Candace Owens vs. Andrew Wilson: The Charlie Kirk Debate | PBD Podcast

0:00And 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. The topic of discussion today, how this got prompted is, Andrew, you said there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk. and Candace, your position was he's a patsy. Tyler Robinson is a patsy.

0:32So 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 truly for three different people. Number one 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 have a lot of respect for him.

0:59The 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 place. And kudos for Andrew for coming out and saying, hey, I want to have this conversation and for Candice to accept it. So you have the ability to say, I agree, I disagree. Comment to all the stuff that you're doing online. And if you want to see more of these things, any of the three 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.

1:33And last but not least, it's about the two 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 three people representing Andrew and three people representing Candace to do fact checking. And 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.

2:04And 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 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.

2:38That'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?

3:14What 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 around September 8th, Charlie sent a text message reading, Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes.

3:54I 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.

4:28There is, however, tons of evidence that a leftist killed Charlie Kirk, just as Charlie feared they would. I believe Charlie Kirk, and I have the receipts. No, I didn't have a dream where he came to me and told me that the left killed him. No, he didn't come to me 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 has ever been publicly revealed.

5:03On 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 rely on what's called the evidence of the gaps.

6:03In 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, one, my belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. And two, Candace's belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson was a patsy and didn't kill Charlie Kirk. In sum, the audience is going to decide who has more evidence supporting their theory.

6:37My theory is that the state is correct that Tyler Robinson is the killer, at least based on evidence so far, and Candace's theory that Tyler Robinson is not the killer and he's 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 Candace was proffering, I wouldn't even be here having the debate with her. It's fair to have doubts, as the trial has yet to occur. and the state hasn't even begun to try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but Candace 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.

7:19In 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 Candace 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 empathy was supported by overwhelming evidence Only then did she agree to defend that position.

8:00Regardless, we're both defending the claim that there's overwhelming evidence on our side, so it's worth defining that term. When I say the evidence against Robinson's 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 on verified claims and suggestions of things that could merely be hypothetically possible. Dreams, vibes, feelings, things like this. Almost done, by the way. I have no problem defending the state's case and welcome Candace bringing up any challenges she would like. But if I'm honest, the reason I was willing to pay the$300 ,000 for this debate was to finally have a chance for someone to demand Candace be held accountable for the unbelievable theories and claims she's been making.

8:41Candace'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.

9:14Thank you, Andrew. Candace? Did you get it out of your system? I did. Okay, great. Well, I'm not going to waste time with the preamble because I think I just want to get to the substance of the debate, and we'll just speak to the audience. I have obviously had an audience since we've been covering this case. People know that there was a personal friendship between me and Charlie and diminishing the pursuit of something that makes sense regarding what happened on September 10th by throwing it to this is just people who are conspiracy theorists. These are people who are just trying to generate clicks.

9:47I don't think that people should be satisfied by that. I want people to remember that it's important to think. We've been lied to by the government a great many times over, I mean, just the last couple of years, if you just think of the things that we've learned about our government. And I do 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.

10:17And that's the reason why it's taking so many influencers. It looks like a billion dollar industry of influencers to dispute everything Candace says. It's not because I'm on my platform saying I had a dream last night. I don't think that that I think that diminishes you as an argument. Obviously, we have presented a lot of evidence. You just presented a text message and said, this is evidence. Well, that's how this entire thing began. You're talking about how Israel got into the conversation. It was because immediately after Charlie died, one of the first things we saw was this push to make us all think and remember how much he loved Israel.

10:49It's because the prime minister of Israel, who's fighting like a 27 front war, felt that he needed to come do a little mini tour and to be strangely to state that I did not kill Charlie Kirk. But nobody was having that thought that I can remember. Nobody was going, I wonder if Bibi Netanyahu killed Charlie Kirk. And then we had a round of influencers who lied and said Charlie was not changing on Israel, that he wasn't having any disagreements regarding that topic. that the day he died, he just loved Israel so much. And I demonstrated via the text message, which you just mentioned, and you're now contextualizing and pretending it was just about Tucker Carlson, which is not true.

11:30It was a part of a broader shift that Charlie was having over the last, I would say, actually on your show, it began since October 7th, which is when I began asking myself more questions about Israel as well. And so, yeah, when all of these things happen, 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?

12:03If 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 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.

12:48So it's not exactly one that makes me nervous. Like calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is essentially saying that they demand further answers. They're not accepting the Fed's lob. So I'm grateful that you came today. I don't need to, like I said, take cheap shots and discuss your manner of debate or your strategy. And I'm also grateful that you shared that you had that text message today because everybody watching knows that I 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 Erica Kirk, maybe Andrew Colbert.

13:22He's a spokesperson. And rather than doing that, they send us another influencer. So let's see how it goes. Just out of curiosity, are you between 0 to 100? What is the likelihood that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed him? Based on the evidence right now, I don't know. I'd say 75, 85%. Candace? zero percent zero percent i'm at zero so with what we've seen in terms of the evidence i'm at zero percent so not not only you know that maybe somebody was behind him as a patsy influencing him you're not even saying that he didn't even shoot charlie kirk 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 zero percent do you have any evidence for it uh For what?

14:08My percentage? The fact that he didn't shoot and kill Charlie Kirk. Yes, which I'm hoping we're going to get to all of the evidence that he feels that he has. I mean, I'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 do not think that Charlie was shot from a 30-06 from Losey. Yeah, but just shot at all. I don't know. No, 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?

14:52Yeah, sure. Okay. So 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 common sense to think that he had a Superman neck. And even if he did have a Superman neck, which has been demonstrated, 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 from low C, 150 feet. But you're not necessarily closing off the avenue that he could have been shot at all.

15:34Maybe a smaller caliber. Okay. And then there's some things that I'm going to make concessions on that I do think we need more answers on. And I'm fine with that. And we can get to those things as well. The other thing is in the timeline, one of the things that we dispute, I think, on the timeline is that you think that Robinson drove hours away to a steakhouse in the timeline. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And what's the compelling evidence that you think you have there? I spoke to the owner of the restaurant and I've seen the receipt. I know the conversation that I had and I think it's enough that, you know, it will be presented obviously if this goes to trial, but yes, I do believe that he was in Panguitch, which is near his grandparents' home.

16:23Did he give you an unedited copy of that receipt? I have seen an unedited 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. 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. If you want to use the first part of that for the internal critique. We should go over the actual evidence that we feel.

16:52Well, the first reason that I think it's compelling evidence is that Tyler Robinson's rifle was found near the crime scene. So I would consider that to be very good evidence. And also the fact of the matter is 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 locked 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.

17:28Right, 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 lock, that's just a small jacket that goes around the actual lead piece. 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.

18:00Okay. So just to start with your point about saying that the gun was found near him, I mean, near Losey Center, or I guess off in the woods, that gun, did you watch the testimony? Did you watch your preliminary hearing? Yeah, we covered it live. Okay, so forgetting what the summary of the medical report was, did you watch the testimony that was given by the Caitlin Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha Carner, any of those people who went into the science of? Yes, I recall. You're talking about. The bullet analysis. Yeah, when they went into the DNA. Okay, so that's kind of the most relevant part. Okay.

18:36I'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? Okay. That doesn't remove, if you think somebody's set up as a patsy, you could take a gun out of this room right now and you could walk out and plant it in a woods near a crime scene. I agree. That's not convincing evidence to me. 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. Mm-hmm. Okay. And for how many years? Many, many years. For many years. You also said that you were an army sniper.

19:08I wasn't a sniper in the army. Okay. And I never said that. Sorry, your wife tweeted that you were an army sniper. Yeah, I don't know. like 15 years ago she said something does it change 15 years later she said that it was colloquial so army sniper is a colloquial term yeah i'm not an i was never an army sniper okay um what did you do in the army did you teach this she then i corrected and said you taught rifles in the army not no i didn't teach rifle no i taught rifles as a private citizen okay uh and i was an nra instructor for many many many years alongside my my gunshot as with your expertise when she uh gave testimony on the stand samantha carner 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 prince well let's start with I'm not done.

20:08You said something, so I'm going to finish my thought, right? You don't want to do a point in time? No. Well, sure. If you want to respond to it, but I want you to respond to two points. I want you to start with two points. Dust and debris in the gun barrel. Secondly, the fact that there were five sets of prints, five plus actually by the end of the testimony, five sets of prints for which we already had the woman who worked for the FBI forensics testify that above two prints, if you're taking a sample, it's no longer a science, right? She testified that when they took the sample of what was on the trigger, they saw five plus prints.

20:41And among those five plus 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, they've looked at pieces, items 20, 40 years on that don't have degradation. Yet Tyler Robinson's prints, amongst five plus other prints, were the most degraded on that weapon. Yeah. So let's get into all three of the claims. First, with debris. When it comes to debris, firing rifle doesn't always blow the debris out of the barrel.

21:22Okay. You think there could be debris and dust? He just fired the weapon. Not only that, he left it in a forest. Now, I don't know if you agree with me, but if you leave a rifle in a wooded area, it's also possible that debris could get in that way. But I'm not even sure that that's what the case is. I think it's far more likely that you fired the shot, it just didn't blow all the debris out. And it often doesn't. You'll find this if you take Grandpappy's 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.

22:00Okay. 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 on the print front, but Tyler Robinson's DNA was on there. You made the claim that Lance Twig's DNA was on there and it was not. Well, when she gave the testimony, no, first let's go to your first point. Cause 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 this is the person who took the prints.

22:29Yes. 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. 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, let's just grant this for a second as a possibility that his fingerprints were degraded. It's not a possibility. It's a fact. The person who took it. I'm just granting it for the sake of argument. You should grant it because it's a fact that she presented. So now it's granted.

22:59So what? What do you mean? So what? So what? What does that prove? It proves that if his prints were the most degraded amongst five of them, you're going to 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, if that's the case. I'm telling you to explain it. 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 with fingerprints? So your answer is, I don't know.

23:30You can just say you don't know. But I did. You don't have to. But I did. But I did. No, you said, so what? So say, I don't know. I actually don't have an explanation for that, Candace. What would that prove, though, is my question. 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 say who else had fingerprints on the gun? They named Matt Robinson explicitly. Okay. And then, and this was a part of the testimony where she was speaking about how they got samples of, um, elimination samples from the home of Amber Robinson, Matt Robinson, and Lance Twig.

24:05So those were the three names they named. So are you saying that Twig's - Would you like me to finish my statement? I just want to make sure I'm clarifying. I'm trying to finish the answer, but it can't be clarified until the answer comes out of my mouth. Okay. So go ahead. This was a portion of her testimony where she was explaining how they got elimination samples from the home. And she named Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson, and Lance Twiggs as the elimination samples that she was using. And so she explicitly said she said some of them, some, so we can assume two out of the three, their prints were found on the gun.

24:36She explicitly named Matt Robinson as someone who had prints on the gun and then said there were five people that they had taken that sample from. And again, what's also relevant here is the earlier testimony, which came from the FBI forensics analyst, I believe it was on day two, where she said that when you're using those mixtures and those samples and you get up to five plus, 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.

25:15It'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. It 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. Hang on, hang on, hang on. I didn't cut you off, right? You would need to actually explain how this would demonstrate Tyler Robinson. This is tied into Robinson being a patsy.

25:48Are you claiming that these fingerprints were Lance Twiggs or that he had any DNA there? I'm saying that it could be Matt Robinson. It could be Amber Robinson. That sort of information is going to come out during the trial. How would that tie into the idea that he's a patsy? Yes, because if his is the most degraded prints and the information that I shared on my platform is true, that this gun was given to Tyler Robinson as an heirloom. I had conversation with members of the Robinson family, Twiggs family, both of them, you know, like I said, we're not just dreaming. And if we're having those conversations and they told me that that gun was only given to Tyler Robinson because it was a family heirloom.

26:23Okay. So it was his grandfather's gun or great grandfather's gun. I don't remember the difference. I don't remember which one it was. And so he got it because he's the first born. But he's not much of a shooter is what I was told. And so he has this because he inherited it, essentially. So if I get something from my grandpa and I put it up on the shelf and I own this, you could see that could be. How do we get to the patsy part? You don't let me ever get to the end of the sentence. So how could we get to the patsy part if I can't get to the end of the sentence? I'll wait patiently until we get to the patsy part.

26:50So 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. 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 various places.

27:21But it also could demonstrate nothing. So the problem that you have here is that this is pure conjecture. No, this is hang on. This is not evidence that Tyler Robinson is a patsy. It's only evidence that you have conjectured up that. Well, if it's the case that these are the more degraded prints, then therefore that means must be patsy because parents finger for dad's fingerprints on gun. I didn't say must be describe how this actually links in to Robinson being a patsy. Okay, I just described that for you, so I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you, so I'm going to move on from that.

27:57But to just go back to your point about this is not evidence, you can't make that claim because the entire basis for why you think that there's 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? Well, no, I didn't say I was here to represent the state. The state's position you think is strong and convincing. No, what I'm here to do is represent my own opinion, which is that based on the evidence presented so far by the state, the state has presented evidence under Utah's 1102 rule.

28:33But this doesn't demonstrate any patsy behavior. No, that's very important because that rule is hearsay. So you can't say at the same time, Candace, you're not allowed to. And what that means under the Utah rule, which I'm sure you know, because I'm sure you watched the preliminary hearing and yourself understand what that means, is that the entire hearing was hearsay. It means none of that information that was presented is going to be allowed. The majority of it, the overwhelming majority of it is not going to be allowed at the trial. They're allowed to present when it's this approbative hearing.

28:59I 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. This is crazy that you don't know this. Well, hey, we can call for a fact check if all the evidence was put in. Oh, we need more than a fact check. This was every single day, Utah rule 1102. They want to go there. So they said they 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.

29:26If you guys got it, pull it up so we can show it. In the interim, is that it? Yeah. So I'll read this. What are we looking at just so we know? Yeah, so 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. Left common cartoid on the left internal external jugular veins. The bullet also obliterated the left side C27 vertebrae, transacted the cervical spinal cord. Medical examiner observed a significant portion of Kirk's cervical spinal cord was traumatically absent. Mr.

30:05Kirk suffered from other severe injuries, including bilateral, apical, and posterior intercausal hemorrhages, pulmonary apical hemorrhages, multiple disruptions to the thyroid, et cetera, et cetera. So the summary of the examinations that he was shot, that was what they were pulling that up for. Okay, and I don't, I'm not disputing that he could have been hit with a projectile. We're not disputing that. So I don't know why this was brought up as a fact check. 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.

30:37You can infer. I'm trying to follow the inference. But your entire reason, like you asserted that you believe there's overwhelming evidence on the basis of what we saw in the preliminary hearing. The entire preliminary hearing was hearsay. Yeah, I'm fine with your inferences. But no, you just literally said I couldn't do that. Yes, I can. No, I didn't. I'm just saying from your inference, how do we get to Patsy? This is how you got to Shooter. Tyler Robinson did it. No, no, no, no. I didn't get to just Shooter from that. Yes, you did. Again, this is something important. So we should pull up a fact check about what the 1102 Utah, under their constitution, for the sake of a preliminary hearing, they do not have to have hard evidence.

31:17They don't have to put people on the trial. I agree they don't have to. But no, no. That's why the entire hearing was basically hearsay. Officer Bagley was saying. But not all of it, like I said. The overwhelming majority. And again, no disputes. Outside of the one that you don't want to give. That's not what's in dispute, though. Outside of. No, that is what's in dispute. It means that your entire brand of saying you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence falls apart when the entire preliminary hearing is based off of hearsay. In fact, Lance's testimony before they had about an hour debate, actually, maybe it was more than an hour debate before he sat.

31:49And they said, this is not going to be allowed. You wouldn't even be allowed to do this. We'd be able to cross examine him. The questions that they're asking Lance are all leading. And what did he say? Well, I'm the magistrate under Utah Constitution, you know, 1102. Two, 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 just can't willy-nilly say. 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.

32:18That's what you're saying to me. When you say, Candace, you can't talk about the degraded prince, which is a fact. Yeah, I'm not saying that. And then infer off of that. 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 not making stuff up. I'm saying that I'm saying that I'm saying you. Let's pull that out. Let's pull that out. I am 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 from the inference. Can you describe to the audience what rule 1102 means?

32:43So this, just so everybody who's watching this at home understands what I am saying, even if he doesn't. What Andrew is arguing is that I don't have the right to extrapolate from a fact like - Just making it up. Just purely making it up. I'm asking based on your inference. Andrew, can I show my evidence? You just showed yours? reliable hearsay, reliable hearsay in criminal preliminary examinations. The entire preliminary hearing that you just saw was on the basis of reliable hearsay. And what that means essentially is the people who are making the statements can just say, Patrick told me that he did this on Monday.

33:20Patrick's not here. And that is, they can allow that into the hearing. That's just because it's just meant to be probative. And so it's the state saying, here's what we have inferred so you are allowed to take a piece of evidence and then you are allowed to infer off of that evidence okay case in point that's a demonstration of to give you that's a demonstration of what i just did i said the prints were the most degraded off of tyler robinson and from that what i am inferring is that it's plausible that tyler robinson was set up that doesn't that's the point in contention that's not a point in contention that's that's the point in contention it's not a point in contention if you're saying it's the point in contention.

33:57It'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 that he is using to argue his case is all based on inference, not fact. Inference, not fact. So what they are inferring off of the facts. So again, we're going to take this and I'm just going to even grant it because it's irrelevant. I'm asking how you get to the inference that even if you dispute that piece of evidence, that means patsy. I'm looking for the logical chain for how you get to that inference. What I am telling you is it's the exact same way that when you tweeted, I think that this evidence is overwhelming.

34:37When 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 images. 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. But that's not in dispute.

35:07What'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. Is there equally? That's how it works. And is there equally a hundred other plausible explanations? I think that's the reason why most people are exploring when things don't make sense.

35:39Got it. So yes, at the beginning of that, this is how, this is how the court process works. So if there's a hundred other plausible explanations in Candace, why is it that we should go with this idea that it was a patsy? I'm not saying that we should go with the idea that it was a patsy. I am saying that there is. Oh, I thought that was the whole defense, your whole claim today. My whole claim was that there is more evidence that he has set up, that he has set up as a patsy. How does that equal evidence of patsy? I don't know how many times I can say this. Like I am saying that I am using the exact same mechanism that you are accepting for some reason in the Utah courtroom.

36:13Yeah. Right. To say, I'm going to look at the evidence and I'm going to infer an alternative theory. So you just saw the states and you're accepting it. And they are they have not presented any concrete facts. You listed on your own Twitter that what you found to be convincing was something that looked like his car pulled into the driveway, a blurry image. No, I didn't. The standard white guy coming up the steps that could literally be anyone. This never happened. Can we get a fact check on that? Can we pull up his tweet where he goes over the floor? I didn't say that's what convinced me. When you actually didn't say it's what convinced me.

36:42But you said this is the evidence that you found to be overwhelming. And you you named, I believe, actually five things. I think you said it was his car. You said it was. Well, there's multitudes of things that I find to be compelling evidence. 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. They asked him a question.

37:09How 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 converses 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's can't happen is such an absurdity that I don't even need to like argue that.

37:56I'm just going to let people. Why is it absurd? Just concede that point. Obviously, it's absurd. I don't. I'm not. I'm not sure. These are the same people because they're both wearing Converse. I'm not sure if in context, that's what happened. But even if it is. You can get a fact check on it. But even if it is, again, if we're utilizing inferences, whenever we're dealing with logic and we're dealing with making a logical inference, we're going to take the entire collaboration of evidence and then we're going to make inferences from that you would do that with any type of logical proposition otherwise you could never have a true or false claim you just told me i couldn't 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 and patsy based on the totality of evidence that you have we can keep going through your other evidence but we You should find his tweet where he lists the reasons that he was convinced.

38:45So let's start with the 30-06. I think that that's fine. Your team's looking for it. Do you remember how long ago that was? The tweets of the five. Did you delete it or no? No, I don't delete tweets. Okay, cool. Just look for, he said the, it was his car. It was his, it was the car and it was definitely the staircase photos. And it was when the trial was going on. Okay, she has it. She has it. 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.

39:19Is belief something you go as a fact? You wrote the car pulling in. That's a totally blurry image. Robinson getting out of it. You have no idea if that's Tyler Robinson. The fact that he has seen four other times on camera, the fact being just a standard white boy with brown hair, was seen 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 list. Yeah, but just five seconds ago, you should concede. You said I only said this one thing and said that that was overwhelming, actually.

39:55That's not what I said. It is. You could even pull your own clip. Did I say that? Can you fact check if that was said or not? I did not hear her say this. So the thing that's funny here is like we still aren't getting to any of these inferences. Why are you pivoting? Just say you were wrong. It's cool to just say I was wrong. I can say it. 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 the, well, no, you didn't. You said that I only said this one thing and then said based on that it's over.

40:24Well, I didn't. You didn't mention that I mentioned the screwdriver, DNA, all these other things. You never mentioned any of that. So, no, you're actually incorrect there. But on top of that, moving over to the actual evidence itself. Are you? Yes, I'm okay. Anyway, back to the evidence itself. Actually, I'm glad you're asserting that you're okay. I wasn't worried about your health. I'm just saying that I just said you tweeted this. You said, no, I didn't. We got a fact check. And now you're like, just going to gaslight me and pretend that I said no gaslighting. It wasn't exhaustive. I never said that.

40:51I just said you did say this. Zero gaslighting. I didn't say you couldn't have said more, but I would like to address what you said in that tweet. I mean, this is your time. If this is how you want to spend it interrogating my position, you can do it that way. I'm just addressing what you asserted on your Twitter was like the hard evidence that convinced you was overwhelming. That's literally your debate claim. 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 is evidence.

41:34That's, that's my position. That's what you're asking me. So just going back to what you did actually tweet, is it fair to like to, for me to ask questions about that? Is that the only tweet you're going to ask me about? Well, we're, 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 not, I feel like that's fair, but not exhaustive. Just so you know, and I never said it was exhaustive. You said I did. Sure. Whatever you want. But yeah, so going back to that, all of that, as you say to me, well, Candace, why are you addressing and making inferences off of the testimony?

42:05No, I 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. 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.

42:35So 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 them conspiracy theorists. 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's, because a Tyler Robinson said in his text messages, you'll be able to see me on security footage at the campus.

43:02Said 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 on top of that. 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. But it was. Yeah, I think that's not right. Twigs himself said that he had some in the staircase that he had some. maybe a tiny bit of doubt, but it sure looked like Tyler Robinson inside of this various surveillance footage that he saw. So Lance, sorry. Hang on. So there's multiple reasons why it is that I believe that that's Tyler Robinson, not just because of blurry footage.

43:41Did you have a dream? Just kidding. No, it's because I combined multitudes of evidences. Okay, so let's address those multitude of evidences. The first one we're working on a fact check on because I do not ever remember him tweeting. That's me in the stare. I mean, or texting that that's me in the staircase. I think that I didn't say I didn't say that. I said he 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 percent.

44:17I agree. But in terms of what he wears, again, me pointing out the absurdity, he wears converses. He wears sneakers. If his boyfriend is not 100 percent, 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 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 and this testimony and I would also like to point out that something that's remarkable about this again leaning to my perspective that Lance has a lot more which I have said many times Lance has a lot more involvement than the feds are are um letting us know I think more is going to come out either because they interviewed him on September 11th And then for whatever reason, just ahead of what was supposed to be slated as the preliminary hearing, which was initially supposed to be in May, they bring him back to do this interview, which, in my opinion, should have never been allowed.

45:23And I actually agree with the defense that it's a violation of his constitutional rights not to allow them to have cross-examined him. But I understand Utah 1102, 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 in any 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 of 2026. That is not compelling to me for somebody who has use immunity to give a testimony and to say, I'm not really sure, but definitely, like, he wears jeans and stuff.

46:03That's not what he said. He did. Actually, you can get a fact check on that. Skylar, I think he said much more than that. So a couple things we have. We have rule 801, Tyler's messages that says it's not hearsay. But first, go to what Candace is asking about. Skylar, I think you have it. You just text 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 Mr. Baylor. 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.

46:34I literally said I don't remember that. Well, I'm just saying to you, like, I'm trying to be concise for you. And then also bring the 801 that you just said. What was the other one? Yep, the 801. Tyler messages saying it's not hearsay. If you have that as well.

46:52There you go. Wait, what are we saying is not hearsay? A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay. It was hearsay. They said it in the trial. Hang on. Hang on. Okay. Okay. 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 the express implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated or acted in recent improper influence or motive and testifying. So then wouldn't that mean that a bunch of this wasn't hearsay? So the issue with his testimony - I just want to make sure.

47:29Would 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.

48:03No, you didn't say that. You said most of it was hearsay, actually. Yeah, it was. The overwhelming majority. Well, I mean, 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 scientific. It sounds like you're backtracking quite a bit. No, I'm not backtracking at all. Let me help you. Where do you feel like I'm backtracking? 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? Yes, it was.

48:31Yes, that's a fact. I'm not backtracking on that at all. How many times did you watch the preliminary hearing? 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 all of those things are not going to be allowed, right? Even when they got into witness statements and things of that nature.

49:02There's a reason why they swear you in and they say, you swear to yourself the truth, the whole truth. Did you write the 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 it doesn't - 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.

49:33Okay. His boyfriend is not a hundred percent. 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't consider another option that there could have been another white guy wearing converses on campus. Do you agree with me that I said that what overwhelming means to me is that it's just very convincing to me. Yeah. And I find it to be completely unconvincing. And that's fair. I understand that I looked at those blurry photos that they presented and said, your statement on right now is that he's wearing Converse's and he also, that's just crazy to me.

50:06But 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 to me was pretty direct, right? What did you find to be - And this is not an exhaustive list of all the things that I find convincing. Well, that's not what you said in the tweet. You can tweet longer too. It's not like we're limited now to 240 characters anymore. So wait, so anything that I tweet and all other tweets that I've ever made are now excluded because I used the word overwhelming in this one.

50:33Even 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 most overwhelming? And you answered - You mean from that day, from that particular day of the hearing that I was responding to? Okay, this is something you find to be more overwhelming? let me answer that question yes okay what do you say okay 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 we can also like to take a quick break doesn't matter to me either 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 would you like 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.

51:30Okay, 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 three 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. We had the choice to make it fast. We had the choice to make it cheap. We chose neither. Instead, we chose Tuscaneiro. We chose true Italian craftsmanship, each pair touched by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail, and we chose the finest quality at every step.

52:10Introducing the Future Looks Bright collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary. Rather intentional, luxurious, timeless.

52:30The beautiful thing about these events, you know how quickly it goes? Like this. Is everybody ready to get started? I've helped over 10 ,000 business owners grow and scale their companies. I'm just passionate about watching entrepreneurs create great business. When you get guys like Jerry Rice... That was his work ethic. We were able to do some great things on the football field. The single most important trait I had was a healthy dose of delusion. And that delusion is sometimes also referred to as self-belief. When I can do something that I love, that is good for business, and that I can make content out of, that's my trifecta.

53:23it's time

53:35okay 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 they're watching support uh andrew wilson that's your your fans of is click that subscribe button and help some grows business if you're watching candace i think there's 225 to 250 000 concurrent right now we'd like to see that 300 400 000 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 three pillars for the totality of the evidence okay so if you want to know exactly what those three pillars are.

54:40This is going to be the testimony with the text messages and 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 right now, we're focusing on one of these pillars in my defense, which is fine. I understand that I have to defend my claims as well. So when we're talking about the messages themselves, they seem totally valid. I have no idea why they wouldn't be valid, and I have not heard any good explanation for why it is that these messages should even be questioned. The defense hasn't questioned them as far as I'm aware.

55:18Nobody has actually questioned that these messages came from Robinson to date, except perhaps you and 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.

55:54I had mentioned that it was initially supposed to be scheduled for some time in May. They asked for an extension. That reading through those filings of why they were requesting an extension and why I actually believe their extension should have been granted because they did not receive discovery on their text messages. That was one of the reasons. There were many reasons why they wanted to have an extension, but this was crucial, right? So forget just the general sense that these messages feel off. And yes, you are allowed to have an intuition. You are allowed to have a sense and just go, this is very weird.

56:25We're being told this kid had like above a 4.0, Tyler Robinson. in he wanted to get away i mean the tech messages almost run 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 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 fascist but then suddenly he's writing like a 1700 novelist player he did get he did actually get the 500k code correct yeah i'm not a gamer so we'll say that if we start debating that you'll be way over my head but yes but my point being is just that just first it's a general sense of why people had a reaction to these messages that seemed like they were written by Jane Austin rather than like a kid who games and writes.

57:32Yeah, 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 the COVID vaccine is running out, feels like it's coming out too fast and there's too many celebrities telling me to do it. I'd like to take a pause. That's good. That is, you are allowed to do that. I believe in intuition. But hang on, hang on. 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.

57:57So the first thing is, is like when people bring up the COVID vaccine, not trusting the COVID vaccine in mass was the science. That wasn't just intuition. That was the science. There was tons of competing science. Now they try to suppress it. That's true. But there was tons of competing science for why you shouldn't take a risky mRNA vaccine and mass and things like this. They kept telling us was 100%. 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.

58:27It is true that intuition can be useful, but it has to be tempered with logic, reason, explanatory power and evidence, not just intuition. That's why we're parking it aside. Intuition is the first step. Something feels off, right? Okay. That was my first step with COVID. I don't like the way it's being pushed. It shouldn't require a celebrity campaign, by the way. Another element of that is why people don't feel good about the Charlie thing. Why do we have so many influencers saying things? it's over. Why are you guys all using the same adjective? Can you switch it up? I'm overwhelmed. I'm overwhelmed.

58:54Like chill. Like you could say, I found some kind of like 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 think fed slops 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. 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. Well, they're trusting their intuition.

59:27Okay. 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 I said, parking aside, just getting to the substance, parking that aside, parking aside, just a general intuition that somebody's not right to be second 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.

59:57You 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 had me because it's 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, Candice, I just got a text message from Candice. And I say, I didn't send that text message. Maybe that's what her client's saying. We don't know because we're not at the trial, right? Maybe he didn't send those messages. Could there be someone who logged into his Discord?

1:00:27Could 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 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 the 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 FBI, it was not the prosecution's fault.

1:01:07They made that clear during that hearing. Would not allow them that discovery request to be able to see where did that message come from. Because you're saying my client was here, right? I want to know if that message actually was generated from his iPhone when he was waiting to retrieve his, you know, rifle, hoping that the pooch doesn't have a bad sniffer, like 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 crucial fact here. That discovery was not met by the time I got to preliminary hearing.

1:01:43So 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? 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. 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.

1:02:21And okay, but he just said he wanted to get away with it. But he's not smart enough to, I don't know, maybe not text a, like, it's such a confession, like, we've never seen it. I think this would be like the first time ever somebody has start to finish written an entire, here's, I'm in this surveillance footage, and I'm here, and I'm wearing my converse, you know, I'm being a little facetious here. but it was a little ridiculous. It didn't pass 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 your kid was innocent, wouldn't you be out telling everybody and their brother that you thought that they were innocent?

1:02:54And also, wouldn't you say, wouldn't you maybe recant and say, hey, I didn't actually, he didn't actually confess to me. He didn't actually, none of this happened the way that the state is presenting it. What would 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, Lance Twiggs, 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.

1:03:28And, you know, we're going to watch you. And they went into a federal safe house. What happens next is that they started thinking that the feds were maybe going to, like maybe not as honest as they thought. And - How do you know any of that? You gotta watch the show, right? No, how do you know that? 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. Do you find it to be reliable hearsay? No, I don't find it to be reliable at all. It's just a source. I'm just doing what the prosecution did.

1:04:01What you're doing is a cool story. It's not a cool story. You must have hated watching the preliminary hearing. 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 if it was the case that was being reported in mainstream media that your father came to you and said, hey, is this you? What's going on here? And then he and one of his buddies took you in where you turned yourself in. You wouldn't go out and be like, no, that's not what happened.

1:04:34That isn't what happened, though. You're just wrong on this. Okay. Maybe I'm paraphrasing. What am I wrong on? So what is your, sorry, just so I'm clear, where is your evidence that the parents turned him in? Well, no, no, no. I didn't say that. You said there's a mainstream media? I said with a sheriff friend. Yes. But the father did confront him. The father confronted what? Tyler Robinson. And where did you learn this? That the Tyler confronted him? Well, I mean, that's part of the official documents. Our fact checkers can pull that up, but yes. But I'm saying, when you say official documents, do you mean you saw this on CNN or you saw this play out in the hearing?

1:05:04No, this was one of the things that I went through and fact check pre-debate. Are you talking about like the charging documents? I think it could have been in the charging documents, but we can pull them up. No. And yes, are you disputing this? We have that on 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.

1:05:35It'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. Tyler Robinson was interviewed by a Fed. They did not produce statements saying my son did this. My son, I believe my son did this. But what happened was they did interviews. But also the crucial person here who you just brought up is Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell is the biggest unknown in this entire case. Everyone keeps saying they heard from Mike Mitchell this. They heard from Mike Mitchell that.

1:06:04So when the person wrote up the report that night, and it was Brian Davis who wrote up what became the charging document after they transported Tyler Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's County office up to, I think it's Salt Lake City. I think it was 4 a.m. in the morning that they got up there. He then writes the 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.

1:06:37Why wouldn't the parents. Because you don't have a statement from the parents. You are going. Why wouldn't they just correct the misinformation? It doesn't negate the point. The point is, is that we now got the preliminary hearing. If the parents were the ones who said, I'm turning my son in because he's guilty. I didn't say they turned him in. 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 essentially peer pressured him.

1:07:12And we can get a fact check on this. We can find Sheriff Brooksby's press conference. And he said, you know, they they know it's you and you're going to come in peaceably or people are going to be banging down your door. He was a undercover cop, which I don't like that. I don't know what he did undercover. It's very hard to find anything about mc 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 negate that the parents could write this second and by the way if you if you had the evidence i'm just saying that your 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 never happened 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 want to misquote you confronted him about 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 dock which could have been derived from a statement mike mitchell said two things i have ready in the back one is the charging dock and the other one is a video of kathy nestor saying she hasn't seen tyler's phone okay we can run kathy to go back and then just to go backwards yeah kathy first in court saying she didn't get her client's phone yeah and then i I think we'll go to the thing, not in dispute.

1:08:24These are all things that are not even disputing. 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 get to government messages.

1:08:52Don't you think that would make their case fall apart if it was the case that they weren't able to actually pull the data off the text messages? Do you think the prosecution would go to court with fabricated text messages? It's called winners and losers. They may not be fabricated. But by the way, as what they are saying, like I said, if there was somebody logged into his phone, they may not be fabricated. That's the point. So let's get to the parents fact check. Yeah, so I was saying I believe what you're talking about was derived from the charging doc, which was signed off by Brian Davis. Let's pull it up.

1:09:20Let's see if that's correct.

1:09:26What are we looking at here? Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, I'm sorry. Can you zoom in a little bit? Is this the charging doc? Yeah, I can't see 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.

1:09:57However, 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. This is from the charging document, correct? Yeah, so what I'm saying to you is that three people got interviewed on that night. Mike Mitchell got interviewed, Amber Robinson got interviewed, and Matt Robinson got interviewed. of the three of them, only one of them actually wrote a statement, which was referred to in this preliminary trial. He came in, I believe in March, Mike Mitchell, and he wrote a statement, which I find to be very shady that they decided to bring.

1:10:30Why aren't the parents disputing? 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'm not going to address that. They're playing to someone else who's your source, but won't go publicly tell the media this is not true. Well, what I did not say to you that I just said I have a source. So I want to be very clear and take it from somebody who is involved and permanently sued.

1:11:03When 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 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 gonna be up 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.

1:11:40Yeah, 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, but if you say anything, you could blow the case, you would have a more responsible consideration. I see. And we're and we're speaking opinion here. You're like, oh, I wouldn't care. I'd violate it. And I'd violate the judge's orders and see what happens. You have a source. It seems like they're violating it with them. I didn't I I'm not speaking to a source, but 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.

1:12:19And Mike Mitchell would be a part, he's saying - Based on the statements of the parents. 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 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 five-day preliminary hearing would be a good time to say we have enough evidence. And I can tell you why Matt Robinson made this statement. And here is his statement that he signed. That would have been a good time to present that evidence.

1:12:51That would also be a good time for the defense to say that's just totally fabricated. No, it's not. It's the wrong time. Why couldn't they? That is completely the wrong time. Why couldn't they? Because what they're doing is they already said they didn't receive discovery. They literally can't. They literally can't because they can't. They did not receive discovery. You're saying that they didn't receive that information? No, no. They just received the text messages. But in order to... That's not the text messages. The probative information. Yeah, we're talking about the information that we just reviewed.

1:13:14That's not the text messages. They never presented it. The state never put it on. Yeah, they didn't. The defense could easily still have presented this, yeah? No. They could have said they're... No. No, they're not allowed to? Are you sure? In a preliminary hearing, the defense is engaging with whatever evidence the state decides to put on. They did not put this on as evidence. Brian Davis was up there. So they're not allowed to present anything? They're responding to the state. I'm asking, are they allowed to present anything? They are allowed to say there was a conspiracy that they could prove right then and there.

1:13:45Would they present that in one of these hearings? No, it wouldn't be the right time. 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 attorney, they said that's exactly if you had actual evidence that there was fabrications by the feds that's exactly when you would introduce that so when in the document that they filed yesterday or a couple of days ago the appropriate like what you're doing at this stage of the hearing is 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 running in prison but whatever the next phase is for them to meet in court and for the defense to essentially present an argument to the state that says we find this filing to be defective in and of itself we don't even have to defend ourselves because you the state have enough you know what the laws are on the books and this filing is effective and you should get rid of these charges because they don't make sense based on what you can decide based on a law in 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 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 what i am you're saying could they know what i'm asking specifically is like who could shut up shut parents up who are like no way there's no possible this never happened this is ridiculous they would be shouting it on cnn they would be shouting it from the rooftops They would be losing their minds.

1:15:24And you're like, nope, the gag order would be enough 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? There's a little bit of reason to doubt it because we're still waiting for the evidence for trial. If that's the case, then why not take the same standard for the evidence that you present? You're just waiting for trial. Well, you didn't do that. Wait a second. That's the reason we're here. Wait a second. I just want to make sure that I got this right.

1:15:53That's your argument to me, right? My argument to you is what? 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 term it to be thinking. They're just thinking because they're recognizing there are a lot of holes in these stories and that this is not strong evidence, right? This is the reason they're doing it. I'm explaining to you, this is the reason that they're doing it. I'm addressing what you view to be overwhelming evidence.

1:16:27And by the way, I want to be clear. That which convinces me. Yeah, well, but thus far, every point that you've brought up, every point that you've brought up, did you feel like this is beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, you realize - I remember what I said in my opening. He'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 convincing? 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.

1:17:01Nobody would have a problem, actually. At least of all me, I would be the least likely person to have an issue with you, any of your fans, anybody saying. In fact, I've had tons of Discord calls about this. My position's always been clear. Of course, conspiracies exist. Some of them have way better evidence than others. But I've seen them myself. I know conspiracy. In fact, the federal government has hundreds of thousands of laws about conspiracies. They see them everywhere. We both know this, right? That's never what the problem is. The problem is when you make claims outside of, well, wait a second.

1:17:36I'm just questioning evidence here. I'm just questioning what the state's case is here. I'm just asking questions. It's when you make claims outside of that, where you claim that there's good evidence or good standards you should believe because and then it turns out that it's all nonsense or it's wackadoo stuff or it makes no sense. And when we have a chance to cross examine your evidence that you've presented, I'm going to show a lot of that. 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.

1:18:11The 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. I'm not sure I really care if you have a problem with what I think in my own spare time. I don't understand this lecture that you just gave. But beyond that, what I'm saying is that the state is allowed to use.

1:18:45This is what my problem is. You guys are not like, yeah, you guys think while it's illegal. You actually, you can. You are allowed to do that. But anyway, 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 just doesn't make sense. That's not the case. In fact, so 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.

1:19:17They're not. You're just saying I want to do it for the state. That's propositionally false. That is not propositionally false. I'll explain exactly how it is the case that every proposition is going to have a true or false conclusion, period. That's just logic, right? It's a law of excluded middle. All propositions are going to be true or they're going to be false. when we get into when we're making inferences, we're making inferences based on 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.

1:19:53But you felt like you were 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.

1:20:27So 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 are criminal to be more precise as of April 1st. Yeah, that was that was not that was not 100 percent. That's why they're caging that by saying what's reasonable. there was i mean there was an entire and we can pull this up like we should now play the kathy nester clip because that's from there so and they were basically saying you don't need it at this stage meaning it's reason 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 but things of that nature but of course by the time a trial comes you're going to get all the discovery documents yes so that's what they're saying yeah i understand okay so that's not even and i'm even fine with it 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.

1:21:33I don't want to say, cause 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. Cause 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 as I feel like you, it's like, I want to hear what they have to say about the tech messages i want why can't you just give them what they're asking for so that they can actually engage you and uh it didn't happen so but the judge ruled that it wasn't necessary at this stage and that was the whole point of that uh because it's preliminary to the preliminary yeah would you like to play the kathy video uh well he's saying he's not disagreeing so i don't think we need to yeah there's no disagreement that she said that yeah so um the yeah so i guess The disagreements now would move into the evidences that you have stated on the record, which transcend elements of reason.

1:22:24Why are we having a transcendental conversation now? Because, I mean, because 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 on these things. I'm just asking you to just lay the groundwork of what you're saying is problematic that you decide that it trips into something else. And I do still want to hold you for going through because we've discussed the gun. We've discussed your. And you can hold me to those things, but I would like to get into the things that you've said.

1:22:56And we should discuss the screwdriver as well. So and I'll explain exactly what the groundwork is. When you make claims which pass the idea of I'm just asking questions because the state's evidence is not convincing. I think you have to answer for those claims because they are in regards to this case. you're saying I have a claim it is in regards to the assassination of Charlie Kirk which is what we're talking about not just the case of Charlie Kirk is 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 engaged in some conspiracies, but I said, I want to make sure that we get to the substance of our debate.

1:23:40Uh, the substance of our debate is me demonstrating that all of the quote unquote evidence that you feel that you have, which demonstrates that Tyler Robinson, I mean, the Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk, you don't find convincing. It's well, it's been invalidated by the, by the testimony that we saw. And in your answer for when I explained to you that he had the most degraded Prince was, I don't know. Okay. Well there, then there lies my ability to process It's just fine for you to not be convinced up to this point, all of your viewers, everybody watching, 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.

1:24:23that is not what's been happening. What's actually been happening is that you've made tons of claims 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, if you want to move into opinions, if you want to talk about Erica Kirk, if you want to talk about Turning Point USA. I'd like to talk about all of it. And get into it. I'm totally happy to do that, but I just want to say that 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.

1:25:02I do not feel that you sufficiently have argued that the evidence is overwhelming. Candice, question for you. I am sorry you feel that way. Candice, one question. What evidence do you need to see for you to say Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk? That's a great question. 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 expecting some sort of a slam dunk.

1:25:35Like we got him on camera taking the shot. We at least we have him clear on camera. You're telling me this guy drove 13 hours all around. Like we can definitely show you a picture that it's going to be beyond a reasonable doubt before we even get to the trial. people are going to see and go, oh, crap, like it was really Tyler Robinson. I was expecting to at least see evidence that because I had reported early on that 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 do believe he was putting like disposing clothes at this stage, at this phase.

1:26:08I do believe he was disposing clothes. He was involved somehow. 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' family, and they were like, it's very weird that the feds are not asking him more questions. He's exactly the person that I would imagine to be involved in some stuff, allegedly, I'll say allegedly. But when we got to the preliminary hearing, there was no, there was Not a single piece of evidence that I felt was slam dunk.

1:26:42I was waiting for that, a photo. I mean, anything would have made me go, all right, I think this could be the guy. If they had handed over the discovery on the text messages, since that was their big, ta-da, we've got the text messages, that would be the first thing that I would hand over. But actually, who was holding them up? Like I said, it wasn't the prosecution. They're right to say, we 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 FBI, it's the FBI that's holding on to things is the FBI took everything. The FBI took the gun.

1:27:11The 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 trace the shooter, they trace the route that he went on. And then there wasn't a band. 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. 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.

1:27:47So she was the forensics for the FBI. And then she says she gets a call on the 13th and they stop testing on this backpack because they find that the backpack actually belongs to somebody on Charlie's team. But if you know the map of the layout of the campus, you're going, well what the hell are 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 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.

1:28:34When you learn, and this is completely crazy to me, that 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 they kept it into evidence until the trial was over and it has to be approved.

1:29:11I 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, this is just one example, Erica holding the crucifix. That should be an evidence. Irrespective of if you feel bad for her and think she should have it and it's sweet, That should be in evidence. Immediately paving over the crime scene? This is like the craziest thing ever. This defies common sense. You immediately, and when you heard the guy who did it, actually go up on a podcast and explain, I got the call, they said it was a paver emergency. I've never in my entire career heard of a paver emergency.

1:29:50They had already had someone come up and dig up the dirt. So by the time he got there on Sunday, the dirt had already been dug up for him to lay down pavers. That is what people are looking at and going, this is weird. There needs to be answers for why this was done. And he tells us the call came from the feds and the governor's office. UVUs washed their hands of it. And what he's saying sounds true because we heard during the testimony, 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 paid anything, that was federal territory, so to speak.

1:30:23I'm maybe not using that in the best cop term, but the feds were in control of the courtyard. so these are things that i think should be answered for why 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 basically get no case what you know you basically no case off planet earth you get that 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 if you're asked the question what would it take to convince It would be the same question be asked to me.

1:31:24Andrew, what would take to convince you that the oppositionals true? Patsy. Right? That he's a patsy or something like that. Just good, clear, concise evidence that's been presented, right? And is being presented that I could go through and link all together to see if there's actually some clear picture of there being a patsy. That's what it would take for me. Okay. Just a good... I don't disagree with that. We haven't heard the defense respond. Just a good evidentiary standard. And then, of course, I would change my mind. 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.

1:31:59Tyler killed him. So you're saying yesterday. Yeah. I think it's very important for the audience here. Without question. For you. Is there anything that you could see for you to say, yeah, this guy was a patsy. Of course. I'm going to always follow evidence. Perfect. So my whole thing is just this. It's really important to me. I don't mind people being truth seekers and justice searchers. And the Internet has helped solve tons of crimes. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that, right? However, there's also people who, you know, they not only don't solve crimes, but they just come up with conjecture and what's called flooding the zone.

1:32:33You flood the zone with tons and tons of conspiracy-based ideas, and they go nowhere, right? And in fact, they actually take away from a legitimate investigation. Now, I'm not even saying anybody here is purposely flooding the zone. That's not even the claim. All I'm saying is that the claims made absent, oh, this is just me not being convinced by the state's evidence, those become claims, and claims have to be defended. Just like mine have to be defended, yours have to be defended, and that's what we're going to get to now, yeah? You want to get into it? Would you guys like to take an ad break?

1:33:08We'll take an ad break. And then we'll talk Erica Kirk and TPUSA. And the conspiracies that have been conjectured by Candace Owens in regards to this case in the Charlie Kirk assassination. Perfect, folks. We'll take a three and a half minute break and we'll be back soon. All right, you guys. You have probably seen all the buzz around... ...to create a shoe that blends comfort, function, and luxury. We had the choice to make it fast. We had the choice to make it cheap. We chose neither. Instead, we chose Tuscaneiro. We chose true Italian craftsmanship. Each pair touched by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail, and we chose the finest quality at every step.

1:33:51Introducing the Future Looks Bright collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary. Rather intentional, luxurious, timeless.

1:34:12the beautiful thing about these events you know how quickly it goes like this is everybody ready to get started I've helped over 10 ,000 business owners grow and scale their companies I'm just passionate about watching entrepreneurs create great business. When you get guys like Jerry Rice, that was his work ethic. We were able to do some great things on the football field. The single most important trait I had was a healthy dose of delusion. And that delusion is sometimes also referred to as self-belief. When I can do something that I love, that is good for business, and that I can make content out of, that's my trifecta.

1:35:03It's time!

1:35:30Shana here. My faith over fear line is taking off and it's all thanks to you. We've got hats, shirts, hoodies, you name it. We also got brand new designs and new apparel dropping all the time. So if you want to rock some faith over fear gear, hit the QR code on the screen or click on the link in the description. And remember guys, if you have true faith in God, you have absolutely nothing to fear. God bless and the future looks bright. Many times when people think about entertainment, all they think about is a podcast, but it's a lot more than that. It's nine companies working together on an 11-acre campus.

1:36:01If I was to give you a virtual tour here, you'll see the HR department hiring, talent acquisition. We have full-stack developers that are working on Manac and hire metrics. We have a full-fledged events team that puts together events with thousands of people. We have a merch department designing the latest product. We just launched EFLB Shoes, made in Italy. We have a marketing department. Then if you go to the complete opposite side of the building, 50, 60 people making calls, working for Bed David Consulting, sales, setters. And then on the complete opposite side of the campus, there's a full-on production company with editors, shooters, creating content, doing podcasts.

1:36:34Then you can drive down a couple miles and go to our private boardroom, Cigar Lounge, with members only. Regardless of what it is, working at Valuetainment, every day is a surprise. You could be walking into work and right next to you is a governor, is a billionaire, is an athlete. We are hiring aggressively, but Valuetainment is for everybody. For the right person, this could be the last company you ever work for. So if you're watching this and you want to learn more, go to vt.com forward slash couriers and apply now.

1:37:06Okay, 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, right? So no traps, no gotchas. I'm just going to ask them direct. And I think that as long as they're not loaded, if they're loaded, you should not respond yes or no. But as long as they're not loaded, if I just directly ask them, I'm hoping that you'll just give me a direct answer.

1:37:40So here's the questions that I have. Wait, wait, before we get into that, I would like to just reply to that. So just to be clear, we agreed to debate our claims. And then I agreed publicly that I have no issues having a conversation with you about other things that I've discussed that were outside of the court hearing and things like other evidence that's come across our lap and things that we've been speaking about. But I just do want to make it clear to viewers that for whatever reason you think that you have a right to sort of depose me. I'm not deposing you. I just want to ask you some questions.

1:38:09But you literally said that I want to be able to question you. This is a meta conversation. right but okay so now we're transcending like i used to 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 my 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 i want to ask you some questions if you want to depose me you should I'm not deposing you. Defense team. This is a legitimate part.

1:38:42Can you answer it? Blah, blah, blah. It's like, I don't know what you're going to ask. I know. And if you have issues with it. I'm not. I get it. Yeah, I get it. Just so we're clear. Usually 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 the evidence. Let's talk about transcendentals. Yeah. Okay. Anyway. So direct question. Super easy. Was Lance Twiggs DNA on the rifle, as far as you know? We can't say that for certain. as far as you know i already answered that in the first part we can't say that for certainty i told you the context of which they spoke about those things so no as far as you know we can't say that for certainty until we know what other the five sets of prints so that would be no as far as you know we can't say that for certainty you can say no as far as i know for certain uh we can't say that for certainty you can say that for certainty if you're if your energy here is going to be like you're my dad and you can tell me how to speak or 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 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 now this is you saying i want to probe things that sit outside of the evidence i actually already addressed this you asked me you're not going to go like where you're you're sitting and i'm on trial i'm not on trial okay great so let's talk about the conversation let's talk about the a foreign legion.

1:40:04Sure. It was a 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 was high up in the French government. I passed off that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office. I also passed it off to Trump's office, Donald Trump's office. And that's all I can tell you. I wouldn't be able to probe any evidence because I don't have the power to do that.

1:40:36I'm not the federal government. And I would also like to say that this becomes this other piece of what you do, which is when people say, 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? He's like, well, my evidence is that I reported it. I did the right thing that you're going to do. So if somebody calls and says, hey, Andrew, there's a viable death threat against you.

1:41:04And that person definitively has the rank to be able to tell you this. And you say, well, what I'm going to do now is I'm going to report that to the feds. Then I go, what's your evidence? It's like, well, I got the information and I gave the information that I got from who I got it to the right body of people. And that's what I did. Got it. I just I just want to make sure I'm not trying to trap you. I just want to make sure I got it clear. And that's why I say I want to know what you're doing now, because this has always been the thing. It's like, we actually can't win on the overwhelming claim.

1:41:29So we're just going to go and bring up everything that I think can try to embarrass her. I reported exactly as I received it. 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's 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 a sentence? Go ahead. Can you give me the context for what you're, are you talking about? like when I say, generally speaking, my people think that Israel's involved.

1:41:57Okay. 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 transfer 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.

1:42:39Because, you know, do you have positive evidence? I'm answering the question as I feel like I want to answer it. Like I said, you don't get to for an hour and a half. But the question I'm asking is about positive evidence. 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. And he was starting to realize how much pressure was being put on not just our government to constantly fight their wars, but also being put on his organization personally.

1:43:13If people had come out and been honest about that, rather than rabid claiming he never flinched and everybody's lying and this is not true, you would probably have people that just go, eh, that's life. People change their opinions. I understand. And then there was the rabid. I mean, not even that. It's like 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 have already said, and if you're watching my show and the context of what I said, this is the general sense of why people think Israel's involved.

1:43:45We don't, nobody has made the claim that Israelis, there were also, you know, obviously Joe Kent. I mean, Ian Carroll made the claim. Well, Joe Kent, who I think would have the right to assert it, noted that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground that day. I think most people would like to probe that. Now, it could be maybe they were students 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.

1:44:16The 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 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 whatever you want to say however positive negative however you want to say it i don't need to have a conversation material evidence and other evidences which would point you to it.

1:44:56What we've said on our show is what we've said, which is this feels like a conspiracy building. There's no reason to lie about these things. And yet people are lying. BB 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'd 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?

1:45:32Okay. 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. 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.

1:45:54If you're... Yes, you said that there's a video you want to play that Candace said she has full confidence Israel was involved? Yep. Yeah. He said evidence that they killed him. I said this is why people think they're involvement. If they have the clip, they can play the clip. They're referring to a clip.

1:46:18Via whom? My guess is Pierre, Erica. I think that there's a reason Pierre knew that Charlie was dead first. I think there's a reason he was a priority. How, why, I think France and Israel are involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination. And I'm going to put that out there with full confidence. I also, involvement. I understand. Yeah. So you think, with full confidence, you think that France and Israel. Yeah. I mean, the person that gave me that thing that I reported said that French Foreign Legion were on the ground that day. Again, this would be at a professional limitation for me to then go and probe that information that I handed over.

1:47:01I can't do that. I'm not the United States government. But you don't have any positive evidence of that. Can you just stop? It's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying positive evidence. Just ask me what I think. I'll just tell you. Yes, I think they are involved. That's a claim. I said, here's what I think. I have every right to ask you about your claim. And if there's positive evidence for your claim. I literally just said, I think, and I am allowed to think. Yeah, you're allowed to think, but you're making a claim. I have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think. I agree.

1:47:29You're allowed to think. Nobody's disputing whether or not Kansas is allowed to think. What I'm asking is if you have positive evidence. What is your issue with the statement? I think that Israel is involved. That's not just what you said. You said that it's with full confidence. Yes. You would think that if you had full confidence. Can you have confidence to think when you think? But if I said, for instance, I think I'm going to be late to work, right, with full confidence, I would say my evidence for that is that I'm 20 minutes away and I need to be there in five. Andrew, Andrew. That's how you would know whether or not you had full confidence.

1:48:03I'm just going to tell you something. Hang on, let me finish, let me finish, let me finish. If it was the case that I said I have full confidence I'm going to be late to work, I would say my evidence that I'm going to be is that work is 20 minutes away, right, and I have to be there in five. 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.

1:48:31I actually don't have to walk you through why I think. I can also, I can give you something that I think with full confidence. I think with full confidence that you know you lost the substance of this debate, and now you're moving toward things that I have said that I think, which I can do. They're pertinent to this debate. It's not exactly pertinent to this debate. It's 100 % pertinent. It's not pertinent because our debate claims - These are claims made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. That's the complete substance of the debate. No, actually, would you like to remind him of what our debate claims actually were?

1:48:57And would you like to remind that you said I could ask you about any of these things to my heart's content? I said to feel free, but you did not get to structure how I'm allowed to reply or ask me why are you allowed to think? I'm not structuring how you're 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 prepared to do is to present yourself like a professor of fallacies. I just want to know. And to say, you are not allowed to say that. You can't, it's my podcast. You can say whatever you want.

1:49:24Well, I said it. Nobody's disputing that. I'm asking specifically why you think that. I think that when this is all said and done, I've already explained to you, I explained at the beginning of this, why I think Israel is ultimately going to be proven to have involvement in this. 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 going to drip to them?

1:50:09Like, here's why I think that? Every time we come across any of these discussions, they're watching this in context and they know why I'm saying it. So, for example, when you're bringing up, Candace, where's your evidence for France doing this? I just told you someone who was high ranking in the French government. Who's nameless. Of course. Of course. Of course. Of course. So there's good reason to doubt this. It's not a conspiracy, though, if I then took it to the federal government. Like, you can't just go out there making a claim to the federal government. you get in trouble for making false statements and things of that nature.

1:50:38So, and then you go, well, I'm going to probe that. Well, how can you probe that? This happened to me. I can ask you, well, that's not what I'm probing specifically. This is my podcast. I am sharing my life and my experiences and what has happened to me. And you're basically coming in like you're going to, what, regulate what I, how I'm allowed to say it, if I'm allowed to say it. Nope, I'm not trying to regulate anything. I'm asking very pertinent questions. You're sounding a bit like a professor trying to regulate and say, Candace, you can't say I think. And like, you just don't want to answer questions.

1:51:02I did answer your question three times. I just didn't say it in the way that you wanted me to say it. You just kind of obfuscate and you run away from it. But I would like for you to actually focus on it. Let's just go through every clip that you guys have prepared because it's pretty, 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 they want. Whatever it is that you guys have prepared. But I would still, 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.

1:51:30I think in the end. And you have no evidence for it at all that you'll give us. Well, I already did tell you where it came from. Like I said, I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you. Did that same higher up tell you that France killed Charlie Kirk or just that you were in danger? They said that the French Foreign Legion was involved and on the ground that day. I've already said that. You just don't like hearing it. No. Candace, just out of curiosity, when you pass down that message to a Tulsi or Trump. Tulsi's office, yes. Tulsi's office. Are you giving them who told you that or you're just saying, here's what I heard from somebody?

1:52:05And 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 maybe they're not the correct office to. I did receive a response from Tulsi Gabbard's office, but I don't think there was ever any investigation into what I said. So the call was, hey, I've been told the email. Yes. Email was I've been told. I have information. Yeah. That that that the French foreign legion was on the ground during Charlie's assassination. And that I mean, I was a lot of information, but you didn't give specifics who it was from.

1:52:44Not in the first email. I figured they would like. Perfect. So if they do contact you. One hundred. Are you comfortable giving one hundred percent who it is? I would absolutely give them as much information as possible. If whoever's the U.S. government, why are you not? Yes, it's very strange to me. You know, so if that's the case, now they may respond back and say, we did. You know, that's their position. I did. That's why I did it in writing. And so I'm glad that's the case. Yes. And right away in Trump's office, Margo got right back to me. She said it was on his desk. So he has that. There's no.

1:53:15And if you do say that and they contact that individual, obviously you don't have to leak your sources here. is there enough credibility where that person would be willing to talk to them and explain to them exactly what their sources yes okay i mean that's it seems reasonable and so why he's asking me to defend that is like i'm not i think those are two different things that's more something i'm only different claims why are they not reaching out to you i've asked that many times on my podcast what do you think about that andrew what the fact that she emailed she gave it and nobody reached out to want to contact the source they probably didn't think it was actionable is my guess but even if they did think it was actionable great every lead should be followed up on within the confines of what's rational and reasonable is it fair to say that this is maybe a different individual because this is a person that was involved with tp well we don't had a relationship with charlie no no her relationship like this isn't just anybody so if an average person sends it yeah yeah but i mean we don't know who the source is we don't know any of this 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.

1:54:21There's no guarantee they didn't look into it. How do we know? How could they if they didn't come get the information, more of the information? Because it was a long file. This is a separate, this has got nothing to do with the debate. This is more on. Well, I just, I sent the email, assuming that you go and you make a report. You think they're going to come back to you and say, hey, what's more information? We're investigating this. And that didn't happen. Which is what I raised. I'm asking, did you send them the source of the claim? Especially because this was at a time where they were saying that they wanted to explore every possible lead.

1:54:50I even texted Dan Bongino. So actually, it was three offices. Let me ask one question and then I'll come to you. The executive office, Dan Bongino, and Tulsi Gavard'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 Chalikar? That wasn't about Israel. Those are two separate things. That wasn't about Israel. It was, they were saying the French foreign, that person as a part of it was saying that it was the French foreign legion that was on the ground that day. I'm surprised that who called you.

1:55:20Then I find that to be very strange too. I do as well. Because who would want to make a report? Like, I mean, I've never made a report with the federal government. But when you 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. 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.

1:55:54I do think that at the end of this, we are going to find that Israel was involved. I do. Now, when in terms of any of the hard evidence that's been presented, I think this has been a huge problem that a lot of us have had is that they won't even explore anything else that was going on in Charlie's life personally. So if we're not satisfied that Tyler Robinson did this in any way, then every alternative theory should be explored. Other evidence should be brought forward. We've done that in our 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.

1:56:26I mean, down to pictures, details, police officers, what the dog's name was, because we're not we're not the only people that believe there's a conspiracy here. The police officers that were involved, the many police sheriff's offices 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 my sources at the U.S. Marshals were saying they were basically sent in a wild goose chase that day. But do you see how you say my sources? You're not allowed to have sources. Well, the thing is, if I said I have sources that claim none of that's true.

1:57:00In 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, OK, her sources are legit. so um and then when what i say is then proven in court and nobody knew those things 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 cancer sources are legit so i think what's happened is i've actually built up a report 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.

1:57:58It seems like Kansas sources are legit. So I've proven myself in the market. Yeah. I'm not sure that that would legitimize your sources as being legitimate when it comes to the idea that, oh, they all believe that there's a conspiracy going on, which is actually what your claim is now. How would that actually, hang on, hang on. I'm almost done. How would that legitimize? Well, it's not his debate. How would he, how would it legitimize these sources that even if it's the case that you get some court footage or some things like this, why would it legitimize that your sources are telling you all the marshals believe it's a conspiracy of the police believe it's a conspiracy?

1:58:32Everybody believes it. How would that legitimize? Well, what I am saying to you and you are not, you are not forced to believe it. So let me just explain what I was answering here. And I think that you understood what I was saying is I have, because people trust me, compiled a lot of information and presented it to the public. And this information has been proven true. We've presented photos. We have presented videos, never before seen stuff. The public has never seen it. And so what that does is your audience goes, okay, when she says that she has these sources, clearly she's telling the truth.

1:59:02Now, 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 can not watch my content. 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?

1:59:19By who? I'm not committing a crime, am I? Am I just saying what I think and collecting options? Well, I mean, aren't most of the people you ask questions of not actually committing crimes? But what do you mean they should answer questions where? Like at a police station? No, just like if you 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? No, they're not answering our questions.

1:59:45So it's also fair that they don't answer them. So you're, okay. That's why I said Andrew Colvett should be in this chair. He's not, that's his prerogative. But isn't that a double standard? No, it's not because he's not doing it. Yeah, but that would still be a double standard. If you're requesting that he does do it, then that seems to infer that you think he owes you answers. Oh, so inferences are allowed again? 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? Well, I feel like I'm answering your questions and his questions about, I mean, I'm talking about Andrew Colvett.

2:00:14but 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 I doesn't need to be mad. Aren't you sowing a lot of those seeds of distrust? Well, I think they're doing a pretty good job themselves, if I'm being honest. You can blame it on Candace all you want. People love to do that. The thing is funny is like - People act like I'm ground zero. I'll be fair with you. How ground zero of people not trusting Turning Point USA.

2:00:46I think that there was some PR there. I think there was some PR there. Sure, they could have done better. Absolutely. I'm not disputing any of that. One thing, though, that I am, I want to just directly ask you is, do you actually believe that anybody in TPUSA or Erica Kirk or Erica actually participated, had foreknowledge of, or facilitated the murder of Charlie Kirk? I'm not going to get myself into a legal pickle here. Everything I've said is on my podcast. I think firmly that if I was the investigating officers, I would seat them all and I would ask questions. I would at this phase, I would.

2:01:27Okay, what does that mean? Does that mean that you do think so? I think it was not a sufficient investigation into what we know to be true of 80 % of homicides. It's usually conducted by someone you know, right? And the fact that that was never even considered, that, like I said earlier, the backpack was returned. How do you know that was never considered? Because they gave back the backpack, as just one example. They gave back the backpack. They gave back the... 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.

2:02:03Yeah, 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 100 million dollar incentive what i'm saying is his organization like i had grown to i think it was 100 and 100 plus per year yeah per year if that's something you want to fact your team wants to play video if you don't mind there's a there's a video they want to play of uh candace said it's impossible to not believe erica's complicit if you guys want to play that video yeah that's also just asking 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.

2:02:41So what the F is that performance? How could you sit up there and say, I, I, yes, I 100 % believe Tyler Robinson did it. That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erica Kirk is not complicit somehow. Because what? 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 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?

2:03:23I didn't say complicit in 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. Okay, well, tell me, what does that mean? 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. And Erica, when she is asked, do you feel with 100 % certainty that Tyler Robinson did this? And she says, I do. Then again, context matters. I sit down with Erica for four hours under the assumption that she had some evidence, right?

2:03:58Like, 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 going to wait here because I don't know, just it feels weird to think that. Do I did? I think that some of her mannerisms were weird and stuff like that. Yeah. But that's not you can't convict somebody on weird mannerisms. And then when I sat down with her and I was expecting for her to say, well, you know, I'm obviously the victim on the case and we got to see the shot, you know, taken or this or that, whatever it is. Great. You know, that's why she's being, that's why she has that much confidence two months ago.

2:04:34And 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. Well, if you let me finish my sentence, I could tell you that. But my point being is that then you take a look at this and you go, okay, well, this is weird. Why would you have this confidence? And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, okay, great. I 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.

2:05:05And then she says, well, I'm going to call the lawyer. And she called the lawyer again, all of this is on my show. So out of context clips, it's not going to work because I know what I say on my show. So we call her lawyer and her lawyer says to us, uh, she calls him on the phone, pardon me. And, uh, it's me, her and Justin Strife. 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? Don't have anything? And he says, well, don't you know how it works? It's a probable cause hearing.

2:05:31So basically the state says that they're going to bring this forward. And now our people go out and they look for the evidence to assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty. And so I asked her directly, her lawyer directly, the phones 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 people bit, by the way. I remember even Megyn Kelly was like, you know, let's wait. She's going to have access to things.

2:06:07I did think she had access to things that we didn't have. Why express that confidence to the public as opposed to just being like, we don't know yet. I feel confident he's involved. I don't understand. How would any of this make her complicit? Well, I've already told you she was she's complicit in trying to fool the public into thinking this is some. open and shut. How is she trying to fool the public into this? If she believes that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk, if she believes that, how would that be complicit in anything? I do. Are you saying that you think she doesn't believe it? I don't believe that at that stage, she sat down with Barry Weiss, that that's what she believes.

2:06:44No, 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 I said she was complicit. No strategy, you can explain everything. Yeah, but then why not just play the full thing? Because we don't have infinite amounts of time, I'm guessing? You probably don't want to watch. I'm going to go back to my theory that you didn't feel confident that you could defend your claim that it was overwhelming evidence, so now you're trying to move towards doctored clips and getting me to respond to it.

2:07:16Well, there's no doctored anything. I'm just making sure that we got this right. that what you're actually saying is that Erica is just complicit in believing it. When I reexamined her actions backward, because I did not have this perspective of her at the beginning, which is why it's so funny to me that you guys make it seem like I'm ground zero. People thought Erica was sus from day I forgive him. And I was not a part of that. I did not lean into that. I did not contribute to that. I was getting actually terrible messages from my fans being like, Candace, you and Charlie always say to go with your intuition.

2:07:45You won't address this, how we all feel about her. Things changed for me when I saw that Zoom call. I will tell you that for sure. And the fact that she lied to me. So I sat across from her and, you know, got to, I wanted to have that conversation publicly, but they're probably grateful they didn't do it publicly. She told me some lies. And so the next thing that happens naturally when somebody lies to you, you go, when any person lies to you, whether it's a toddler, people only lie when they're trying to obscure something else. Have you addressed what that lie was? Yeah, I've talked about, we have a list of lies that we've been told by.

2:08:21We can find that, I'm sure. In the meeting with her? Well, no, I didn't want her to cage up. I didn't want to do this because I didn't know what to expect. Like, I didn't know if she was going to be like, I'm so overwhelmed with everything, you know, and I don't know who to trust the organization. And I don't know what I'm doing. Like, I didn't know. I didn't want to. Just out of curiosity, before anything happened with Charlie, how close were you and Erica? Not very close. So there's not a relationship. No, I mean, like I would say it's totally normal. Like it's not like there was any issues at all.

2:08:55She 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 four days a week. Now I get married. I find love in my life. I get married and I get pregnant. I've been pregnant. I haven't stopped being pregnant. And what you want out of life changes. you don't want to be running around for four days a week and traveling on a plane non-stop. You suddenly want to start building at home and live. I was desiring that suburban life. Did you guys ever do the double dates? You, George, her and Charlie, was there ever double dates between the four of you?

2:09:26I was, uh, you know, engaged to George quickly. We were planning our wedding. I was kind of in my bubble with George. George traveled with me and Charlie, but Erica and him were just starting to date at the beginning of 2019. George and I were planning our marriage. So George really got to know Charlie. I wouldn't say that I really got to know Erica. 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 wing woman 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.

2:09:56So it wasn't 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? It transformed when she lied. You can take the lead. I'm just asking questions. I actually don't understand. I still don't understand what 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, would you like to explain how you developed your evidence, your positive evidence for the fact that Erica was retarded?

2:10:38Yeah, sure. So I just think all women are retarded. Oh, so you're allowed to just say stuff. Who knew? You just asked me. And what dramatically transformed your opinion of Erica after going to the headquarters? Because you were pretty hostile about - I wasn't hostile towards them. You don't think calling somebody too retarded is - No, come on. That's like normal tongue-in-cheek stuff for me online. Oh, you're being tongue-in-cheek. 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 when and called your husband bad names are you just you're just like well that's no biggie I've never answered him on anything that he said I'm saying that you now are her 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 i'm talking about the feminist angle still do and then suddenly you go to the headquarters it's a terrible idea 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 attorney well i'm pretty sure there is a clip of you where you say that your wife went to their recent conference and sat down and then when you were on Joe Rogan.

2:12:02No, 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 on recommendation. So I went down and 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 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 well 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.

2:12:48Do 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 perhaps they're actually willing to release things to you that are pertinent, other than thinking that, you know, perhaps you're diabolical and don't have the best intentions. 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 can release it to pbd they decide 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 know where you don't have they don't have i don't know where you have the conversation like i don't if they were just releasing something in good Let me ask you a question.

2:13:44Do you have any evidence of that claim? It's not evidence. You're sharing your opinion that she's too retarded. I can't share my opinion that I think it's going to register as really obvious to the public that rather than presenting that throughout the course of everybody wanting to know what Charlie was going through through his last days, they decided to give it to you to come to my house as some sort of a surprise. Do you think the public's not smart enough to see through that? Do you think that if you know that there's a huge debate that's coming up that's going to be probably one of the most viewed.

2:14:12that 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 definitely like take a look what is that it was actually 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 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 is 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 still am we're critical of erica and now you're sitting here going well first i want to interrogate you for an hour and a half about everything you've ever said about erica critical of somebody that you hadn't met and then you meet them and you're less critical of them uh and the versus happen too.

2:15:06I was less critical about Erica and now I'm more critical about her. But I'm asking you, isn't it the case that there's people you've been critical of and then you've met them and you're less critical after you meet them? Too retarded. I feel like if you think that she's dumb and you, let's just talk about your record. I mean, you're a person that has spent time in what most people would term to be the manosphere talking about feminine. Kind of. Well, yeah. I debate against the... Against feminists. And red pillars. Okay. And a lot of the actual... So I'm a Christian ethicist. 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.

2:15:43So now you're a feminist icon. Like you just go into the headquarters and you just shift all of your perspectives. That's a bizarre criticism. Like nobody's in the bigger girl boss position than you. I'm actually. 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 would say that you are making a comparison that cannot be compared because Erica's husband was just assassinated in front of the world. Which makes sense. Why should we take the organization over? It makes sense why you would go home to your kids, just so you know.

2:16:16Wait a second. That's bizarre. Because 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 six days later. You want to protect your husband's legacy, right? And you're trying to find some new normal. The legacy is his children, not the organization. It's both. No. 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. I think 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.

2:16:46That 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. He'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 been.

2:17:20None 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 to run the organization. And on the more emotional aspects, I agree with what seems to be a majority opinion, because I'm not going to 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 priority straight.

2:18:00Okay, well, I understand that you can have those criticisms, but I'm not understanding still how that would make her complicit. I don't have to keep answering the same question. Okay, let's see. Your team is asking to play clips. 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.

2:18:39And that ruined everything. It ruined everything. It was problematic. It's the reason why Tarleton had to scramble to get the cameras down because they were never supposed to see it. 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 got 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 and but he acknowledged he spoke to erica immediately why did you speak to erica immediately do you believe that there was a shape charge that killed charlie hey can i ask you why you keep starting clips mid-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 start of like it's completely out of context wait i didn't yeah i didn't prepare the clips but yeah i didn't but it's fine to ask it to back like i said this this the internet 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 like because i don't have every episode on my head and 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.

2:20:20Right. And so we are now inferring off of what we see in the car that this very much does look like that we are see a bunch of shattered road microphone, which was an early theory that I was actually interested in, but couldn't really wrap my head around what was the shape charge explosive. As I say at the beginning episode, I just it was just not my expertise. And I was concerning myself with timelines and stories and St. Miss didn't make sense. Without question, Terrell Farnsworth is someone who made me think that we were missing a big part of this story. So I'm walking them through 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.

2:21:06So we're completely in the hypothetical right here. 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 pull up random clips and they're like, what's this? What's this? You watch the episode. You know what it is. I'm just trying to make sure. Do you think that your alternative theory, do you believe? I think John Bray's theory should be explored. Yes. Do you, do you think that Charlie Kirk was killed with an explosive?

2:21:37I 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 times. 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 their 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 rob o 'neill is the man that killed osama bin yeah 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 so i'm gonna take that and also there were people who tested like immediately spoke to the media that day who said the same thing that they thought that something happened under a 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 that doesn't make sense to me and uh i'm not because of air dispersal from the bullet so when uh when whenever a bullet is shot, a projectile shot, you can actually run this experiment yourself if you have a rifle.

2:23:33Take 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 can. Yeah, it can. It depends on the dispersal. 3 ,000 pounds of energy or 2 ,000 pounds of energy coming at you. That's how much it carries. Well, it's not 2 ,000 pounds of energy. We can fact check that. How many pounds of energy is it? A 30-odd-six being shot 150 yards away. That's a great question for Grok. I'm going to say when we looked at it, it was between 1 ,500 and 2 ,000.

2:24:08I'm pretty sure. Pounds of energy coming at you and you just go upward into the side. I don't really buy that. And I'm going to just say I just think that that's not possible. It doesn't go through on top of that. So there's another miracle. You didn't get blown backwards. 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. and well because he's actually shot and killed people why would that have anything do with anything well because he slowed down all the videos of the people he shot to see if their clothes moved well why are you able to sort your business because i'm gonna i'm gonna tell you how projectiles were he's not even gonna just i guarantee you this guy's not 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 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 air air has to move out of way of 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's complete your shirt bullets displace air not about whether it displays air it's where it dispersed the air underneath his shirt here it's not underneath the shirt bullets this big and you're telling me it's going to hit his neck and then it's not underneath the 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 through our own minds we don't need to debate it whether or not it 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 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 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 has from the front so there's a lot of 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 shape 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 purposes of my yeah for the purposes of my show i i do believe to answer your question that it is a hypothetical i mean that it is a a theory that should be thoroughly explored There's two clips your team wants to show.

2:27:08One 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 ad break, if you want to pull it up, this is a good time to do so.

2:27:21I've been good to see General Holt. A lot of things bother me about this. Nothing in particular. 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 killed more than a handful of people. And this thing looked shady 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. Just the fact that no one started doing first aid to Charlie Kirk, they were more concerned about getting SIM cards out of cameras, removing cameras, and then getting him off the X somehow.

2:27:56Didn't seem a lot of concern for his life. It seemed like just cleaning up. And then, I mean, I've been told they paved it over a couple days later. And then you get Erica Kirk behind all the razzle dazzle. And she's really quick to forgive the alleged shooter, which technically says that was him because I forgive him. But then she 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 ask. He's actually said very little about the explosive there.

2:28:29So he starts. He said he's shot people up close and he's never seen a shirt move like that. And it looked to him like an explosive. That's what he just said. 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's situation and I shot them, would you even see the shirt move? Well, I just feel like five 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.

2:29:03Yeah, 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, 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 we have another break, and then we can keep answering your questions. Yeah, I mean, I think, yeah, sounds good. Perfect. We'll do a quick three and a half minute ad break. We'll be back for the last segment.

2:29:35Cool. All right, thank you. When we set out to create a shoe that blends comfort, function, and luxury, we had the choice to make it fast. We had the choice to make it cheap. We chose neither. Instead, we chose Tuscaneiro. We chose true Italian craftsmanship. Each pair touched by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail, and we chose the finest quality at every step. Introducing the Future Looks Bright collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary. Rather intentional, luxurious, timeless.

2:30:24The beautiful thing about these events, you know how quickly it goes? Like this. Is everybody ready to get started? I've helped over 10 ,000 business owners grow and scale their companies. I'm just passionate about watching entrepreneurs create great business. When you get guys like Jerry Rice, that was his work ethic. We were able to do some great things on the football field. The single most important trait I had was a healthy dose of delusion. And that delusion is sometimes also referred to as self-belief. When I can do something that I love, that is good for business, and that I can make content out of, that's my trifecta.

2:31:17It's time!

2:31:41Hey, guys and gals, Vincent O'Shanna here. My Faith Over Fear line is taking off, and it's all thanks to you. We've got hats, shirts, hoodies, you name it. We also got brand new designs and new apparel dropping all the time. So if you want to rock some Faith Over Fear gear, hit the QR code on the screen or click on the link in the description. And remember, guys, if you have true faith in God, you have absolutely nothing to fear. God bless and the future looks bright. Many times when people think about value attainment, all they think about is a podcast. But it's a lot more than that. It's nine companies working together on an 11-acre campus.

2:32:13If I was to give you a virtual tour here, you'll see the HR department hiring, talent acquisition. We have full stack developers that are working on Manac and higher metrics. We have a full fledged events team that puts together events with thousands of people. We have a merch department designing the latest product. We just launched the FLB shoes made in Italy. We have a marketing department. And if you go to the complete opposite side of the building, 50, 60 people making calls, working for Bed David Consulting, sales, setters. And then on the complete opposite side of the campus, there's a full on production company with editors, shooters, creating content, doing podcasts.

2:32:46Then you can drive down a couple miles and go to our private boardroom cigar lounge with members only. Regardless of what it is, working at Valuetainment every day is a surprise. You could be walking into work and right next to you is a governor, is a billionaire, is an athlete. We are hiring aggressively, but Valuetainment isn't for everybody. For the right person, this could be the last company you ever work for. So, if you're watching this and you want to learn more, go to vt.com forward slash careers and apply now. all right fantastic so Andrew if you want to 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.

2:33:43Yeah. And they're going to pull it up just to have you respond. Well, you don't have to play it because like, if you're saying that when I initially watched it, I thought that Lance twigs is DNA. Like he was directly responding to that because the testimony was a bit confusing. They started by saying that they were going to like explaining how they got the samples. And they said, Lance, Matt and Amberson, 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 don't know that so i think like but if you're if you want to know this is directly you saying it is on the gun twigs i'm saying that i feel like i've already said to you like i've made that concession just to be clear whenever i make a mistake i just correct it so that's why when you were asking me three 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 candace makes mistakes sometimes uh when she's taking in a lot of information and she's reading through legal documents and she's trying to remember 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 and i've already i've already you're going to make mistakes in the case.

2:35:05But 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 five plus prints. I've said this so many times. I had to rewatch the testimony. It's like nine 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 prince 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 sure you know straight to jail straight to jail for questioning at least, Erica.

2:35:58I don't care who's mad. I really do not care who wants to be upset after this episode. Really, you will 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 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.

2:36:48And 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? No, actually. That would be a great thing for the spokesperson of Turning Point USA to say that she's already sat through. I mean, my guess would be she hasn't because they returned everything to her. Why do they owe you that, though? They don't owe me anything. That's my show you're watching. Just, you know, the clips that you're pulling from my show. So if I want to say something on my show, I can say that. I didn't say they owe me something.

2:37:15I don't think that's ever, unless you have another clip. You can, but if 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 entire, if you're just kind of filling the air with just junk, if you're, no, it's not junk. 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 with my knowledge because turning 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 great but i'm not here to defend erica the thing is though it's like since four out of five 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 is what I think will register to people as very fair.

2:38:40We did not take out of context clips of Andrew to try to repeat. But I expressly said that I was going to bring claims, right? No, when you said you were going to bring claims that you would want me to speak to, you didn't say, I intend on sitting you down with out of contexted clips, which we said to you before in an email, any clips that 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, what didn't happen? Yeah, the way that you're framing the exchange, that's not actually what happened.

2:39:12We were negotiating, it is true, we negotiated out the claim itself, right? Which one's gonna 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 list with Andrew. I actually abated the substance of what's going on in this trial and this hearing. And I do think that you fell, I think you fell short of that.

2:39:39There's nothing out of, hang on. There's nothing here except holding you to account for your claims. I'm just going to get you to say yes or no. Well, we were supposed 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 now you're getting into another sphere and you want to talk about the transcendentals and things that I said. And we got through. And like four out of five of your clips are about Erica Kirk. So the general perception is your turning points horse. I think quite a few of them were. Was there three Erica's or four?

2:40:10So you're just making stuff up? Can we get a count of how many were about Erica? I feel like - I think it was three. Three, okay. Three, I said four. But those are extraordinary claims, which is why you're asked about them. Okay, well, 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 I point out yours. No, they're not claims. When you tweet 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 well that team has one more clip they want to play seven days ago 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 four clips you were saying with erica so 100 this is absurd

2:41:12okay and this is the one you're saying from seven days ago

2:41:25okay 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 just in the... Not really. I'm just going to 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 respond. Or have a conversation. You've been able to respond to every question I've asked you. And by the way, the other thing is, is like... Let's have it your way. I want it to look like we've done everything Andrew wanted to 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 the question or 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

2:42:28you need the jeopardy team told me they had it so that's what i heard okay there come on guys did this crime okay because lance twigs has his dna on the towel it's fine lance twigs has his dna on the rifle and to be clear lance twigs's dna was not as degraded as tyler robinson's dna was on tyler's rifle it's tyler's rifle oh you also said 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 plans i said to you when i re-watched the testimony i realized that they didn't explicitly say lance twigs they said five 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 well i also would just if if i may ask a question is that permitted go ahead um 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 um the specific charge yeah yeah so i think what i think is that um tyler robinson shot charlie kirk yeah but of the seven charges that he's he's being charged yeah can we list them real quick i'll tell you exactly which ones we'll pull them up well do you know any of the charges these 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'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 all right can you tell me one then let's do the counter you can really hang out this is a great gotcha you just got to ask me play clips out of context put me in the hot seat so please just answer the question this is fair name all seven since you've been following the case okay sure you go ahead you name one yeah you named all seven i'm happy to do that but can you name one i think he's i think he's been charged with murder that's actually okay great now name all seven he doesn't even this is like name all seven and and i can you name all seven 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 okay hang on name them yeah sure name them uh the first charge is aggravated murder because that's what carries a death sentence 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 people the difference of why that really matters and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all is because aggravated murder uh it's it's narrowly defined and because it carries 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 you debate someone.

2:46:09I 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? No, I just want you to list the charges. Yeah. I'm going to do that. You just don't get to pretend that there's a time constraint for me to do that. Well, how, how long does it take you to list seven charges? Because I'm speaking, you just got to. It sounds like you're just delaying it because you don't know. I know all seven of them. And I'm going to say again, because you're going to get embarrassed.

2:46:31You don't have to rush this. I'm also showing an example of a very flawed debate strategy. I actually am under no time constraint. I got one. Great. The second charge is the felony discharge of a weapon. The next two charges are for obstruction of justice. Okay. The next two charges are for witness tampering. What's the specific charges, though? That is them. Obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, witness tampering. Okay. And there's no other specifics to them. Well, I can tell you why he's being charged with it. Just the charges and then seven? Yeah. See, the bad thing is when you try to be an a-hole and it doesn't work.

2:47:08What's the seventh? The last charge is 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... Got it. You cannot say murder versus aggravated murder. Massive distinction. This gets to the entire crux of why him being up for the death sentence. and I actually find the defense is filing about why this is not aggravated to be very compelling of why it's not aggravated murder. I actually think that the state was going to even try to pull this off. They should have charged him with just murder.

2:47:45And 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 seven 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.

2:48:16I want to make sure Andrew has had the time that he has requested. I think your team would like to pull up the seven charges that he just asked you about. If you guys want to pull that up just to confirm the seven you went through. Can you guys zoom in a little bit? Aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, obstruction of justice, which is counts three and four, five and six, tampering with a witness, and counts seven, I said offense in the presence of a minor. In front of a child. Yeah. So five, six, tampering witness, third degree felony. Now, I did notice something I just was curious about, I'm just wondering.

2:48:52When 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 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 should do it. Do you want to see it? I'm just curious. You can literally do that. Here you go. PVD, you're the moderator. Take it. Let's see if anyone was texted at all during this debate.

2:49:20All right. About the violent charges or anything. I'm looking through this. You give me permission. You have full permission to go through my phone. I don't need to cheat. So the last one has nothing to do with it. It's just a compliment. I haven't even read my text messages. That's a compliment. He's reading them. You're okay. You'll give me permission. I'm just going to read 311-132 because after that, I don't need to read it. Any other texts? Could have been Telegram. Could have been something like that. Oh, I have a signal. You can check that too. I only have signal. Telegram I used in Russia.

2:49:50And that was it. I downloaded it for Russia. 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 to know. If you deeply care about the case, I just, you know, I have, my other question is about the steakhouse receipt. You just said that you were done asking all your questions. So you know, nothing there. Yeah. Do you have the steakhouse receipts? My question. 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.

2:50:16And 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 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 I broke that story. I think it was back in January. I spoke to the owner, understood what had happened, 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. No, I just said the opposite. I said there is a receipt.

2:50:48Well, you don't have a copy of the receipt. 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 - 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?

2:51:19The answer is yes. No, no, no. Is there proof that that was actually his debit card that he paid with? I think you should follow the person that 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 Utah 1102 approved. I think speaking to the owner, knowing that there's a receipt, seeing the receipt 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?

2:51:52Yeah, I would stay tuned. I feel that having spoken to the owner, that the evidence is compelling enough to put onto my personal timeline of what took place on that day. 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. 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 beyond that because they didn't even have receipts they were like bob told me this question but the question is the receipt itself it has not been verified to have been tyler i just want to say you're holding me to a higher standard than you are i'm not even holding 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 should that be added in an official timeline it's in 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'm asking should you include a thing that you know hasn't actually been verified to be Tyler Robinson's?

2:52:56Yes, you should. If we're trying to build a timeline, you should. Yeah. You don't think that that falls under - And then you should remove it if someone somehow debunks it. But I think that there is very strong evidence that that is where he was. And that is - What's the strong evidence? Just the two people who said that they saw him? You know, I'm actually all good with being - I feel like I've sufficiently answered your question about how I got the information, what happened next. Would the next stage of this investigation being somebody accessing his, knowing what his debit card was and confirming it?

2:53:24Yes, 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. 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. 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 opinion, am I allowed to have an opinion?

2:53:55Of course. At this stage, I would say that I don't buy his assertion on the stand that he didn't check to see if anybody went onto the rooftop before he got up there. I do think that it's possible. It's at least plausible that the screwdriver was planted. I don't believe him. What I can say strongly is that his 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 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 any should be evidence of a police body cam.

2:54:38but 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 a higher standard i'm not adding unconfirmed 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 the your Your official timeline, Candace 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.

2:55:13So it's not like you're debunking that it happened. Well, 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 X. The receipt, you weren't even following the charges of Tyler Robinson, but you really wanted to know. I've been following it very closely on X. I'm calling owners of state houses and having a conversation. You're following Conno on X.

2:55:43I 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 lapse where I'm like, oh, it's murder? No, it's aggravated murder. Come on. You didn't know any of the charges. That's splitting hairs. That's not splitting. It means you didn't follow the preliminary hearing at all. No, it doesn't mean that at all. 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 mine yes who else is gonna be who else there would be candace i just don't know what his issue is with 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.

2:56:34There'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 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 Candace 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 five and a half or six hours of that is that he went to the steakhouse.

2:57:25and 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 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, you know, obviously took down everything he said, noted that there was, in fact, a receipt that he pulled.

2:57:58That 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, 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 my timeline. I don't know why the 1102 rule would apply here for your timeline. Because you constantly cite things that are said in that courtroom that have less evidentiary support than me contacting and speaking with the owner of the restaurant.

2:58:36It's not like I dreamed it as to use your expression. So it's in my timeline and I'm going to 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, I'm 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 on your opinion, thoughts changed on the case, and then we'll finish it up from there. So with that being said, a three and a half minute break, and we'll come back for final thoughts.

2:59:07When we set out to create a shoe that blends comfort, function, and luxury, we had the choice to make it fast. we had the choice to make it cheap. We chose neither. Instead, we chose Tuscanyro. We chose true Italian craftsmanship, each pair touched by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail, and we chose the finest quality at every step, introducing the Future Looks Bright collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary. Rather intentional, luxurious, timeless.

2:59:54The beautiful thing about these events, you know how quickly it goes? Like this. Is everybody ready to get started? I've helped over 10 ,000 business owners grow and scale their companies. I'm just passionate about watching entrepreneurs create great business. When you get guys like Jerry Rice, that was his work ethic. We were able to do some great things on the football field. The single most important trait I had was a healthy dose of delusion. And that delusion is sometimes also referred to as self-belief. When I can do something that I love, that is good for business, and I can make content out of, that's my trifecta.

3:00:47It's time!

3:01:03Thank you. Thank you.

3:01:35Right. Many times when people think about Valuetainment, all they think about is a podcast, but it's a lot more than that. It's nine companies working together on an 11-acre campus. If I was to give you a virtual tour here, you'll see the HR department hiring, talent acquisition. We have full-stack developers that are working on Manac and hire metrics. We have a full-fledged events team that puts together events with thousands of people. We have a merch department designing the latest product. We just launched the FLB Shoes, made in Italy. We have a marketing department. And if you go to the complete opposite side of the building, 50, 60 people making calls, working for Bed David Consulting, sales, setters.

3:02:10And then on the complete opposite side of the campus, there's a full-on production company with editors, shooters, creating content, doing podcasts. Then you can drive down a couple miles and go to our private boardroom, Cigar Lounge, with members only. Regardless of what it is, working at Valuetainment, every day is a surprise. You could be walking into work and right next to you is a governor, is a billionaire, is an athlete. We are hiring aggressively, but vitaminism for everybody. For the right person, this could be the last company you ever work for. So if you're watching this and you want to learn more, go to vt.com forward slash careers and apply now.

3:02:48All 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 a 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 of 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 everybody knows this is purely live this is a little bit scarier than pre-recorded because pre-recorded 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.

3:03:47Of course. I do know one day, I think it was last week, you sent a message on one of our accounts. You said, 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. 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 France is involved in anything. No positive evidence TPUSA is involved in anything.

3:04:24No positive evidence that Erica Kirk is involved in anything. When I ask her about her claims about Erica Kirk, yeah, it's 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, or answer some questions, but you know what? 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 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 all this hearsay. It's like, she's a contradiction machine.

3:05:00On top of all of this, the thing that I wanted to get out of this more than anything else was to just demonstrate 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 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 kind of expression, we're running an investigation. What kind of investigation builds a timeline out 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?

3:05:47We're just asking questions. 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 did you hear this today? 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 did. It came to me in a dream. It's intuition. Almost none of it has any evidence at all. Just, I'm skeptical because these people over here said things, and that makes me skeptical.

3:06:24It'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 put forward by Candace this entire debate. Now, maybe you could say that we stalemated when it came to whether or not Robinson did it. She says, I found the evidence convincing or unconvincing. Andrew says he found the evidence convincing. saying okay fair enough maybe you can't do too much about that but there was nothing she had nothing for Robinson being a patsy nothing for any of her conspiracies not a 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.

3:07:25So she just had nothing, the entire debate, zero. Candace. 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. And you wanted to then move the conversation into a defense of Erica Kirk and her character and what I've said about Erica, which is my opinion. And I have not edited that opinion after discussing with you.

3:08:02I 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 follow 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.

3:08:46And I believe that I did win this fully on the merits by engaging the evidence of what has happened. 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 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 pengwich receipt and my timeline. I want to remind people that a lot of the at-home investigators, which you were open to, as you called them, internet sleuths.

3:09:24I think it was on a show that you did right after Charlie was assassinated that internet sleuths would solve this. 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 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 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.

3:09:54But 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 wanna thank Andrew's team who are providing the fact checks. It's a very small room that they're in. I wanna, as always, thank my team who worked really hard to make this happen and flip this set.

3:10:24And 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 is a little more than what I wanted, but I'm very content with how I dealt with 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.

3:10:56His one-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 Candice Show, support the PBD Podcast, subscribe to the channel. This is how you help these voices get out even more, especially going into the 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.

3:11:28I'm sure there will be a lot of follow-up. With that being said, take care, everybody. God bless. Have a great weekend. Bye.