the issue is, is that the entirety of the evidence revolves around two people who claim that he was there and supposedly a receipt. There's supposedly a receipt where Tyler Robinson paid for his steak and his soft drink. No alcohol, right? No alcohol, right? You know nothing about the case. But, um, anyway, this particular receipt, they could have called the merchant account, confirmed it, this type of thing. To date, this receipt has only the blurred information on it that would actually give you the information to confirm whose receipt it is. We have to date— nobody has confirmed that this was actually Tyler Robinson's receipt. And yet inside of Candus Owens' timeline, which she states over and over again when she says this is the longest 13 hours, this is 13 and a half hours, the requirement for about what, roughly 5 and a half or 6 hours of that, is that he went to the steakhouse. And so, and that's not been confirmed at all, not even a little bit.

I feel like saying that I spoke to the owner of the steakhouse is me like not just being on X looking at opinions but actually doing the legwork. Um, and that's why I— like I said, if you think this builds up a rapport with your audience and makes you seem like a serious person, I— we don't have to keep belaboring the point here. I feel like I've demonstrated that I did as much as I could to confirm this when it came in. I spoke to the owner of the restaurant. Um, you know, obviously took down every everything he said, noted that there was in fact a receipt that he pulled. Um, that receipt that was published is real. A debit card and a credit card was used. If for some reason somebody misidentified something down the line, or we find out it's a different Tyler Robinson, uh, I'm happy to remove it from my timeline. But for right now, I think that there's enough under the Utah 1102 rule for me to keep it there. I don't really think we need to keep going into circles about this receipt. It's, it's my timeline. I don't, I don't know why the 1102 rule would apply here for years because You constantly cite things that are said in that courtroom that have less evidentiary support than me contacting and speaking with the, the, um, the owner of the restaurant.

It's not like I dreamed it, as to use your expression. So it's in my timeline and I'm gonna keep it there if that's true.

Sure, you can keep whatever you want there. I'm just saying that there's no evidence he was ever there. Okay, thank you. No hard evidence anyway. Yeah, we're fine with closing.

Okay, so the last thing we're going to do before we go into ad break, right after this will be final thoughts. I'll be asking both of you, if anything, if, if anything on your opinion, thoughts changed on the case, uh, and then we'll finish it up from there. So with that being said, a 3 and a half minute break and I will come back for final thoughts. All right, all right, you guys.

If someone followed you everywhere that you went, recorded what you searched and studied your habits, you'd call the police. When your smartphone does it, we call it convenience. At ZeroGhost, they believe that you shouldn't have to trade your privacy for convenience. That's why they created the Ghost Phone, a smartphone built to give you more control over your personal information without giving up the things that you actually need a smartphone to do. The Ghost Phone has been professionally hardened to minimize unnecessary tracking and make your phone substantially more difficult to hack or compromise. And considering what some of you have been searching lately, such as what does it mean to be yankin' and bankin', maybe your smartphone doesn't need to know quite so much about you. The best part is that you don't have to become a cybersecurity expert to use use it, you can keep your phone number, you can keep your carrier, you can use your normal apps, call, text, take pictures. You get a normal smartphone experience, but with the privacy and security at the center of it all. The difference is the phone is built around your privacy rather than building a business around your data.

So yank and bank your way over to zeroghost.com/kandice and use code KANDICE at checkout for $50 off your Ghost Phone. That's zeroghost.com/kandice. Installment plans are available. Available at checkout. I also want to remind you guys about American Financing because it is no secret that everything is starting to feel a lot more expensive. If your daily essentials are ending up on a credit card, those double-digit interest rates are quietly draining your bank account. If that debt is starting to feel heavy, you should know that you're not alone. If you're a homeowner, you've likely looked at your mortgage rate and thought, I shouldn't touch that. But American Financing offers a Smart Equity Loan so that you don't have to. It allows you to wipe out high-interest debt and lower your monthly overhead while keeping your primary mortgage intact. It's a surgical strike against debt. Unlike a fluctuating HELOC, the Smart Equity Loan is a fixed rate loan, giving you a predictable monthly payment. At American Financing, there are never any upfront fees to find out what you qualify for. So talk to a salary-based consultant today. These experts who are paid to help you save, not to sell you more than you need, can help you if you call 800-795-1210.

Again, that's 800-795-1210, or visit americanfinancing.net/owens. Again, that's americanfinancing.net/owens. /owens. I have to tell you guys about NIMI Skincare. You know I love them. They make the best tallow skincare products I've ever used. Their tallow comes from grass-fed, grass-finished cattle raised on a Montana farm. And in a world where so many companies hide where their ingredients are coming from, that really matters. Everyone seems to be talking about tallow these days, but not all tallow is created equally. NIMI has focused on sourcing exceptional ingredients and creating products that people genuinely love to use. That's why I've been using NIMI Sunshine Tallow Cream and their Buzzin' Buzn Tallow Balm. The Sunshine Tallow Cream has become one of NIMI's most popular products. It's rich, nourishing, and made with tallow, aloe vera, avocado oil, and shea butter to deeply moisturize the skin while it's feeling lightweight and comfortable. It leaves your skin looking soft, hydrated, and healthy without that greasy feeling. When my skin needs a little extra support, I reach for the Buzn Tallow Balm. It's a richer formula that helps lock in moisture and leaves skin feeling deeply nourished and cared for. What I appreciate most is that these products are rooted in simplicity, high-quality ingredients, American sourcing, American manufacturing, and skincare that simply works.

So if you've been curious about Tallow Skincare, now is the perfect time to try it. Visit neemiskincare.com to save an additional 10% off your order with promo code CANDICE10 at checkout. Again, that's neemiskincare.com, promo code CANDICE10 at checkout. All right.

We are finally at the end. For those of you that are watching it, maybe a good commentary for you would be the following. On if you're an Andrew fan and you still are still saying, you know what, Andrew's arguments were solid, great, Candace, great, but did anything change your mind? Did you watch and say, you know what, I had this position over here, this would be an interesting commentary to hear? And of course, for all the people that are watching, I was just whispering to them here, uh, before we wrap it up, I think whether you're a fan of Andrew or not, whether you're a fan Candace or not. Nobody can dispute the fact that these guys agreed to sit down and talk live. Others were thinking this was pre-recorded. This is not pre-recorded, just so everybody knows. This is purely live. This is a little bit scarier than pre-recorded because pre-recorded you can do edits. So whether you agree with them or not, let's make sure we respect both of them for having this sit down. And before the final thoughts, I want to make sure you guys hear that from me as well, for inviting, inviting me here as well.

Of course. I do know one day, uh, I think it was last week, you sent a message on one of our accounts to say, can I talk to Patrick? We got on the call. You said, Patrick, can you moderate this? And then I said, great, let's do this. And so before we wrap up, final thoughts.

I'll come to you first. Yeah, she had nothing. Just nothing. Any— for all of her claims of Patsy, nothing. She didn't have a single claim. She didn't have a single solid piece of evidence. She had no positive evidence Israel's involved. In anything. No positive evidence that, um, France is involved in anything. No positive evidence TPUSA is involved in anything. No positive evidence that Erica Kirk is involved in anything. When I ask her about her claims about Erica Kirk, yeah, it was just fun and it's just fun and, you know, or yeah, I do think that she needs to sit down, ask some questions, but, uh, or answer some questions. But you know what? Um, I don't even know if she has, like, maybe she has, I have no idea. Yes, I'm gonna have an official timeline with unconfirmed evidence. That's just fine. Hey, it's, it's hearsay. If that's good enough for the state, it's good enough for me. But my biggest problem with the state is that they're admitting, admitting all this hearsay. It's like, it's, she's a contradiction machine. On top of all of this, the thing that I wanted to get out of this more than anything else was to just demonstrate illustrate one thing.

Yes, it's true, I'm not perfect on the case. I'm not going to ever pretend that I am and never did. But what has been very— made very clear to me is that there's nobody with an alternative theory that has any evidence for it at all. None. Zero. And the continuous, uh, kind of expression, we're running an investigation— what kind of investigation builds a timeline now on a receipt that they don't even confirm? What kind of investigation tries to make these bold claims that Israel's involved and France is involved and all these different players are involved and never shows any evidence? We're just asking questions. It's my, it's again, like I said, my opening, it's always intuition, my feelings, how I feel about things, how I think about things. Andrew, how many times do you hear this Andrew, you can't tell me how I'm supposed to think. Yeah, nobody's trying to tell you how to think, but you should rationally come to your conclusions based on evidence and facts. And the truth is, is that 90% of what you're saying is simply intuition-based. It's came, it did, it came to me in a dream. It's intuition.

Almost none of it has any evidence at all. Just, I'm skeptical cuz these people over here said things and that makes me skeptical. Skeptical. It's like, but no evidence. Note this to the audience, to everybody watching: you might hate my guts, that's fair enough, I get that. I'm not the most likable man, I understand that too. But there was nothing— I mean, no evidence at all— that Tyler Robinson was a patsy that was ever, uh, put forward by Candus this entire debate. Now maybe you could say that we stalemated when it came to whether or not Robinson Robinson did it. She says, I found the evidence convincing— or unconvincing. Andrew says he found the evidence convincing. Okay, fair enough. Maybe you can't do too much about that. But there was nothing. She had nothing for Robinson being Apache, nothing for any of her conspiracies. Nada. Zero. Zilch. And she backed away on a bunch of them. This is the first time I think she's ever really backed away from the Twigs thing. First time I've heard her back away from the Erica thing. Back away from TPUSA, being very cautious about making any of those claims now, whereas on her show, much more likely to be making those claims.

So she just had nothing the entire debate. Zero.

Candace. Uh, well, I think that is quite a conclusion, admitting somewhere maybe we stalemated. It probably signifies what I've been saying from the beginning, that you didn't feel that you were strong on the actual facts and the evidence, which I was willing to engage with you. I wanted to go over the screwdriver, I wanted to go over the towel and the things that you've mentioned you wanted to then move the conversation into a defense of Erica Kirk and her character, um, and what I've said about Erica, which is my opinion, and I have not edited that opinion after discussing with you. Um, I would like to extend a compliment to you for being willing to sit down and to have the conversation. I still walk away feeling that the people who are jumping on the bandwagon about this case don't care about this case. They don't care about Erica Kirk. It tends to be following that they take a meeting with Turning Point USA and they come out and suddenly have a lot of junk to say about Candace Owens. And I do want to also stress that Turning Point USA tried to pepper him with something as a surprise.

He showed clips that were meant to be a surprise. I did no such thing. I stressed to PBD from the beginning that I was grateful he was taking this on and that I wanted this to be a clean debate because I believe I can win this on the merits, and I believe that I did win this fully on the merits by engaging the evidence of what has happened. Um, I do still believe that there is more evidence which supports that there are more people involved and that Tyler Robinson has been set up, uh, and that none of the evidence that was presented was in any way overwhelming, which is why I think you wanted to move to end that discussion quickly and to speak to me about France and to talk about this pangwich receipt and timeline, I, I wanna remind people that a lot of the at-home investigators, which you were open to, as you called them, internet sleuths, I think it was on a, a show that you did right after Charlie was assassinated, that internet sleuths would solve this. Uh, this is the reason why Charlie, a year on, is still a conversation every single day trending on Twitter.

I knew Charlie. I cared about Charlie. I care about, um, finding out what the truth is here. My heart is in the right place. I think anybody who watches my show or even just watched this debate Kate knows that if I get something wrong, I'll instantly correct it and own it. I don't— I'm not arrogant. I don't need to sit here and pretend that I didn't misspeak on the Lance thing. It hasn't been ruled out, but you saw that he just really wanted to hammer that point. You know, part of being a well-meaning person is to concede when you are wrong, to take something off a timeline when you know it's not right. And I would like to think that that is why I have earned the audience that continues to follow me, because they know my heart's in the right place, that I deeply cared about Charlie and I deeply care about the answers. I want to thank Andrew's team who are providing the fact checks. It's a very small room that they're in. I want to, as always, thank my team who worked really hard to make this happen and flip the set.

And to you, PBD, just for being a great moderator, I think very fair, letting us both speak and making sure that Andrew got out of this what he wanted, which was a little more than what I wanted. But I'm very content with how I dealt with it. This. And I don't need to convince the audiences with the magic trick of what they need to think about this debate. They can watch it and draw their own conclusions.

Beautiful. Fair from both of you. I think the audience won. And again, from the beginning, all of this is because of how much love and respect we have for Charlie Kirk, a great man that's no longer here with us. His 1-year anniversary is coming up here. I can't believe it's that quick that it's here. The audience, I think you also won. If you did, support The Crucible, support the Candace show, support the PBD Podcast, subscribe the channel. This is how you help these voices get out even more, especially going into future when this happens. You want a lot of independent creators to have these types of discussions. And last but not least, the two of you, I respect you guys again for having this conversation. It is not easy to do so. Hopefully this will lead to more discussions. A lot of different things we talked about, I'm sure there will be a lot of follow-up. With that being said, take care everybody. God bless. Have a great weekend.

Bye.