YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Candace Owens vs. Andrew Wilson: The Charlie Kirk Debate | PBD Podcast

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

by PBD Podcast · 42,073 words · 6,237 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

24:41Okay, so we're officially live. Uh
24:43Candace, Andrew, you know, good to sit
24:46down here with you talking to you guys
24:48about uh the conversation that I think
24:50started with you being on Joe Rogan when
24:51you said, "Hey, I'm offering $300,000."
24:54And for the audience watching this, you
24:56have to know when you see this final
24:57product, there's a lot of stuff that
24:58happens behind closed doors. There was
25:00still communication till midnight. Even
25:02some of the stuff this morning, like
25:03it's like you're trying to sell a
25:04company. It's the last 24 hours that the
25:07deal doesn't work out. But kudos to the
25:09both of you guys that you made it work.
25:11Uh the topic of discussion today, how
25:13this got prompted is Andrew, you said
25:15there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler
25:17Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk.
25:20And Candace, your position was he's a
25:23pathy. Tyler Robinson is a psy. So, of
25:25course, we'll talk about a lot of
25:26different things, but that's kind of how
25:27the whole thing got started. For the
25:29audience watching, I think this is uh
25:32truly for three different people. Number
25:33one is anybody out there that loves
25:35Charlie, respects Charlie, his legacy,
25:37what he did. Uh we have a lot of love
25:39and admiration for what he did. He
25:41changed the lives of many people, uh uh
25:43young men, young women. You work with
25:45him for many years. You guys were
25:47friends. You've said a lot of good
25:48things about Charlie, respectful towards
25:49him. You guys may have disagreed on some
25:51things, but you got a lot of respect for
25:52him. The second audience is um the folks
25:56out there, you that's watching this. And
25:58so for you, you've been wanting
26:00something like this to take take place.
26:01And kudos for Andrew for coming out and
26:03saying, "Hey, I want to have this
26:05conversation." And for Candace to accept
26:06it. Uh so you you have the ability to
26:10say, "I agree. I disagree." Comment to
26:12all the stuff that you're doing online.
26:13And if you want to see more of these
26:14things, any of the three channels,
26:16subscribe to the Candace Show, The
26:18Crucible. I'm sure some of the people
26:19from Crucible are watching as well and
26:21the PBD podcast. The more you subscribe
26:23to this, the more we're able to deliver
26:25these types of conversations to you. And
26:27last but not least, it's about the two
26:28of you. My goal is to speak as little as
26:31possible. 99% of the time it'll be you
26:33guys speaking and the audience will be
26:34able to see it. If I jump in, just so
26:36everybody knows on the back end, both
26:39have agreed in the back there's three
26:41people representing Andrew and three
26:43people representing Candace to do
26:45facteing. So at any point if somebody
26:48makes a claim, the other can say, "Can
26:49we fact check this?" I can jump in and
26:51say, "Fact check this." Even the folks
26:52in the back can say, "Fact check this."
26:54So it is a very fair conversation that
26:56we're having here. And so with that
26:58being said, u kudos to Michael Nolles.
27:01Your name was mentioned a lot. You
27:02missed out right now the last 10
27:04minutes. We talked about you. There's a
27:05lot of love and respect here mutually
27:07from both parties, all three of them
27:08here. And then of course the great Joe
27:10Rogan that started this conversation.
27:12and he also volunteered, but it ended up
27:14being uh this format that we have here
27:16today. So, with that being said, Andrew,
27:18your claim is overwhelming evidence that
27:23Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk.
27:26Opening statements, opening comments.
27:27>> Sure. And what I mean by overwhelming is
27:30I just find it very convincing. That's I
27:33think that's what most people mean when
27:34they say overwhelming evidence. So, I
27:37have a brief opening statement. On
27:39September 10th, 2025, Charlie Kirk was
27:41murdered. Many of you already know a lot
27:44about the events which occurred after
27:45Kirk's death. You remember the ghoulish
27:47laughter, celebrations, and madness we
27:49saw from leftists all over. From Tik Tok
27:51invasions, debates, posts on social
27:53media, destruction of memorials, and
27:55things like this. Within weeks of Kirk's
27:59death, a cottage industry began to form,
28:01pedalling various alternative theories
28:04on how he died, what special interest
28:06may have killed him, what nations were
28:08involved, and was our own government one
28:11of them? Because this was the first
28:14nationwide traumatic event in Gen Z's
28:17lifetime, the demand for answers was
28:19severe and palpable.
28:21The leading theory from the conspiracy
28:23verse is that Israel worked with the
28:26United States government to murder
28:28Charlie Kirk. Within a day or two of
28:30Kirk's death, Ian K Carol Carroll
28:32claimed that Israel killed Charlie Kirk
28:34and the conspiracy caught on like
28:36wildfire. This theory was built on one
28:38misleading piece of evidence that in his
28:41final days on or around September 8th,
28:43Charlie sent a text message reading,
28:45"Jewish donors play into all the
28:47stereotypes. I cannot and will not be
28:49bullied like this, leaving me no choice
28:51but to leave the pro-Israel cause. This
28:54was sent in the context of a platforming
28:56dispute regarding Tucker Carlson. From
28:58this centilla of misleading information,
29:00it was speculated that Israel killed
29:02Charlie Kirk because he would have
29:04successfully opposed the Iranian war.
29:07Now, that's a fun theory, and who
29:08doesn't like a good fun conspiracy
29:10theory? I like them. But there is no
29:12evidence that Israel actually killed
29:14Charlie Kirk. And if Candace has some,
29:16I'd like her to actually show it to me.
29:18I'm open to suggestions, but to date,
29:20there hasn't been any. There is,
29:22however, tons of evidence that a leftist
29:24killed Charlie Kirk, just as Charlie
29:26feared they would. I believe Charlie
29:28Kirk, and I have the receipts. No, I
29:31didn't have a dream where he came to me
29:33and told me that the left killed him.
29:36Uh, no, he didn't come to me a dream and
29:38say Candace Owens betrayed him. That
29:41never happened. In fact, I don't need
29:43dreams of any kind because I hold in my
29:45possession never-before-seen messages
29:46from Charlie Kirk to his security team
29:48on September 9th, 2025.
29:50I'm going to share the message with you
29:52today, which is the first time this
29:54information's ever been publicly
29:56revealed. On September 9th, Charlie
29:58security team wrote to him, "Yes, law
30:00enforcement has been fully supportive
30:02and agreed to uh security plan and
30:05posture. Tomorrow's event will be
30:06covered by both my team and the campus
30:08PD. If additional support is required,
30:10patrol units will be available. I have
30:1211 on site. Charlie responded with this.
30:15Okay, great. Remind them that they are
30:18there for one person's security only
30:21because I'm somewhat worried the left is
30:24trying to kill me. That was a message
30:28sent September 9th.
30:32Whatever could he have meant by that?
30:34Well, I think he meant exactly what he
30:36said, that he was worried the left was
30:39going to try to kill him. Now, we'll
30:41discuss this more later on in the
30:43debate, and maybe I have more
30:44never-before-seen evidence that exposes
30:46just how wrong and, in my opinion,
30:49idiotic many of these conspiracy
30:51theories have been. But that's what
30:54happens when you rely on what's called
30:55the evidence of the gaps. In other
30:57words, they don't have evidence. They
30:59seem to just make up evidence. And what
31:01did they make up? Well, in my opinion,
31:04kind of whatever lined the pockets, and
31:07I think it's ghoullish to profit off of
31:09the death of a good man. But we came
31:12here today to debate. And so, let's get
31:14to it. The debate topic today is one, my
31:16belief that there's overwhelming
31:18evidence that Tyler Robinson killed
31:19Charlie Kirk. And two, Candace's belief
31:22that there's overwhelming evidence that
31:23Tyler Robinson was a pathy and didn't
31:25kill Charlie Kirk. In some, the audience
31:27is going to decide who has more evidence
31:29supporting their theory. My theory is
31:31that the state is correct that Tyler
31:32Robinson is the killer, at least based
31:34on evidence so far. And Kansas's theory
31:35that Tyler Robinson is not the killer
31:37and he is a pathy set up by the feds. To
31:40be clear, this is not a question of
31:42reasonable doubt. If it was reasonable
31:44doubt and that's all it was, and that's
31:46all Candace was profering, I wouldn't
31:48even be here having the debate with her.
31:50It's fair to have doubts as a trial has
31:52yet to occur and the state hasn't even
31:54begun to try to prove their case beyond
31:56a reasonable doubt. But Candace makes a
31:58more forceful claim. She claims that
32:01there's more evidence that Tyler is not
32:03guilty of murder and was set up as a
32:05pathy than there is for the state's
32:07case. And I just think that that's
32:09absurd. And she will not be able to
32:11demonstrate that in any way. In fact,
32:13she has almost no real evidence at all
32:15of her theory. Whereas my theory is
32:16supported by compelling witness
32:17testimony, physical evidence, multiple
32:20confessions, all of which are
32:22independently compelling, but which are
32:24even more convincing as each piece of
32:26evidence corroborates the others. You'll
32:28notice the term overwhelming was
32:29included in both theories. This is
32:31because Candace demanded I defend my use
32:34of that term, which I think is fair, in
32:36describing the evidence against Tyler
32:38Robinson. She, on the other hand, only
32:40wanted to defend her theory as merely
32:41viable. That is until I showed her her
32:43clips in which she said she believed the
32:45evidence of her theory that Tyler
32:46Robinson's a pathy was supported by
32:49overwhelming evidence. Only then did she
32:51agree to defend that position.
32:53Regardless, we're both defending the
32:54claim that there's overwhelming evidence
32:56on our side. So, it's worth defining
32:58that term. When I say the evidence
33:00against Robinson's overwhelming, all I'm
33:01saying is that I mean that as of right
33:04now, I find it very convincing.
33:07I see almost no evidence at all. Only
33:09speculation on verified claims and
33:11suggestions of things that could merely
33:12be hypothetically possible. Dreams,
33:15vibes, feelings, things like this. Uh,
33:17almost done. By the way, I have no
33:19problem defending the state's case and
33:20welcome Candace bringing up any
33:21challenges she would like. But if I'm
33:23honest, the reason I was willing to pay
33:25the $300,000 was this for this debate
33:27was to finally have a chance for someone
33:29to demand Candace be held accountable
33:31for the unbelievable theories and claims
33:33she's been making. Candace's
33:35investigation's indistinguishable from a
33:37leftist operation. She couldn't be doing
33:39more damage to the right if she were
33:41trying. She uses her considerable
33:43platform to relentlessly attack one of
33:45the most influential conservative
33:46outreach organizations for young people.
33:48And she's making a mockery of the online
33:50right-wing commentary class. She's
33:53harming Republicans in an election year
33:54by dividing them. She's attacking the
33:56very organization Charlie spent his life
33:57building. And she's attacking the people
34:00he loved, including his wife. And it
34:02cost me $300,000. But today, I hope that
34:05she finally answers for some of that.
34:07>> Thank you, Andrew. Candace,
34:09>> did you get it out of your system?
34:10>> I did.
34:11>> Okay, great. Well, I'm not going to
34:12waste time with the preamble because I
34:14think I just want to get to the
34:15substance of the debate and I will just
34:17speak to the audience. I have obviously
34:19had an audience since we've been
34:21covering this case. People know that
34:23there was a personal friendship between
34:25me and Charlie. um and diminishing the
34:29pursuit of something that makes sense
34:31regarding what happened on September
34:3310th by throwing it to this is just
34:35people who are conspiracy theorists.
34:37These are people who are just trying to
34:39generate clicks. I I'm don't think that
34:42people should be satisfied by that. I
34:43want people to remember that it's
34:44important to think we've been lied to by
34:46the government a great many times um
34:49over I mean just the last couple of
34:50years if you just think of the things
34:52that we've learned about our government.
34:53Um, and I do want to say this. What's
34:56been the most disturbing element, I
34:58think, for everyone, is that not only
35:01does the narrative not make any sense,
35:02which I'm going to demonstrate. I need
35:03to waste time with the preamble going
35:04through the points or trying to insult
35:06you or pretending that I've been running
35:07a podcast saying it's just dreams and
35:09vibes like I'm Miss Cleo, and that's the
35:11reason why it it's taking so many
35:13influencers, it looks like a
35:14billion-dollar industry of influencers,
35:16um, to dispute everything Candace says.
35:19It's not because I'm on my platform
35:20saying, "I had a dream last night." I
35:22don't think that that I think that
35:23diminishes you as a as an argument.
35:25Obviously, we have presented a lot of
35:27evidence. You just presented a text
35:28message and said, "This is evidence."
35:30Well, that's how this entire thing
35:31began. Uh you're talking about how
35:33Israel got into the conversation. It was
35:35because immediately after Charlie died,
35:37uh one of the first things we saw was
35:38this push to make us all think and
35:41remember how much he loved Israel.
35:43because the prime minister of Israel
35:45who's fighting like a 27 front war felt
35:48that he needed to come do a little mini
35:49tour and to be strangely to to state
35:53that I did not kill Charlie Kirk when
35:55nobody um was having that thought that I
35:57can remember nobody was going I wonder
35:59if BB Netanyahu killed Charlie Kirk and
36:02then we had a round of influencers who
36:04lied and said Charlie was not changing
36:08on Israel that he wasn't having any
36:11disagreements regarding that topic that
36:13the day he died, he just loved Israel so
36:15much. And I demonstrated via a text
36:17message, which you just mentioned, uh,
36:19and you're now contextualizing and
36:20pretending it was just about Tucker
36:22Carlson, which is is not true. It was a
36:24part of a broader shift that Charlie was
36:26having over the last, I would say,
36:28actually on your show, it began um since
36:31October 7th, which is when I began
36:33asking myself more questions about
36:35Israel as well. Uh, and so yeah, when
36:38all of these things happen in the
36:39immediate aftermath and then I drop a
36:41text message after everyone is denying
36:42that, Tucker Carlson then comes out and
36:44confirms the conversations that he had
36:46with Charlie. Megan Kelly then comes out
36:48and confirms the private conversations
36:49that she had with Charlie. People then
36:52begin to ask a reasonable question,
36:54which is why are we lying about this? If
36:57they were forthcoming with that and they
36:59had said, hey, yeah, Charlie was
37:02starting to ask questions. I think after
37:04October 7th, it's reasonable that people
37:06are starting to reexamine our
37:07relationship uh with Israel, we wouldn't
37:10be here today. But it has been lie after
37:13lie after lie, debunk after debunk after
37:16debunk. Yes, I did share that I had a
37:19dream that Charlie was betrayed. It's
37:20not a dream anymore. It's a reality. I
37:22look at what the organization has
37:23become, the people that they are
37:25partnering with, the lies that they are
37:26telling, uh the extraordinary people
37:28that they're sending out to say that I
37:30never I hadn't speak to Charlie since
37:322018. and it begins to look like a
37:34conspiracy. And just as a historical
37:36fact, that entire term was created by
37:38the CIA to gaslight people after the
37:40assassination of JFK. So, it's not
37:42exactly one uh that makes me nervous.
37:45Like calling somebody a conspiracy
37:46theorist is essentially saying that they
37:49demand further answers. They're not
37:51accepting the Fed slop. So, um I'm
37:53grateful that you came today. I don't
37:55need to, like I said, take cheap shots
37:57and uh discuss your manner of debate or
37:59your strategy. And I'm also grateful
38:01that you shared that you had that text
38:02message today because everybody watching
38:04knows that I I have been demanding not a
38:07debate, just a open conversation with
38:09Turning Point USA. They should be here.
38:11It shouldn't be you in that chair. It
38:12should be the person that took Charlie's
38:13place. Maybe Erica Kirk, maybe Andrew
38:15Kovat. He's a spokesperson. And rather
38:17than doing that, they send us another
38:19influencer. So, let's see how it goes.
38:22Just out of curiosity, are you between 0
38:25to 100? What is the likelihood that you
38:27think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk
38:28and killed him?
38:29>> Based on the evidence right now, um I
38:32don't know. I'd say 75 85%.
38:34>> Candace.
38:36>> 0%.
38:37>> 0%.
38:38>> I'm at zero. So with what we've seen in
38:39terms of the evidence, I'm at 0%.
38:41>> So not not only you know that maybe
38:44somebody was behind him as a pathy
38:46influencing him, you're not even saying
38:47that he didn't even shoot Charlie Kirk,
38:49>> right? I would if you said was he
38:50involved that day as I have consistently
38:52said on my platform I would say yes he
38:54was.
38:54>> I I don't know what role he played but
38:56as the shooter
38:58>> 0%.
38:58>> Do you have any evidence for it?
39:00>> Uh for what my percentage
39:02>> the fact that he didn't he didn't shoot
39:04and kill Charlie Kirk?
39:05>> Yes. Which I'm hoping we're going to get
39:06to all of the evidence that he feels
39:09that he has. I mean I don't I'm not even
39:11convinced that Charlie was shot from the
39:13rooftop on Losi that day based on the
39:16evidence that has been
39:17>> Do you think he was shot? I I do not
39:20think that Charlie was shot from a 30
39:22six from
39:23>> just shot at all.
39:25>> I don't I don't know. I I think that a
39:27projectile hit Charlie and I'm open to
39:30other people's presentations, but I have
39:33not seen any compelling evidence that
39:35Charlie was shot by a 306.
39:37>> Can we see maybe if we're going to uh
39:39have an olive branch to each other if
39:41maybe we can establish what we consider
39:43the facts of the case to be first?
39:45>> Yeah, sure.
39:45>> Okay. So, you don't you you're not sure
39:48if he was actually shot. You're open to
39:51alternative theories.
39:52>> He was definitely hit with a projectile
39:54of some description. If we're talking
39:56about was he shot from a gun, a 306, I
39:59would say definitively no.
40:01>> Okay.
40:02>> It defies it defies common sense to
40:04think that he had a Superman neck. And
40:06even if he did have a Superman neck,
40:07which has been demonstrated, u I think
40:10actually recently a YouTuber actually
40:12set up Spalhalla steel cages and shot it
40:15and it went through. So
40:17>> under no circumstance will I
40:18>> So at least not a 306.
40:20>> Definitively not a 300
40:24ft. No,
40:24>> but you're not necessarily closing off
40:26the avenue that he could have been shot
40:27at all
40:27>> with maybe a smaller
40:29>> smaller caliber. Okay. And then um
40:33there's some things that I'm going to
40:34make concessions on that I do think we
40:36need more answers on and I'm fine with
40:38that and we can get to those things as
40:39well. The other thing is in the
40:42timeline, one of the things that we
40:43dispute I think on the timeline is that
40:46you think that uh Robinson drove hours
40:50away to a steakhouse
40:52>> in the timeline. Is that correct?
40:53>> Yes.
40:54>> Okay. And what's the compelling evidence
40:56that you think you have there?
40:58>> I spoke to the owner of the restaurant.
41:00Mhm.
41:00>> Um and I u have seen the receipt. I know
41:04the conversation that I had and uh I
41:07think it's enough that you know it will
41:08be presented obviously if this goes to
41:11trial but yes I do believe that he was
41:13in Panguage which is near his
41:15grandparents home.
41:16>> Did he give you an unedited copy of that
41:18receipt?
41:19>> I have seen an unedited copy copy of
41:21that receipt. It was not given to me
41:22from the owner. But I want to before you
41:24we get into like all the timeline stuff.
41:25I want to address what you think is
41:27evidence so we can keep this on par with
41:28what your claim is since
41:30>> well I think that that's a piece of
41:31evidence that's in dispute and that's
41:33why I'm
41:33>> yeah but we're we're trying to get to
41:35whether there's overwhelming evidence
41:37that Tyler Robinson did this whether
41:40>> if you want to use the first part of
41:41that for the internal
41:42>> critique we should go over the actual
41:44evidence that we feel
41:45>> the first reason that I think and I
41:47think it's compelling evidence is that
41:49Tyler Robinson's rifle was found uh near
41:53the crime scene. So I would consider
41:55that to be very good evidence. And also
41:58the fact of the matter is is that I
42:00dispute this claim that a 306 could not
42:02have made this wound. I think that
42:04that's absurd. 150 grain Remington
42:07corlocked absolutely could shatter when
42:10it hits the neck of any human being.
42:12When you say that there's some steel
42:13neck and it's a smaller caliber, you
42:15have to make a counter explanation. Why
42:18wouldn't a smaller caliber also go
42:19through bone?
42:20>> It could. I didn't say it can't.
42:21>> Right. Exactly. So if that's the case,
42:23then ammunition is going to be the
42:26critical key here. And if we have
42:27frangible ammunition, which we do in
42:29this case, a flex tip round, well, I'm
42:31sorry, not a flex tip, a soft point
42:33round from a 150 grain Remington
42:35corlock. That's just a small jacket that
42:37goes around the actual lead piece. These
42:40this thing could have split apart in air
42:42for all we know, but definitely upon
42:44impact. And we have the medical examiner
42:46who confirms this in a summary and my
42:48team can bring that up, the
42:49summarization, which means he would have
42:51to be a part of some kind of conspiracy
42:53as well.
42:54>> Okay. So, just to start with your point
42:56about saying that the gun was found near
42:58him, I mean uh near Loy Center or I
43:03guess off in the woods that gun. Did you
43:05watch the the testimony? Did you I'm
43:07sorry. Did you watch the preliminary
43:08hearing?
43:08>> Covered it live.
43:09>> Okay. So, forgetting what the summary of
43:11the medical report was, did you watch
43:13the testimony that was given by the uh
43:16Caitlyn Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha
43:19Carer, any of those people who went into
43:21the science of
43:22>> Yes, I recall you're talking about
43:24>> the bullet analysis.
43:25>> Yeah. When they went into the DNA.
43:27>> Okay. So, that's kind of the most
43:28relevant part. Okay. I'm not denying
43:30I've never denied on my platform or
43:31anywhere else that a gun owned by Tyler
43:34Robinson was found near the crime scene.
43:37Right. That doesn't that doesn't remove
43:39if you think somebody set up as a pathy.
43:41I you could take a gun out of this room
43:43right now and you could walk out and
43:44plant it in a woods near a crime scene.
43:46That's not convincing evidence to me.
43:47>> I concur I concur with the fact that
43:49that's a possibility.
43:50>> So you
43:52I think have said on a platform that you
43:54were a gunsmith.
43:55>> Mhm.
43:56>> Okay. And for how many years?
43:57>> Many many years.
43:58>> For many years. You also said that you
44:00were an army sniper.
44:01>> I wasn't a sniper in the army. Okay.
44:03>> And I never said that. But
44:04>> sorry. Your wife tweeted that you were
44:05an army sniper.
44:06>> Yeah. I don't know like 15 years ago she
44:08said something. Does it change 15 years
44:10later?
44:10>> She said that it was colloquial. So
44:13>> Army sniper is a colloquial term.
44:15>> Yeah. I'm not an I was never an army
44:16sniper.
44:17>> Okay. Um what did you do in the army?
44:18Did you teach this? She then I corrected
44:19it and said you taught rifles in the
44:21army.
44:21>> Not no I didn't teach rifle. No I taught
44:24rifles as a private citizen.
44:28>> Okay. Mhm.
44:29>> Uh,
44:29>> and I was an NRA instructor for many,
44:31many, many years alongside my my gunshot
44:33>> as with your expertise when she uh gave
44:38testimony on the stand, Samantha Carer,
44:42that there was dust and there was
44:45debris.
44:45>> Mhm.
44:46>> That was found in the gun barrel.
44:48>> Yep. Uh, and then when we had the person
44:52who, and this was, I believe, Caitlyn
44:54Oliver, who explained painfully about
44:58the DNA, the prince.
44:59>> Well, let's start with a point.
45:01>> I'm not done. You You said something, so
45:02I'm I'm going to finish my thought,
45:03right?
45:04>> You don't want to do a point in time.
45:05>> No. Well, sure. If you want to respond
45:06to I want you to respond to two points.
45:08I want I want you to start with two
45:09points. Okay.
45:10>> Dust and debris in the gun barrel.
45:12>> Yeah.
45:13>> Secondly, the fact that there were five
45:16sets of prints, five plus actually by
45:18the end of the testimony. five sets of
45:19prints uh for which we already had the
45:22woman who worked for the FBI forensics
45:24testify that above two prints if you're
45:26taking a sample it it's no longer a
45:29science right she testified that when
45:31they took the sample of what was on the
45:33trigger they saw five plus prints and
45:35among those five plus prints Tyler
45:38Robinson's was the most degraded
45:41>> so I would like you to explain how Tyler
45:44Robinson's prints could be the most
45:46degraded when she said actually You
45:48could have DNA on something that you've
45:50touched. You could have DNA on something
45:52that you've never touched. And to get
45:54DNA degradation, we've they've looked at
45:56pieces um items 20, 40 years on that
46:01don't have degradation. Yet, Tyler
46:03Robinson's prints amongst five plus
46:05other prints were the most degraded on
46:08that weapon.
46:08>> Yeah. So, let's get into all three of
46:10the claims. First, with debris. When it
46:12comes to debris, firing a rifle doesn't
46:14always blow the debris out of the
46:15barrel.
46:15>> Okay. That I I
46:18You think there could be debris? Uh, I'm
46:20sorry. Debris and dust.
46:22>> Yeah.
46:23>> He just fired the weapon.
46:25>> Okay.
46:25>> Not only that, he left it in a forest.
46:27>> Now, I don't know if if you agree with
46:29me, but if you leave a rifle in a wooded
46:32area, it's also possible that debris
46:34could get in that way. But I'm not even
46:36sure that that's what the case is. I
46:37think it's far more likely that you
46:39fired the shot, it just didn't blow all
46:40the debris out. And it often doesn't.
46:43You'll find this if you if you take
46:45Grand Papy's, you know, dirty rifle and
46:48it's all dusty inside the bore and you
46:49go fire it, you'll often look down the
46:51bore and there's still dust.
46:52>> Okay.
46:52>> Happens all the time.
46:53>> Okay. And the prince?
46:55>> Yeah. So, the prince we don't know all
46:57of the details on just yet.
46:58>> We do. It was It was excruciatingly long
47:01testimony.
47:02>> We don't because they haven't gone to
47:04trial, so we don't know uh on the print
47:06front, but Tyler Robinson's DNA was on
47:08there. You made the claim that Lance
47:09Twig's DNA was on there and it was not.
47:12Uh well, when she gave the testimony,
47:13no, hold on. First, let's go to your
47:15first point because that's wrong. We can
47:16get a fact check on that. What do you
47:17mean we don't know until it goes to
47:18trial about the degraded prince? She
47:20testified and this is the person who who
47:22took the prince.
47:22>> Yes. But the problem is is that inside
47:24of this particular testimony, you agree
47:26with me that there's going to be much
47:28more of the DNA analysis, right?
47:30>> But you also would agree that her fact
47:32is not going to change, that among the
47:34prince, his was the most degraded. So,
47:35I'm asking you to address that. How
47:37could that be possible? Let's give it um
47:39let's just grant this for a second as a
47:42possibility that his fingerprints were
47:43degraded.
47:44>> It's not a possibility. It's it's a
47:45fact. The person who took I'm just
47:47granting it for the sake of argument.
47:49>> You should grant it because it's a fact.
47:50>> So now So now So now it's granted. So
47:53what
47:54>> do you mean so what?
47:55>> Yeah. So what what does that prove?
47:56>> It proves that if his prince were the
47:59most degraded amongst five of them.
48:02You're going to have to explain how
48:03that's possible if he's the one that
48:05recently fired the weapon.
48:07Yeah. So, wait a second. You're saying
48:09that it's an impossibility that if his
48:11fingerprints are the most degraded,
48:14you're the you're the gunsmith.
48:15>> Wait a second. How would a gunsmith give
48:17an analysis on fingerprints or DNA? Do
48:19you think that I've worked in a DNA
48:21laboratory?
48:22>> So, your answer is I don't know. You can
48:23just say you don't know. You don't have
48:25to.
48:25>> But I did. But I did.
48:26>> No, you said so what. So say I don't
48:28know. I actually don't have an
48:29explanation for that. Candace is my
48:31question. Well, I think that what it
48:33would prove is that it is a more viable
48:35theory that people who had stronger
48:38prints on the gun may have used it more
48:40recently.
48:41>> Did they tell did they say who else had
48:42fingerprints on the gun?
48:43>> They named Matt Robinson explicitly and
48:47then and this was a part of the
48:48testimony where she was speaking about
48:50how they got samples of um elimination
48:54samples from the home of Amber Robinson,
48:56Matt Robinson, and Lance Twigs. Those
48:58were the three names they named. So, are
49:00you saying that twigs?
49:01>> Would you like me to finish my
49:02statement? I just want to make sure I'm
49:03clarifying.
49:03>> I'm I'm I'm trying to finish the answer,
49:05but it can't be clarified until the
49:06answer comes out of my mouth.
49:08>> Okay. So, go ahead. This was a portion
49:10of her testimony where she was
49:12explaining how they got elimination
49:13samples from the home. And she named
49:15Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson, and Lance
49:18Twigs as the elimination samples that
49:20she was using. Um, and so she explicitly
49:22said she said some of them some, so we
49:24can assume two out of the three
49:26>> uh were their prints were found on the
49:29gun. She explicitly named Matt Robinson
49:32um as someone who had prints on the gun
49:34and then said there were five people
49:36that they had taken that sample from.
49:38And again, what's also relevant here is
49:42the earlier testimony uh which came from
49:46uh the FBI forensics analyst. I believe
49:48it was on day two where she said that
49:50when you're using those mixtures and
49:52those samples and you get up to five
49:54plus, it's really hard to make any sort
49:56of a determination. So, both of those
49:58things are relevant. If you can't
50:00explain why his prints are the most
50:03degraded and you're saying he is the
50:04shooter, it's not really a so what, it's
50:06an open-ended question that people have
50:08a right to pursue. It's not a
50:09conspiracy. It's actually proof of my
50:11claim that there is evidence that he was
50:13set up as a psy
50:15>> that wouldn't prove anything about him
50:16being a psy. I said it's evidence it to
50:19support the claim that he could have
50:21been set up as a
50:22>> patchy. So this is why I said earlier,
50:24so what? Because even if it's the case,
50:26this doesn't have an explanation for it
50:28yet. That doesn't actually give you any
50:30evidence in your corner for Tyler
50:31Robinson being a pathy.
50:33>> Hang on, hang on, hang on. I didn't cut
50:34you off,
50:35>> right? You would need to actually
50:36explain how this would demonstrate Tyler
50:38Robinson. This is tied into to Robinson
50:41being a pathy. Are you claiming that
50:43these fingerprints were Lance twigs or
50:45that he had any DNA there? I I'm saying
50:47that it could be Matt Robinson. It could
50:48be Amber Robinson. That sort of
50:50information is going to come out during
50:51retrial.
50:52>> How would that tie into the idea that
50:53he's a patchy gun?
50:54>> Yes. Because if his is the most degraded
50:56prince and the information that I shared
50:57on my platform is true that this gun was
51:00given to Tyler Robinson as an heirloom.
51:02I had conversation with members of the
51:04Robinson family, Twigs family, both of
51:07them. You know, like I said, we're not
51:08just dreaming. Um, and if we're having
51:11those conversations and they told me
51:13that that gun was only given to Tyler
51:15Robinson because it was a family
51:16heirloom. Okay. So, it was his
51:17grandfather's gun or great-grandfather's
51:19gun. I don't remember the difference.
51:21Uh, I don't remember which one it was.
51:22And so, he got it because he's the
51:24firstborn. So, but he's not much of a
51:26shooter is what I was told. Uh, and so
51:28he has this because he inherited it
51:31essentially. So, if I get something from
51:32my grandpa and I put it up on the shelf
51:34and I own this, you could see that could
51:36be
51:36>> How do we get to the patchy part?
51:38You don't let me ever get to the end of
51:39the sentence. So, how could we get to
51:40the psy part if I can't get to the end
51:42of the sentence?
51:43>> Patiently till we get to
51:44>> So, that could be a reasonable
51:44explanation as to why there was dust in
51:47the barrel because he doesn't often
51:48shoot this weapon and he is indeed a
51:49fisher. Um, and it could also be a
51:52reasonable explanation for why we have
51:54Matt Robinson's prints on this.
51:56Obviously, Lance Twigs, even if he has
51:57prints on things, they live together.
51:58That doesn't really mean anything. But
52:00that could demonstrate that somebody
52:02took his weapon and put it somewhere.
52:04His prints are the most degraded.
52:06somebody else's prints there there's
52:08more presence of somebody else's prints
52:09and that could demonstrate that somebody
52:11is taking items from his house and
52:13putting it into very
52:14>> but it also could demonstrate nothing.
52:15So the problem the problem that you have
52:17here is that this is pure conjecture.
52:19This is hang on this is not evidence
52:22that Tyler Robinson is Apache. It's only
52:24evidence that you have conjectured up
52:27that uh well if it's the case that these
52:30are the the more degradated prints then
52:33therefore that means must be psy
52:36parents finger dad's fingerprints on gun
52:40describe how this actually links in to
52:42Robinson being a psy
52:44>> okay I just described that for you so
52:46I'm not I can explain it to you but I
52:48can't understand it for you so I'm going
52:49to move on from that uh but to just go
52:51back to your point about this is not
52:52evidence uh you can't make that claim
52:54because you're the entire basis for why
52:56you think that there is evidence for
52:58Tyler Robinson being the person that
52:59took the shot is based off of a hearing
53:02under Utah 1102 rules. Meaning that they
53:04are doing the exact same thing that I am
53:06doing. This is the state. You said
53:08you're here to represent the state.
53:09Well, did you watch the preliminary
53:10hearing?
53:10>> I didn't say I was here to represent the
53:11state.
53:12>> The state's position you think is strong
53:13and convincing.
53:14>> What I'm here to do is represent my own
53:16opinion which you said in your opening
53:17statement based on the evidence
53:20presented so far by the state. state has
53:22presented evidence under Utah's 1102
53:26rule.
53:26>> But this doesn't demonstrate any patchy.
53:28>> No, that's very important because that
53:29rule is hearsay.
53:30>> So you can't say at the same time,
53:32Candace, you're not allowed to. And
53:33[clears throat] and what that means
53:34under the Utah rule, which I'm sure you
53:36know cuz I'm sure you watched the
53:37preliminary hearing and yourself
53:39understand what that means is that the
53:40entire hearing was hearsay. It means
53:42none of that information that was
53:43presented is going to be allowed, the
53:46majority of it, the overwhelming
53:47majority of it is is not going to be
53:49allowed at the trial. They're allowed to
53:50present when it's this appropriate
53:52hearing.
53:52>> I don't think all the evidence that was
53:54that was put in was hearsay.
53:56>> Okay. You didn't watch this case.
53:57>> But not only that. No,
53:58>> no, no. That's this is a huge point.
53:59>> I want you to call for a fact check if
54:02all the evidence need more than a fact
54:03check. This was every single day.
54:06We want to go there. So, they said they
54:07had there's a medical examiner's
54:09explanation of the shooting
54:11>> that's in the back. Rob, if you want to
54:13pull it up and then Candace, if anybody
54:16from your team wants to pull something
54:17up, no problem as well, but they're
54:19requesting it. If you guys got it, pull
54:20it up uh so we can show it. And in the
54:23interim, can is that it?
54:24>> Yeah. So, I'll read this.
54:26>> Just what are we looking at? Just so we
54:28know.
54:29>> Yeah. So, the this says the bullet or at
54:31least part of it sequentially perforated
54:34the interior left of Mr. Kirk's neck,
54:36strap muscles of the left side of the
54:38neck. This is a summary, by the way, uh
54:40left common uh carttoid on the left
54:43internal external jugular veins. The
54:45bullet also obliterated the left side
54:48C27 vertebrae transacted the cervical
54:51spinal cord. Medical examiner observed a
54:53significant portion of Kirk's cervical
54:55spinal cord was traumatically absent.
54:58Mr. Kirk suffered from other severe
55:00injuries including bilateral apical and
55:02posterior intercausal hemorrhages,
55:05pulmonary apical hemorrhages, multiple
55:08disruptions to the thyroid, etc., etc.
55:10So there the summary of the examinations
55:13that he was shot. Okay,
55:14>> that was what they were pulling that up
55:16for.
55:16>> Okay. And I don't I'm not disputing that
55:18he could have been hit with a
55:19projectile. I we're not disputing that.
55:21So, I don't know why this was brought up
55:22as a fact check. Uh could you bring up
55:241102 Utah rule? Cuz this is an
55:26unbelievable point that you're making by
55:27saying that I am not allowed to infer
55:30off of evidence.
55:30>> You can infer. I'm trying to follow the
55:32inference.
55:33>> No, but your your entire reason like you
55:35you asserted that you believe there's
55:37overwhelming evidence on the basis of
55:39what we saw in the preliminary hearing.
55:40The entire preliminary hearing was
55:43hearsay.
55:44>> Yeah, I'm fine with your inferences.
55:46>> But no, you just literally said I
55:47couldn't do that. Yes, I can.
55:48>> No, I didn't. I'm just saying from your
55:50inference, how do we get to Paty?
55:52>> This is how you got to shoot her. The
55:54Tyler Robinson did it. The same way you
55:56got to
55:57Yes, you did. You You again, we This is
55:59something important. So, we should pull
56:00up a fact check about what the 1102 Utah
56:04and under their constitution for the
56:05sake of a preliminary hearing, they do
56:08not have to have hard evidence. They
56:10don't have to put people on the trial
56:11where they met. But no, no, that's why
56:13the entire hearing was basically
56:15hearsay. Officer back and
56:16>> not all of it. Like I said,
56:18>> the overwhelming majority I mean outside
56:21of the one that you don't that you don't
56:24want to give me though.
56:25>> Outside of No, that is what's in
56:27dispute. It means that your entire brand
56:29of saying you don't have evidence, you
56:31don't have evidence falls apart when the
56:33entire preliminary hearing is based off
56:35of hearay. In fact, Lance's testimony
56:38before they had about an hour debate.
56:40Actually, maybe it was more than an hour
56:41debate before he sat and they said,
56:42"This is not going to be allowed. You
56:44wouldn't even be allowed to do this.
56:45We'd be able to cross-examine him. Uh
56:47the questions that they're asking,
56:48Lance, are all leading." And what did he
56:50say? Well, I'm the magistrate under Utah
56:52Constitution. You know, 11:02, it is my
56:55job to allow all of this so we can see
56:56if the state has enough here that we can
56:59then move to a trial, which will then,
57:01they would not allow this stuff. They
57:02would say we get to cross-examine Lance.
57:04Lance just can't say disputing.
57:06>> No, but the entire substance of your
57:08argument is that people can't infer off
57:11of evidence. That's what you're saying
57:12to me. Yeah. When you say Candace,
57:16which is a fact infer off of that Tyler
57:19could have been a psych
57:21literally making stuff up. So here's
57:23what the position is. I'm asking 112.
57:29I am doing exactly what the state did. I
57:31am looking at a piece of evidence and I
57:32am saying,
57:33>> but you're not showing me how you get
57:34there. describe to the audience what
57:35rule 112.
57:36>> So this just so everybody who's watching
57:38this at home understands what I am
57:40saying even if he doesn't what Andrew is
57:42arguing is that I don't have the right
57:44to extrapolate from a fact like
57:47>> making it up
57:48>> just purely making it up. I'm asking
57:51based on based on your Can I show my
57:53evidence? You just showed yours.
57:54>> Reliable hearsay. Reliable hearsay in
57:57criminal prelim preliminary
57:59examinations. The entire
58:02>> uh preliminary hearing that you just saw
58:04was on the basis of reliable hearsay.
58:06And what that means essentially is the
58:08people who are making the statements can
58:09just say Patrick told me that he did
58:12this on Monday. Patrick's not here. Uh
58:15and that is they they can allow that
58:17into the hearing. That's just it because
58:19it's just meant to be probitative and so
58:22it's the state saying here's what we
58:24have inferred. So you are allowed to
58:25take a piece of evidence and then you
58:27are allowed to infer off of that
58:29evidence. Okay,
58:31>> case in point that's a demonstration of
58:33to give you that's a demonstration of
58:34what I just did. I said the prince were
58:37the most degraded off of Tyler Robinson.
58:39And from that what I am inferring is
58:41that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson
58:43was set up.
58:44>> That doesn't that's the point in
58:45contention.
58:45>> That's not a point in contention. That's
58:47the point in contention.
58:48>> It's not a point in contention. If
58:49you're saying it's a point, it is the
58:50point in contention.
58:51>> It's not the point in contention. I'm
58:52telling you that was what the entire
58:53hearing allowed for. So the evidence
58:55that he is describing
58:56>> that he is using to argue his case is
59:00all based on inference, not fact. Great.
59:03>> Inference, not fact. So what they are
59:04inferring off of the facts.
59:06>> We're So again, we're going to take this
59:09and I'm just going to even grant it
59:11because it's irrelevant. I'm asking how
59:13you get to the inference that even if
59:16you dispute that piece of evidence that
59:18means psy I'm looking for the logical
59:20chain for how you get to that inference.
59:24>> What I am telling you is it's the exact
59:26same way that when you tweeted I think
59:29that this evidence is overwhelming when
59:31they say that looks like Tyler
59:33Robinson's car. He drives a similar car.
59:36Okay. They are inferring that that's
59:38Tyler Robinson. Can you walk walk me
59:39through the inference
59:40>> so that I understand?
59:41>> It's it's not a fact. It's not a fact.
59:43When you show a blurry image, which you
59:45kept citing that we have
59:46>> No, I'm talking about your inference
59:47that the fingerprints even if they're
59:49degraded equals psy. How do you get that
59:52inference?
59:52>> I I didn't say it equals psy. I think it
59:54is enough evidence that it should be
59:56explored, which is exactly what this
59:57preliminary was in the inverse.
59:59>> That's not in dispute. What's in dispute
1:00:01is when you said I'm using this as
1:00:03evidence that he could have been a
1:00:04pathy. I'm asking how do you get the
1:00:06inference to Py from that?
1:00:08>> Because what I am saying is that it
1:00:10shows that somebody else had more DNA
1:00:14presence on that gun than Tyler Robinson
1:00:16did. So it is plausible, which is all
1:00:18they're doing. They're presenting
1:00:18plausibility based off of the facts.
1:00:20Okay. It is plausible that somebody just
1:00:23took his gun and put it there. That's
1:00:24it.
1:00:25>> Is there equally
1:00:26>> That's how it works.
1:00:26>> And is there equally hundred other
1:00:28plausible explanations?
1:00:29>> I think that's the reason why most
1:00:31people are exploring when things don't
1:00:32make sense. So yes, at the beginning of
1:00:34that this is how this is how the court
1:00:35process works.
1:00:37>> If there's a hundred other plausible
1:00:39explanations then Candace, why is it
1:00:41that we should go with this idea that it
1:00:43was a pathy?
1:00:44>> I I'm not saying that we should go with
1:00:46the idea that it was a pathy. I am
1:00:48saying that there is
1:00:49>> Oh, I thought that was the whole
1:00:51defense. The your whole claim.
1:00:53>> My whole claim was that there is more
1:00:54evidence that he is set up that he is
1:00:56set up as a psy.
1:00:57>> How does that equal evidence of patchy?
1:00:59>> I don't know how many times I can say
1:01:01this. Like I I'm saying that I am using
1:01:02the exact same mechanism that you are
1:01:04accepting for some reason in the Utah
1:01:06courtroom. Yeah.
1:01:07>> Right. To say I'm going to look at the
1:01:08evidence and I'm going to infer an
1:01:10alternative theory. So you just saw the
1:01:12states and you're accepting it. And they
1:01:14are they have not presented any concrete
1:01:15facts. You listed on your own Twitter
1:01:17that what you found to be convincing was
1:01:20something that looked like his car
1:01:21pulled into the driveway. A blurry
1:01:23image. No, I didn't. The standard white
1:01:25guy coming up the steps that could
1:01:26literally be anyone.
1:01:27>> This never happened.
1:01:28>> Can we get a fact check on that? Let me
1:01:30pull up his tweet where he goes over
1:01:31>> I didn't say that's what convinced me
1:01:33>> when you you actually didn't say it's
1:01:35what convinced me but you said this is
1:01:36the evidence that you found to be
1:01:37overwhelming and you you named I believe
1:01:40actually five things I think you said it
1:01:41was his car uh you said it was
1:01:43>> well there's multitudes of things that I
1:01:45find so we're going to get a fact check
1:01:47on that you did um you said the blurry
1:01:49images coming up the steps quite
1:01:50literally when officer Bagley testified
1:01:53they talk about when I'm talking about
1:01:54making inference this is the most I
1:01:55thought was the most absurd testimony
1:01:57I've ever heard and pardon me it was
1:01:58actually Hull David Hull. Uh they asked
1:02:01him a question. How did you know the guy
1:02:03in the maroon shirt was the same as the
1:02:05guy that came up the stairs later that
1:02:07was wearing the American flag black
1:02:09shirt? And he said they're wearing the
1:02:12same shoes.
1:02:14>> Why is that absurd?
1:02:15>> That's how you decided these two are the
1:02:17same people. Oh wow, what a scientific
1:02:19they're both wearing Converses. Okay,
1:02:21that that's an absurd thing to say. That
1:02:24is not evidence that these are the same
1:02:25people if we're both wearing Converses.
1:02:27That was what he said. That's what flew
1:02:29on the stage.
1:02:29>> Yeah. But I I still don't understand how
1:02:31that would be absurd if somebody for
1:02:33instance if somebody were to change
1:02:34their clothes but keep the same shoes
1:02:36on. Wouldn't you utilize the shoes to
1:02:38try to track that person if
1:02:39>> the idea that on a college campus two
1:02:41people wearing the totally different
1:02:44outfits but both wearing Converses can't
1:02:46happen is such an absurdity that I don't
1:02:48even need to like argue that. I'm just
1:02:49going to let people
1:02:51just concede that point. Obviously it's
1:02:52an absurd thing to say. I know these are
1:02:55the same people because they're both
1:02:56wearing Converse.
1:02:57>> Yeah. Not sure if in context that's what
1:02:59happened. But even if it is, you can get
1:03:00a fact check on it.
1:03:00>> But even if it is, um, again, if we're
1:03:04utilizing inferences, when whenever
1:03:06we're dealing with logic and we're
1:03:07dealing with making a logical inference,
1:03:09we're going to take the entire
1:03:11collaboration of evidence and then we're
1:03:12going to make inferences from that. You
1:03:14would do that with any type of logical
1:03:16proposition. Otherwise, you could never
1:03:18have a true or false claim.
1:03:19>> But you just told me I couldn't.
1:03:20>> So when we're I I never that never
1:03:22happened. You're just making stuff up.
1:03:23So anyway, when we're talking about
1:03:25logical inferences, what I'm looking for
1:03:27is the logical inferences that you have
1:03:29that Tyler Robinson's Apache based on a
1:03:31totality of evidence that you have.
1:03:33>> We can keep going through your other
1:03:34evidence, but we should find his tweet
1:03:35where he pleas where he lists the
1:03:37reasons that he was convinced.
1:03:39>> Let's start with the 306. I think that
1:03:41that's fine.
1:03:41>> Your team's looking for Do you remember
1:03:43how long ago that was?
1:03:44>> Uh the tweets of the uh five Did you
1:03:47delete it or no tweets? Okay, cool. just
1:03:50look for he said the it was his car. It
1:03:54was his uh
1:03:56>> it was the car and it was definitely the
1:03:58staircase photos and it was when the
1:04:00trial was going on.
1:04:00>> Okay, she has it perfect. If you got
1:04:02Skyler has it if you want to pull it up
1:04:03so we can see it.
1:04:05>> Somebody said, "So give me the clear
1:04:07evidence right here. I want you to
1:04:09provide it right here. All I heard from
1:04:10the investigator was we believe this to
1:04:12be Tyler Robinson. Is belief something
1:04:13you go as a fact?" You wrote the car
1:04:15pulling in. That's a totally blurry
1:04:17image. um Robinson getting out of it.
1:04:20You have no idea if that's Tyler
1:04:21Robinson. The fact that he is seen four
1:04:24other times on camera, the fact being
1:04:26just a standard white boy with brown
1:04:28hair was seen getting walking up
1:04:29staircase. The DNA on the roof. We
1:04:31should discuss that. And on the
1:04:34screwdriver that he left behind, it's
1:04:36overwhelming, man.
1:04:37>> Yeah, but that's not an exhaustive list.
1:04:39>> Well, just so we're clear, you did tweet
1:04:40it,
1:04:41>> but it's not an exhaustive. Well, just 5
1:04:42seconds ago, you should. said, "I only
1:04:44said this one thing and said that that
1:04:46was overwhelming." Actually,
1:04:48>> that's not what I said.
1:04:49>> It is. You could even pull your own
1:04:50>> clip. C Can you Can you fact check if
1:04:53that was said or not? I did not hear.
1:04:55>> So, the thing is funny here is like we
1:04:57still aren't getting to any of these
1:04:58inferences. So, these
1:04:59>> Why are you pivoting? But just say you
1:05:01want to just say I was wrong.
1:05:02[clears throat] I didn't I'm not wrong.
1:05:03So, back to the tweet the tweet aspect
1:05:06here. It's really funny. That's not an
1:05:08exhaustive list of why I find it
1:05:09important.
1:05:09>> I didn't say it was exhaustive. I just
1:05:10said you said it. And on top of Well,
1:05:12no, you didn't. You said that I only
1:05:14said this one thing and then said based
1:05:16on that it's over. Well, I didn't. You
1:05:18didn't mention that I mentioned the
1:05:19screwdriver, DNA, all these other
1:05:21things. You never mentioned any of that.
1:05:23So, no, you're actually incorrect there.
1:05:26But on top of that, moving over to the
1:05:28actual evidence itself.
1:05:29>> Are you uh
1:05:30>> Yes, I'm okay. Anyway, back to the
1:05:32evidence.
1:05:32>> You're okay. Actually, I'm glad you were
1:05:34asserting that you're okay. I wasn't
1:05:35worried about your health. I'm just
1:05:36saying that I just said you tweeted
1:05:38this. You said no, I didn't. We got a
1:05:39fact check. And now you're like just
1:05:40going to gaslight me and pretend that I
1:05:41said there's no gaslighting. It wasn't
1:05:43exhaustively. I never said that. I just
1:05:44said you did say this.
1:05:45>> Zero gaslighting.
1:05:46>> I didn't say you couldn't have said
1:05:47more. But I would like to address the
1:05:48what you said.
1:05:49>> This is your time. If this is how you
1:05:50want to spend it interrogating my
1:05:52position, you can do it that way.
1:05:53[laughter]
1:05:54>> I'm just addressing what you asserted on
1:05:55your Twitter was like the hard evidence
1:05:57that convinced you was overwhelming.
1:05:58That's literally
1:05:59>> That's not what you said.
1:06:01>> That's not actually in fact what
1:06:02happened in that exchange.
1:06:06I was here for it. So what's your
1:06:08position here?
1:06:09>> Yeah. So my position is that based on
1:06:11all of the evidence which has been
1:06:13demonstrated at least all the evidence
1:06:15to my knowledge that I am actually not
1:06:17seeing um anything that's compelling as
1:06:21an alternative theory. I'm not seeing
1:06:23anything which is convincing me of
1:06:24something otherwise than what the state
1:06:26is presenting is evidence. That's that's
1:06:28my position. That's what you're asking
1:06:30me.
1:06:31>> So just going back to what you did
1:06:32actually tweet, is it fair to like to
1:06:34for me to ask questions about that? Um,
1:06:36that's
1:06:37>> is that the only tweet you're going to
1:06:38ask me about?
1:06:38>> Well, we're we're addressing your claim
1:06:40that the evidence is overwhelming and
1:06:41this is a tweet where you listed what
1:06:42you felt was overwhelming. I think
1:06:43that's fair. I feel like that's fair,
1:06:45>> but not exhaustive, just so you know.
1:06:46>> I and I never said it was exhaustive,
1:06:48even though you said I did.
1:06:49>> Sure. Whatever you want.
1:06:49>> Um, but yeah. So, going back to that,
1:06:51all of that as you say to me, well,
1:06:54Candace, why are you addressing and
1:06:55making inferences off of the testimony?
1:06:58>> No, I never never asked you why you're
1:07:00making inferences. I asked you how with
1:07:02the inference you made, you got to the
1:07:04conclusion.
1:07:04>> Okay. So, I would like to know how you
1:07:06got to the conclusion. Uh, and I'm just
1:07:08gonna throw it right back at you because
1:07:10for some reason you permit yourself to
1:07:11do it and that's what I'm demonstrating
1:07:13is that you permit yourself to do it and
1:07:14then you say when I do it, it's a
1:07:16conspiracy, right?
1:07:17>> No.
1:07:17>> How are you able to infer off of blurry
1:07:20staircase images that that is Tyler
1:07:22Robinson?
1:07:23>> Yeah. So, in that particular case, what
1:07:25you do is you take that evidence, you
1:07:27combine it with other evidence. So, it's
1:07:29not just that Tyler Robinson is seen in
1:07:32the staircase.
1:07:32>> Why are you calling him Tyler Robinson
1:07:33in the staircase? That's what I want to
1:07:34get to.
1:07:35>> Yeah. Because I mean, we'll just use
1:07:36this. If you don't agree that that's
1:07:38Tyler Robinson, then you would just have
1:07:40to humor me. I think it is. So, I'm
1:07:42using the name.
1:07:42>> But why do you think it is? Cuz you make
1:07:44everybody what I'm trying to explain to
1:07:46you. Okay.
1:07:47>> So, if you're asking for my inference
1:07:49why I think it's Tyler Robinson is
1:07:50because a Tyler Robinson said in his
1:07:52text messages, you you'll be able to see
1:07:54me on security footage at the campus.
1:07:56Said it in his own messages. On top of
1:07:58that, twigs. Yes, you can pull them up
1:08:00if you want to fact check that. He did
1:08:01say on top
1:08:03>> I'm sorry. I actually think I really did
1:08:04miss that. I'm not saying you're wrong.
1:08:05I just I don't remember him saying
1:08:06you're going to see me in parano
1:08:11um Twigs himself said that he had me on
1:08:13the staircase that he had some um
1:08:17>> maybe a tiny bit of doubt, but it sure
1:08:19looked like Tyler Robinson inside of
1:08:21this various uh surveillance footage
1:08:23that he saw.
1:08:25>> Sorry.
1:08:25>> There's Hang on. Hang on. So, there's
1:08:27multi there's multiple reasons why it is
1:08:30that I believe that that's Tyler
1:08:31Robinson. Not just because of blurry
1:08:33footage.
1:08:34>> Did you have a dream?
1:08:35>> Just kidding.
1:08:36>> No, it's because I combined multitudes
1:08:37of evidences.
1:08:38>> Okay. Uh, so let's address those
1:08:40multitude of evidences. The first one
1:08:42we're working on a fact check on because
1:08:43I I do not ever remember him tweeting
1:08:45that's me in the stair I mean or tweeted
1:08:47>> texting that that's me in the staircase.
1:08:50I think that I I
1:08:52>> I didn't say I didn't say that. I said
1:08:54he I literally didn't. What I said is
1:08:57that he texted over, "You'll be able to
1:08:59see me in footage at the at UVU." And
1:09:02I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he
1:09:03said.
1:09:03>> Yeah. Could we get a fact check on that?
1:09:05The second thing you said was Lance's
1:09:07testimony where, and actually what Lance
1:09:09says is, "I'm not 100%." I agree.
1:09:11>> But in terms of what he wears, again, me
1:09:14pointing out the absurdity. Uh, he wears
1:09:17Converses, he wears sneakers. If his
1:09:19boyfriend is not 100%, I'd like to
1:09:21understand why Andrew Wilson is
1:09:23overwhelmed by it. That's what I'm
1:09:24trying to get to. And lastly, I would
1:09:26like to remind you that Lance's
1:09:27statement would not be permitted. This
1:09:29was a huge part of the preliminary
1:09:31hearing that they were leading. All the
1:09:33questions that were ask asked of him
1:09:35were leading. So they would be struck
1:09:36down at the actual trial. And also I
1:09:39would like to remind you that he got use
1:09:40immunity for that use immunity.
1:09:42>> I understand
1:09:43>> which means like
1:09:44>> that happens by the way all the time in
1:09:45these
1:09:45>> and I'm wondering why it particularly
1:09:46happened for Lance in this testimony.
1:09:48And I would also like to point out that
1:09:49something that's remarkable about this,
1:09:51again leaning to my perspective that
1:09:53Lance has a lot more uh which I have
1:09:54said many times, Lance has a lot more
1:09:56involvement than the feds are are um
1:09:59letting us know. I think more is going
1:10:00to come out because they
1:10:03>> interviewed him on September 11th and
1:10:05then for whatever reason just ahead of
1:10:07what was supposed to be slated as the
1:10:08preliminary hearing which was initially
1:10:10supposed to be in May, they bring him
1:10:12back to do this interview which in my
1:10:15opinion should have never been allowed
1:10:16and I I actually agree with the defense
1:10:18that it's a violation of his
1:10:19constitutional rights not to allow them
1:10:21to have cross-examined him. But I
1:10:23understand Utah 1102 do what you do.
1:10:25It's all hearsay. Uh but to allow it in
1:10:28that way for him to just be able to also
1:10:31have use immunity knowing that he's not
1:10:33going to be he's not gonna get in
1:10:34trouble. He could literally get up there
1:10:35and lie about anything and he's not
1:10:36going to get in trouble because the use
1:10:38immunity was given to him in April. I
1:10:40believe April 28th is when they uh gave
1:10:42that testimony to the defense. I think
1:10:44they shot it in like April 20th of 2026.
1:10:47That is not compelling to me for
1:10:48somebody who has use immunity to give a
1:10:50testimony and to say I'm not really sure
1:10:53but definitely like he wears jeans and
1:10:56stuff.
1:10:56>> That's not what he said.
1:10:57>> He did actually. You can get a fact
1:10:58check on that.
1:10:59>> I think he said more than
1:11:02>> so so a couple things we have. We have
1:11:04rule 801 Tyler's messages that says it's
1:11:07not hearsay. But first go to what
1:11:09Candace is asking about Skyler. I think
1:11:11you have it. You just text me if you
1:11:13want to pull it up. You said you have
1:11:14the text. if we can uh put that up on
1:11:16the screen. Thank you.
1:11:18>> It was me. Look at the pictures from the
1:11:20surveillance footage. It was me. Okay. I
1:11:22literally said to you, it's not an oof.
1:11:23I said I didn't remember this and I'm
1:11:24I'm happy to have a fact check on that.
1:11:25Okay. That I I didn't call for the fact
1:11:26saying you're wrong. I literally said I
1:11:28don't remember that from
1:11:29>> I'm just saying to you like I'm trying
1:11:30to be concise for you.
1:11:32>> And then also bring the 801 that you
1:11:33just said. What was the other one?
1:11:34>> Yep. The 801. Uh Tyler messages saying
1:11:37it's not hearsay. If you have that as
1:11:39well.
1:11:45There you go.
1:11:48>> Wait, what are we saying? It's not here.
1:11:50>> Not hearsay. A statement that meets the
1:11:52following conditions is not hearsay.
1:11:54>> It was hearsay. They said it in the
1:11:56trial.
1:11:56>> Hang on. Hang on.
1:11:57>> Okay.
1:11:58>> Okay.
1:11:59uh uh is consistent with the declarant's
1:12:02testimony and the declarant denies
1:12:04having made the statement or has
1:12:06forgotten or is consistent with the
1:12:08declarant's testimony and is offered to
1:12:10rebut express implied charge that the
1:12:12declarant recently fabricated or acted
1:12:14in recent improper influence or motive
1:12:16in testifying. So then wouldn't that
1:12:18mean that a bunch of this wasn't
1:12:20>> hearsay? It so the issue with his
1:12:22>> I just want to make sure would that make
1:12:23would that mean that a bunch of this
1:12:24wasn't hearsay? So the opposing party
1:12:26which down the line, like I said, they
1:12:28talked about this for about an hour and
1:12:29a half and they discussed how if Lance
1:12:32was in court and he was giving his first
1:12:34party, you know, giving his testimony as
1:12:36the opposing party, whatever, all this
1:12:38would be fine. They had an issue with
1:12:39how the questions were being asked and
1:12:41that they were not allowed to
1:12:42cross-examine him. So that is why his
1:12:45video testimony would not be accepted in
1:12:46the main trial. And what I said to you
1:12:48is this entire preliminary hearing is
1:12:51under Utah's 1102. So they are allowed
1:12:55to just use hearsay instead.
1:12:56>> No, you didn't say that. You said most
1:12:58of it was hearsay actually.
1:13:00>> Yeah.
1:13:00>> The overwhelming majority.
1:13:01>> Well, I mean, and that's I'm I'm leaning
1:13:03now into my opinion that some scientific
1:13:05aspects which they kept asserting like
1:13:07the federal rule 403 or 402.
1:13:10>> Some of those parts were quite
1:13:11>> Sounds like you're backtracking quite a
1:13:13bit.
1:13:13>> No, I'm not backtracking at all. What do
1:13:14you feel? Let me help you. Where do you
1:13:15feel like I'm backtracking? It was It
1:13:17literally was done under Utah's 112.
1:13:19>> Yeah, nobody disputed that. What the
1:13:20dispute was is whether or not most of it
1:13:22was overwhelmingly hearsay. Is that the
1:13:23case?
1:13:24>> Yes, it was.
1:13:24>> Yes, that's a fact. I'm not backtracking
1:13:26on that at all. How many times did I You
1:13:28watch here. It's like they constantly
1:13:30I'm 11:02 11:02 11:02 11:02 11:02. And
1:13:34the reason for that is because it's
1:13:35allowed. I'm not saying it's illegal.
1:13:36It's allowed at this stage. But I'm just
1:13:37reminding you that when you're going to
1:13:39sit across from someone and your claim
1:13:40is going to be where is your hard
1:13:42evidence? This is what I heard and I
1:13:44agree with what I'm watching. you are
1:13:45watching the state put on a hearsay
1:13:48preliminary hearing and that and all of
1:13:51those things are not going to be
1:13:52allowed, right? Even when they got into
1:13:53witness statements and things of that
1:13:55nature, there's a reason why they swear
1:13:57you in and they say, "Do you swear the
1:13:59truth, the whole truth? Did you, you
1:14:01know, write this statement?"
1:14:03>> So, it's the overwhelming majority of
1:14:05what you saw was hearsay because other
1:14:07people were representing other people's
1:14:08statements. They were saying they had
1:14:10conversations. We don't know where it
1:14:11came from. Allowed at this stage, okay?
1:14:13But it's hearsay. So,
1:14:15>> but even a lot of that stuff may not
1:14:17fall under hearsay under what we just
1:14:19read, right?
1:14:20>> But the evidence that you're speaking
1:14:21about, like when you're just when you
1:14:23say that we're going off vibes, you
1:14:25don't know Tyler Robinson. Okay. His
1:14:27boyfriend is not 100% it was him. So,
1:14:30I'm going back to your points that you
1:14:31made that this was overwhelming evidence
1:14:33for you. That doesn't make sense to me.
1:14:35>> Well, overwhelming just means
1:14:36>> you can't consider another option that
1:14:38there could have been another white guy
1:14:39wearing Converses on campus.
1:14:40>> Yeah. Do you agree with me that I said
1:14:42that? that what overwhelming means to me
1:14:44is that it's just very convincing to me.
1:14:47>> Yeah. And I find it [clears throat] to
1:14:48be completely unconvincing. That's fair.
1:14:50I understand that I looked at those
1:14:51blurry photos that they presented and
1:14:53said
1:14:54>> your your statement on right now is that
1:14:57>> he's wearing Converses and he also
1:14:59That's just crazy.
1:15:00>> But these aren't the evidences that I
1:15:01find the most convincing.
1:15:02>> Well, you said that in your Twitter.
1:15:05>> That's not the only thing I've ever said
1:15:06on my Twitter about this case.
1:15:07>> Right. But the question that was asked
1:15:08of you was pretty direct. Yeah. Right.
1:15:10What What did you find? This is not an
1:15:12exhaustive list of all the things.
1:15:14>> That's not what you said in the tweet.
1:15:15You can tweet longer, too. It's not like
1:15:16we're limited now to 240 characters.
1:15:18>> So, wait. So, anything that I tweet and
1:15:21all other tweets that I've ever made are
1:15:23now excluded because I used the word
1:15:25overwhelming in this one. Even though
1:15:27all of this information, I've said so
1:15:29publicly over and over and over again,
1:15:31is what informs my position for why I'm
1:15:33convinced on the case. That's bizarre to
1:15:35me.
1:15:36>> I feel like this is Andrew versus
1:15:37Andrew. Somebody asked you a question.
1:15:39What are the points that you find to be
1:15:40the you know the most overwhelming and
1:15:42you answered
1:15:42>> you mean from that day from that
1:15:44particular day of the hearing that I was
1:15:45responding to
1:15:48>> do okay is there something you have you
1:15:49find to be more overwhelming that
1:15:51question okay go ahead go on what do you
1:15:53find to be more overwhelming
1:15:54>> yeah can we do this do we want to get
1:15:56into it or do we know do we want to do a
1:15:58quick ad break
1:15:59>> are you guys good to keep going or
1:16:01>> I'm I'm fine to keep going but we we can
1:16:03also
1:16:03>> Would you like to take a quick break or
1:16:04>> doesn't matter to me either way
1:16:05>> if we're going into a different topic
1:16:07that may be another 30 minutes 40
1:16:08minutes. I don't want to stop you guys
1:16:09in the middle of
1:16:10>> what you find to be more overwhelming.
1:16:12>> Yeah. Yeah. So, if we're the for me,
1:16:15it's the confessions, the text messages,
1:16:18all of that is what I consider to be uh
1:16:21from my opinion, that's the most
1:16:23convincing for me.
1:16:24>> Okay. We should discuss the text message
1:16:25confessions when uh we get back if you'd
1:16:27like to.
1:16:28>> Okay.
1:16:28>> I think that's a good idea,
1:16:30>> folks. We're going to take a quick uh ad
1:16:31break. We will be back in three and a
1:16:33half minutes. Thank you.
1:16:34>> All right, you guys. For nearly 2,000
1:16:36years, Christians have lived
1:16:37continuously in a small village just
1:16:39outside of [music] Jerusalem called
1:16:40>> function and luxury. We had the choice
1:16:43to make it fast. We had the choice to
1:16:45make it cheap. We chose neither.
1:16:48Instead, we chose Tuskan Italy. We chose
1:16:51true Italian craftsmanship. Each pair
1:16:53touched [music] by 50 skilled hands. We
1:16:56chose patience, spending two years
1:16:58perfecting every detail. And we chose
1:17:00the [music] finest quality at every
1:17:02step. Introducing the future looks
1:17:05bright collection. Not rushed, not
1:17:08disposable, not ordinary, rather
1:17:12intentional, luxurious, timeless.
1:17:24The beautiful thing about these events,
1:17:29you know how quickly it goes
1:17:32like this.
1:17:35>> Is everybody ready to get started?
1:17:39>> I've helped over 10,000 [music] business
1:17:41owners grow and scale their companies.
1:17:44I'm just passionate about watching
1:17:45entrepreneurs create great business.
1:17:48When you get guys like Jerry Raj,
1:17:51>> that was his work ethic.
1:17:53>> We were able to do some great things on
1:17:54the football field.
1:17:56>> The single most important trait I had
1:17:58was a healthy dose of delusion. And that
1:18:00delusion is sometimes [music] also
1:18:01referred to as self-belief.
1:18:04>> When I can do something that I love,
1:18:07that is good for business, and that I
1:18:09can make content out of, that's my
1:18:11trifecta.
1:18:16It's [screaming]
1:18:17time
1:18:40confirmed. the first two United States
1:18:42deaths associated with that outbreak.
1:18:45The CDC says the illness is caused by
1:18:47cycllospora, a microscopic parasite
1:18:49commonly spread through contaminated
1:18:51fresh produce. Can cause severe stomach
1:18:53cramps, nausea, fatigue, and other
1:18:54debilitating symptoms. If you get sick,
1:18:56the CDC recommends Bactrum. That's why
1:18:59the wellness company created the medical
1:19:00emergency kit with generic Bactrum, plus
1:19:02seven additional prescription
1:19:03medications to help treat more than 25
1:19:06common illnesses and medical
1:19:07emergencies, all prescribed before you
1:19:09need them. Getting your kit is simple.
1:19:11You complete a secure online medical
1:19:13questionnaire. If it's approved by a
1:19:15licensed physician, your kit ships
1:19:16directly to your door. So, don't wait
1:19:18until you're sick to wish that you were
1:19:20prepared. Visit twwc.health/candis
1:19:23and use code candace at checkout to save
1:19:26up to $45 off plus free shipping. That's
1:19:29twwc.alth/candis.
1:19:32Kits are available for United States
1:19:33residents only.
1:25:41Okay, we're back. Fantastic. I think
1:25:43we're back. Uh, by the way, just an FYI
1:25:45for those of you that are watching The
1:25:47Crucible, there's 30,000 concurrent
1:25:50there watching. Support uh Andrew
1:25:52Wilson. That's your your fans of his.
1:25:55Click that subscribe button. and it
1:25:56helps him grow his business. If you're
1:25:58watching, Candace, I think there's 225
1:26:00to 250,000 concurrent right now. We'd
1:26:03like to see that 300 400,000 number on
1:26:05there. Click that button as well to
1:26:07subscribe and share it with your friends
1:26:08and family. And if you're watching it on
1:26:10PBD podcast, do the same there as well.
1:26:12This allows us to have more
1:26:13conversations like this. The mainstream
1:26:15media hates the fact that we're having
1:26:18these conversations right now. Just so
1:26:20you know, they want to control it. This
1:26:22is free-for-all. This is what's best for
1:26:23the audience. That's why we like freedom
1:26:25of speech. Having said that, let's go
1:26:27back into the text conversation you were
1:26:29having, right?
1:26:29>> Let's stay there and then we'll go into
1:26:31the cross- examination stuff in about 30
1:26:32minutes.
1:26:33>> Okay, that sounds fair. Um, okay. So,
1:26:36yeah, my I I use basically three pillars
1:26:39for the totality of the evidence. Okay,
1:26:42so if you want to know exactly what
1:26:44those three pillars are, this is going
1:26:46to be uh the testimony with the text
1:26:48messages and um the confessions. This is
1:26:52going to be the physical evidence. And
1:26:54this is going to be the totality of the
1:26:57summary of the case. Okay. So, uh right
1:26:59now we're we're focusing on one of these
1:27:01pillars in my defense, which is fine. I
1:27:03understand that I have to defend my
1:27:04claims as well. So, when we're talking
1:27:06about the messages themselves, uh they
1:27:09seem totally valid. I have no idea why
1:27:12they wouldn't be valid. And I have not
1:27:14heard any good explanation for why it is
1:27:17that these messages should even be
1:27:19questioned. The defense hasn't
1:27:21questioned them. As far as I'm aware,
1:27:23nobody has actually questioned that
1:27:25these messages came from Robinson to
1:27:27date, except perhaps you and and other
1:27:30other people who are kind of in that
1:27:31camp.
1:27:32>> But why should I question these exactly?
1:27:34I'm not sure.
1:27:35>> Okay. So, first let's just go over
1:27:37legally what the point is of a
1:27:39probitative hearing. The defense is not
1:27:41putting on they're not there to say or
1:27:43to argue or to defend themselves at all.
1:27:45They have to address what is being
1:27:48presented by the state. Okay? So,
1:27:50they're not here to then say, "Let me
1:27:51give you an explanation for these text
1:27:53messages." The relevant portion of what
1:27:55the defense did do was actually before
1:27:58we got to the preliminary hearing, I I
1:28:00had mentioned that it was initially
1:28:01supposed to be scheduled for some time
1:28:02in May. Uh they asked for an extension
1:28:05that that reading through those filings
1:28:07of why they were requesting an extension
1:28:09and why I actually believe their
1:28:11extension should have been granted. Uh
1:28:13because they did not receive discovery
1:28:15on their text messages. That was one of
1:28:17the reasons. There were many reasons why
1:28:18they wanted to have an extension, but
1:28:19this was crucial, right? So, forget just
1:28:22the general sense that these messages
1:28:24feel off and and yes, you are allowed to
1:28:27have an intuition. You are allowed to
1:28:28have a sense and just go, "This is very
1:28:30weird." We're being told this kid had
1:28:32like above a 4.0 Tyler Robinson. He
1:28:34wanted to get away. I mean, the tech
1:28:36text tech messages almost run
1:28:39headtohead with themselves. Like, he
1:28:40wanted to get away with it. So, he
1:28:42thought the best thing to do would be to
1:28:44text a full confession of what he did uh
1:28:47down to what I didn't even remember
1:28:48saying, "Yeah, and that's also me in the
1:28:50surveillance footage." It it felt a
1:28:53little too on the nose. I just people
1:28:54have common sense. You just don't text
1:28:56message. But then we're also supposed to
1:28:57believe that he put a note under because
1:28:59and burn this and get rid of the
1:29:01evidence, but don't worry about that cuz
1:29:02I'm about to text you a full confession.
1:29:03That it felt off. It felt weird off the
1:29:05bat. The manner in which they were
1:29:06texting. We're told he's like a gamer
1:29:08who's using a Dremel uh to carve
1:29:11expressions. Catch fascist, but then
1:29:14suddenly he's writing like a 1700
1:29:17>> novelist player. He did get he did
1:29:19actually get the 500k code correct.
1:29:22>> Yeah, I'm not a gamer. So, we'll say
1:29:24that if we start debating that, you'll
1:29:25be way over my head. But [clears throat]
1:29:26yes,
1:29:27>> but my point being is just that just
1:29:28first just a general sense of why people
1:29:30had a reaction to these messages uh that
1:29:32seemed like they were written by Jane
1:29:34Austin rather than like a kid who games
1:29:36and writes capture intuition
1:29:39>> that is I am I just said that I said
1:29:41just put parking aside the intuition of
1:29:43just something feels wrong here which
1:29:44you should follow your intuition you
1:29:46should actually do that if you say
1:29:48vaccine is running out feels like it's
1:29:50coming out too fast and there's too many
1:29:51celebrities telling me to do it I'd like
1:29:53to take a pause that's good that is you
1:29:55are allowed to do that I believe
1:29:56intuition,
1:29:57>> but hang on. Let me respond a little bit
1:29:59here because you've been going for a
1:30:00minute. Let me at least respond to a
1:30:01little bit of this. So, the first thing
1:30:02is is like with when people bring up the
1:30:04COVID vaccine, not trusting the COVID
1:30:06vaccine in mass was the science. That
1:30:09wasn't just intuition. That was the
1:30:11science. There was tons of competing
1:30:13science. Now, they tried to suppress it.
1:30:15That's true. But there was tons of
1:30:16competing science for why you shouldn't
1:30:17take a risky mRNA vaccine um
1:30:22and things like this. kept telling us
1:30:23was
1:30:24>> when you're talking about intuition
1:30:25though when you say trust your intuition
1:30:26I'm actually giving a different message
1:30:28>> you actually should be very wary about
1:30:30trusting just your intuition it is true
1:30:33that intuition can be useful but you it
1:30:35has to be tempered with logic reason
1:30:37explanatory power and evidence not just
1:30:40intuition
1:30:40>> that's why we're parking it aside
1:30:41intuition is the first step something
1:30:43feels off right
1:30:44>> okay
1:30:44>> that was my first step with co I don't
1:30:46like the way it's being pushed it
1:30:47shouldn't require a celebrity campaign
1:30:49by the way another element of that is
1:30:51why people don't feel good about the
1:30:52Charlie thing Why do we have so many
1:30:53influencers saying things? It's over.
1:30:55Why are you guys all using uh the same
1:30:56adjective? Can you switch it up? I'm
1:30:58overwhelmed. I'm overwhelmed. Like
1:30:59chill. Like you could say, I found some
1:31:02parts compelling. I think this should go
1:31:04I found I found some parts compelling.
1:31:06Maybe we should, you know, see at the
1:31:09trial. That would be kind of
1:31:10>> Don't you think fed slop's a buzz word
1:31:12for the other for the counter industry?
1:31:14>> Everyone on the same day of watching
1:31:16this trial, which was I would say not
1:31:18overwhelming at all. Nobody came in
1:31:21medium, right? No one came in like there
1:31:23were some interesting aspects. This was
1:31:24a little suspect. I I but I do think
1:31:26it's enough to go to trial. They all
1:31:27came in like they were passing away and
1:31:29we're going to die from being
1:31:30overwhelmmed.
1:31:30>> Well, they're trusting their intuition.
1:31:32>> Okay. Well, actually in that scenario,
1:31:34they're they're looking at the
1:31:34preliminary hearing and have a reaction
1:31:36to it. It wasn't their intuition. But
1:31:37like I said, parking aside, just getting
1:31:38to the substance. Parking that aside,
1:31:40parking aside, just a general intuition
1:31:41that some might be sex messages. Then we
1:31:43look at the filings which came from the
1:31:44defense and they were requesting an
1:31:46extension saying we have gone to the
1:31:49prosecution and we have requested all of
1:31:52this stuff in discovery. Yes, you are
1:31:54saying that you took Lance's phone,
1:31:57okay, and that you uh collected his
1:31:59phone on September 11th and that you
1:32:01sent it off or whatever. You took a
1:32:03picture of the text messages and we are
1:32:06being given these text messages to
1:32:07review. Crucially, Kathy Nester said, "I
1:32:10have not even been given access to my
1:32:13client's phone during this hearing." She
1:32:15said, "Have you been accessed my
1:32:16client's phone?" She can't tell you as a
1:32:18part of their discovery request is it's
1:32:20not enough to say to me, "Uh, Candace, I
1:32:22just got a text message from Candace."
1:32:24And I say, "I didn't send that text
1:32:25message." Maybe that's what our client's
1:32:26saying. We don't know cuz we're not at
1:32:27the trial, right? Maybe he didn't send
1:32:29those messages. Could there be someone
1:32:31who logged into his Discord? Could there
1:32:33be someone who logged in to his Apple?
1:32:35George could be sending text messages
1:32:36right now. We are married. He has every
1:32:38login that I have and remember he's up
1:32:41for a death sentence. So if I'm able to
1:32:43seow reasonable doubt with common sense,
1:32:45he may come during the trial and when
1:32:47they actually have to address these
1:32:49points say I did not write those
1:32:51messages. I was here Lance my boyfriend
1:32:54was logged into my phone, logged into my
1:32:56Apple ID and my iCloud sending messages.
1:32:58I know that we have the capability
1:32:59because my husband does it. He has the
1:33:01capability to send messages from my
1:33:02phone. It is not convincing to the
1:33:04public when for whatever reason the FBI
1:33:08would not FBI combined with the SBI, it
1:33:10was not the prosecution's fault. They
1:33:12made that clear during that hearing
1:33:13would not allow them that discovery
1:33:15request to be able to see where did that
1:33:18message come from because you're saying
1:33:20my client was here, right? I want to
1:33:22know if that message actually was
1:33:24generated from his iPhone when he was
1:33:27waiting to retrieve his, you know,
1:33:29rifle, hoping that the pooch doesn't
1:33:31have a bad sniffer. Like just weird
1:33:34messages. I want to make sure that yes,
1:33:36it was actually him. He was holding his
1:33:38phone and his boyfriend didn't just log
1:33:40in to his computer when he was home.
1:33:42Lance was his boyfriend. That is a that
1:33:44is a crucial fact here. That discovery
1:33:46was not met by the time we got to
1:33:47preliminary hearing. So I remain
1:33:50unconvinced by these text messages. Just
1:33:53as you feel convinced by them, I feel
1:33:55unconvinced by them.
1:33:56>> Okay. So then the idea here is the
1:33:59reason that you don't think that these
1:34:01are valid text message and you don't
1:34:03right.
1:34:03>> I I I I it has not been proven that
1:34:05these messages are valid and they don't
1:34:06sound valid to me. I don't think anyone
1:34:08even if someone was selling like a
1:34:12>> I don't know pot on the corner would be
1:34:14smarter than to write a full-fledged
1:34:16confess confession. He even writes, "I
1:34:18thought I would get get away with it and
1:34:20I was hoping never to tell you until old
1:34:23age." And then we're being told that he
1:34:25wanted to commit suicide and Okay. But
1:34:27he just said he wanted to get away with
1:34:28it, but he's not smart enough to um I
1:34:31don't know, maybe not text a like it
1:34:32it's such a confession. Like we've never
1:34:34seen I think this would be like the
1:34:35first time ever somebody has start to
1:34:37finish written an entire here's I'm in
1:34:40the surveillance footage and I'm here
1:34:42and I'm wearing my Converse. You know,
1:34:43I'm being a little facicious here, but
1:34:45it was a little ridiculous. It didn't it
1:34:47didn't pass a sniff test for me.
1:34:48>> You have kids and you love them more
1:34:50than anything. I do.
1:34:51>> If it was the case that you thought that
1:34:54the your kid was innocent, wouldn't you
1:34:56be out telling everybody and their
1:34:57brother that you thought that they were
1:34:58innocent? And also, wouldn't you say
1:35:01wouldn't you maybe recant and say, "Hey,
1:35:03I didn't actually he didn't actually
1:35:06confess to me. He didn't actually none
1:35:08of this happened the way that the uh
1:35:10state is presenting it." What would have
1:35:12prevented the parents from testifying?
1:35:14>> Well, two things. I can answer that. And
1:35:15if you if you watch my show, I keep
1:35:17telling you it's not vibes. So, right
1:35:18after the shooting happened, uh Lance
1:35:21Twigs, you know, the FBI put him into a
1:35:24house, safe house they paid for. They
1:35:26went to the parents as well to Matt
1:35:28Robinson and Amber basically said, "Your
1:35:29life's at risk. There could be somebody
1:35:31who jumps up and wants to avenge Charlie
1:35:33Kirk and, you know, we're going to watch
1:35:35you." And they went into a federal safe
1:35:37house. Uh what happened next is that
1:35:40they started thinking that the feds were
1:35:43maybe going to like maybe not as honest
1:35:45as they thought. Um and
1:35:47>> how do you know all any of that?
1:35:49>> So you got to you got to watch the show,
1:35:50right?
1:35:51>> Yeah. No, how do you know that?
1:35:52>> I I I had a source within the Robinson
1:35:54family.
1:35:54>> You have a source, an anonymous source,
1:35:56of course. So there's no way for us to
1:35:58verify that what you're saying right now
1:35:59is actually even true.
1:36:01>> Do you find it to be reliable hearsay?
1:36:02>> Uh no, I don't find it to be reliable at
1:36:04all. It's just a source. I'm just doing
1:36:06what the process what you're doing is a
1:36:07cool story.
1:36:08>> It's not
1:36:10watches. You must have hated watching.
1:36:12You're giving us a cool story. You're
1:36:14saying that according to your sources
1:36:15that the reason that the parents haven't
1:36:18recanted any of this.
1:36:19>> Recanted what? They have no statement
1:36:20from the parents.
1:36:21>> Wait, I just want to make sure that I if
1:36:23if it was the case that was being
1:36:25reported in mainstream media that your
1:36:27father came to you and said, "Hey, is
1:36:29this you? Is what's going on here?" and
1:36:31then he and one of his uh buddies took
1:36:34you in where you turned yourself in. You
1:36:36wouldn't go out and be like, "No, that's
1:36:38not what happened.
1:36:39>> That isn't what happened, though. You're
1:36:40just wrong on this."
1:36:41>> Okay, maybe I'm paraphrasing. What am I
1:36:42wrong?
1:36:42>> So, what is your Sorry, just so I'm
1:36:44clear. What where is your evidence that
1:36:46the parents turned him in?
1:36:48>> Well, no, no, no. I didn't say that. I
1:36:50said media.
1:36:51>> I said with um a sheriff friend. Yes.
1:36:54>> But the father did confront him.
1:36:56>> The the father confronted what?
1:36:58>> Tyler Robinson.
1:36:59>> And where did you learn this? that the
1:37:01title
1:37:01>> I mean that's part of the official
1:37:02documents. Our fact checkers can pull
1:37:04that up. But yes,
1:37:05>> but I'm saying but when you say official
1:37:06documents, do you mean you saw this on
1:37:07CNN or you saw this play out in the
1:37:09hearing?
1:37:09>> No, this was one of the things that I
1:37:10went through and fact checked
1:37:11pre-debate.
1:37:12>> Are you talking about like the charging
1:37:13documents?
1:37:14>> I think it was in the It could have been
1:37:16in the charging documents, but I did but
1:37:17I do we can pull them up. No. And the
1:37:20And yes. Are you disputing this?
1:37:22>> Do we have that on the back to pull it
1:37:23up? I can I can already tell you what
1:37:25you're talking about the charging
1:37:26documents because this is where we had
1:37:28to figure out where this story came from
1:37:29because everyone was operating under the
1:37:31assumption that Matt Robinson turned him
1:37:32in
1:37:33>> until we got to the preliminary hearing
1:37:35and we understood like I said even for
1:37:37that when you are charging someone you
1:37:39can use hearsay it's all probitative
1:37:41right nothing so they didn't have
1:37:43statements it's not like Matt Robinson
1:37:44even though he was interviewed that
1:37:46night Amber Robinson was interviewed
1:37:48that night by a fed separate rooms uh
1:37:50Tyler Robinson was interviewed by a fed
1:37:52they did not produce statements saying,
1:37:53"My son did this. My son I believe my
1:37:55son did this." Um, but what happened was
1:37:57they did interviews, but also the
1:37:59crucial person here who you just brought
1:38:01up is Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell is
1:38:03the biggest unknown in this entire case.
1:38:05Everyone keeps saying they heard from
1:38:07Mike Mitchell this, they heard from Mike
1:38:08Mitchell that. So, when the person wrote
1:38:11up the report that night, and it was
1:38:12Brian Davis who wrote up the what became
1:38:14the charging document, he uh after they
1:38:17transported uh Tyler Robinson from the
1:38:20Washington Sheriff's County office uh up
1:38:23to I think it's Salt Lake City at I
1:38:25think it was 4:00 a.m. in the morning
1:38:26that they got up there. He then writes
1:38:28the uh charging what becomes a charging
1:38:30document. So, he's basically saying, "We
1:38:33all spoke to a bunch of people and
1:38:34here's the information that we got."
1:38:36Right? We've not seen that. So it could
1:38:39have come from Mike Mitchell. Mike
1:38:40Mitchell could be saying
1:38:40>> I don't know how this negates the point
1:38:42though. Truly negates the point because
1:38:44you don't have a statement from the
1:38:45parents. You are you are going
1:38:46>> Why wouldn't they just correct the the
1:38:49correct information? It doesn't negate
1:38:50the point. The point is is that we now
1:38:52have got the preliminary hearing. If the
1:38:55parents were the ones who said I'm
1:38:56turning my son in because he's guilty.
1:38:58>> They didn't say they turned him in.
1:38:59>> Yeah. This I think you're talking about
1:39:01the over. You said it's been the
1:39:02narrative. Everybody's known this. The
1:39:03narrative initially, which I think you
1:39:04agree with, was that, you know, Matt
1:39:06Robinson knew his kid was guilty and
1:39:08turned him into the police station. What
1:39:10actually happened in terms of Sheriff
1:39:11Brooksby, who was present there, and
1:39:13gave a press conference. What happened
1:39:14was this Mike Mitchell character uh
1:39:16essentially peer pressured him. And we
1:39:18can get a fact check on this. We can
1:39:19find Sheriff Brooksy's uh press
1:39:20conference. And he said, you know, they
1:39:24they know it's you and you're going to
1:39:26come in uh peaceibly or people are going
1:39:28to be banging down your door. He was a
1:39:31undercover cop, which I don't like that.
1:39:33I don't know what he did undercover.
1:39:34It's very hard to find anything about
1:39:35Mitchell, but he worked with them for 20
1:39:38plus years, the police officers. Uh the
1:39:40reason why Tyler Robinson knew him was
1:39:41because he lived nearby and he was also
1:39:43his boy scout.
1:39:44>> How does this negate that the parents
1:39:45could write this second? And by the way,
1:39:47if you if you had
1:39:48>> address that point, I'm just saying that
1:39:49your your first point, which is that the
1:39:51parents did this.
1:39:52>> We don't know that the parents
1:39:53>> I never I didn't say that they did ever.
1:39:55Never ever. You're you're quoting the
1:39:56parents as having said you said that
1:39:58Matt Robinson said that his kid was you
1:40:00say involved just I don't want to
1:40:01misquote you
1:40:02>> confronted him about it
1:40:03>> confronted him.
1:40:03>> Yes.
1:40:04>> And I'm telling you that we have not
1:40:05seen any evidence that that is true.
1:40:06>> We can fact check that because we do
1:40:08have evidence of
1:40:09>> and I'm saying it's the charging dock
1:40:10which could have been derived from a
1:40:11statement Mike Mitchell said.
1:40:12>> Two thing I have ready in the back. One
1:40:13is the charging dock and the other one
1:40:15is a video of Kathy Nester saying she
1:40:17hasn't seen Tyler's phone.
1:40:19>> Okay, we can run Kathy to go back
1:40:21towards Yeah. Kathy first in court
1:40:23saying she didn't get her client's
1:40:24phone. Yeah. And then I think we'll go
1:40:26to the if you're okay with that
1:40:28>> thing not in dispute. [laughter]
1:40:30>> These are all things that that I'm not
1:40:31even disputing. We never get to the
1:40:34thing that I am disputing.
1:40:35>> Well, you were I was just providing an
1:40:37answer. We were coming back in from a
1:40:38break because you were talking about the
1:40:40text messages as something that you felt
1:40:41was concrete. So, it was just my
1:40:42rebuttal to you that it's not concrete
1:40:44because they haven't had a chance to
1:40:45actually answer that and she didn't even
1:40:47get to see your client's phone. So
1:40:48that's effectively again the state
1:40:50saying these messages are real. You
1:40:52don't get the discovery on these
1:40:53messages just yet. She will during
1:40:55trial. They will actually get that would
1:40:57make their case fall apart if it was the
1:40:59case that they weren't able to actually
1:41:00pull the data off the text messages. Do
1:41:02you think the prosecution would go to
1:41:04court with fabricated text messages?
1:41:06>> It's called it's called winners and
1:41:07losers. They may not be fabricated. But
1:41:09by the way, as as as what they are
1:41:10saying, like I said, if there was
1:41:12somebody logged into his phone, they may
1:41:14not be fabricated. That's the point. So
1:41:16let's get to the point. the parents fact
1:41:18check that that
1:41:19>> so I was saying I I believe what you're
1:41:21talking about was derived from the
1:41:22charging dock which was signed off by
1:41:23Brian Davis. Uh if let's see if that's
1:41:25correct.
1:41:31>> What are we looking at here?
1:41:32>> Robinson's mother explained uh that over
1:41:35the last year or so I'm sorry.
1:41:37>> Can you zoom in a little see it?
1:41:40Robinson's father reported that when his
1:41:42wife showed him the surveillance image
1:41:44of the suspected shooter in the news, he
1:41:46agreed that it looked like their son. He
1:41:48also believed that the rifle that police
1:41:50suspected the shooter used matched the
1:41:52rifle that was given to his son as a
1:41:53gift. As a result, Robinson's father
1:41:56contacted his son and asked him to send
1:41:58a photo of the rifle, which makes sense
1:41:59with the text messages.
1:42:01>> Robinson did not respond, however.
1:42:03Robinson's father spoke on the phone
1:42:04with Robinson. Robinson implied he
1:42:06planned to take his own life. Robinson's
1:42:08parents were able to convince him to
1:42:10meet at their home.
1:42:11>> Yes. So, this is proving my point. Is
1:42:12this This is from the charging document,
1:42:14correct? Yeah. So, what I'm saying to
1:42:15you is that three people got interviewed
1:42:17on that night. Mike Mitchell got
1:42:19interviewed, Amber Robinson got
1:42:21interviewed, and Matt Robinson got
1:42:22interviewed. Of the three of them, only
1:42:24one of them actually wrote a statement,
1:42:27which was referred to in this
1:42:29preliminary trial. He came in, I
1:42:30believe, in March, Mike Mitchell, and he
1:42:33wrote a statement, which I find to be
1:42:34very shady that they decided to bring.
1:42:35>> But why aren't the parents disputing
1:42:36that? Well, first off, that's the
1:42:39question.
1:42:39>> First off, the parents are not going to
1:42:41ever play in court, play to the cameras
1:42:44in court when they have a legal team
1:42:46that is going to be advising them not to
1:42:48speak to the court because you could
1:42:49your son could go to prison for
1:42:50>> they're playing to somebody else who's
1:42:51your source.
1:42:51>> I I'm I I I'm not going to address that.
1:42:54>> They're playing to someone else who's
1:42:55your source, but won't go publicly tell
1:42:57the media this is not true. Well, what I
1:42:59I I did not say to you that I just said
1:43:01I have a source. So, I want to be very
1:43:03clear and take it from somebody who is
1:43:05involved and permanently sued. Uh when I
1:43:08have to take my lawyer's advice, I mean,
1:43:10there's so many things that I want to
1:43:11respond to when people are speaking
1:43:12about.
1:43:13>> Yeah. But it's bizarre that they would
1:43:14utilize a source which would get the
1:43:16information to you, but wouldn't just go
1:43:17to the media and be like, "Actually,
1:43:18that's all wrong." I
1:43:19>> I I am telling you that you would ner
1:43:22find a lawyer who would advise you to go
1:43:24to the media and these this mother,
1:43:27especially when your son is thought that
1:43:28my kid was up for death.
1:43:30>> If I thought that my kid was in any way,
1:43:32shape, or form going to be up, you
1:43:34couldn't shut me up. Or my wife, she
1:43:36would be like, "That's not true. That's
1:43:38ridiculous. There's no possible that
1:43:40never happened. These people are lying
1:43:41through their teeth. They I They'd be
1:43:43public whether you like it or not."
1:43:45>> Yeah. I that I'm That's for you and your
1:43:47wife. But when a judge issues a gag
1:43:49order in a case and your son is up for
1:43:51death and your lawyers could be advising
1:43:54you that if you say anything you could
1:43:55blow the case, you would have a more
1:43:57responsible consideration.
1:43:58>> I see.
1:43:58>> And and and we're and we're speaking
1:44:00opinion here. You're like, "Well, I
1:44:01wouldn't care. I'd violate it and I'd
1:44:02violate the judge's orders and see what
1:44:04happens."
1:44:04>> If you have a source, it seems like
1:44:06they're violating it with them.
1:44:07>> I didn't I I'm not speaking to a source,
1:44:10but I am saying to you is speaking just
1:44:12relevant to what this is. We have not
1:44:14seen any proof
1:44:16>> that that statement that is included in
1:44:18this charging document. I think it is
1:44:20highly likely on the basis of the
1:44:21preliminary hearing that that all came
1:44:23from Mike Mitchell and Mike Mitchell
1:44:25would be a part he said
1:44:26>> based on the statements of
1:44:29>> it's him saying [clears throat] the
1:44:31parents told me this the parents could
1:44:32dispute that that's going to come down
1:44:33the line right they're going to be able
1:44:34to seat the parents I I will say this
1:44:37putting together context clues if the
1:44:39state had it on you know 100% certainty
1:44:43that Matt Robinson and Amber Robinson
1:44:45said it a fiveday preliminary hearing
1:44:48would be a good time to say we have
1:44:49enough evidence and I can tell you why
1:44:51Matt Robinson uh made this statement and
1:44:54here is his statement that he signed.
1:44:55That would have been a good time to
1:44:56present that evidence.
1:44:56>> That would also be a good time for the
1:44:58defense to say that's just totally
1:44:59>> fabricated. That's the wrong time.
1:45:00>> Why couldn't they?
1:45:01>> That is completely the wrong time
1:45:02because what they're doing is they they
1:45:04already said they didn't receive
1:45:05discovery. They literally can't. They
1:45:07literally can't cuz they can't. They did
1:45:08not receive [clears throat]
1:45:09that information.
1:45:10>> No, no, they just received the text
1:45:12messages. But in order to
1:45:13>> That's not the text messages.
1:45:15>> Uh the probative information.
1:45:17>> Yeah. We're talking about the
1:45:18information that we just reviewed.
1:45:19That's not the text message.
1:45:20>> They never presented it. The state never
1:45:22never put it on.
1:45:23>> Yeah. They didn't. The defense could
1:45:24easily still still have presented this.
1:45:27Yeah.
1:45:27>> No,
1:45:28>> they could have said they're No, no,
1:45:30they're not allowed to. Are you sure?
1:45:31>> No. In a preliminary hearing, the def
1:45:33the defense is engaging with whatever
1:45:35evidence the state decides to put on.
1:45:37They did not put this on as evidence.
1:45:39Brian Davis was up there. Uh,
1:45:41>> so they're not allowed to present
1:45:42anything.
1:45:43>> They're responding to the state's
1:45:45>> asking, are they allowed to present
1:45:46anything? They are allowed to say
1:45:47>> like if there was a conspiracy that they
1:45:49could prove right then and there, would
1:45:50they present that in one of these
1:45:51hearings?
1:45:52>> No. It wouldn't be the right time for
1:45:53that.
1:45:53>> I disagree. I think that I think that
1:45:55they not only could do it, but they
1:45:57would do it. In fact, when I talked in
1:45:59depth with my attorney, they said that's
1:46:01exactly if you had actual evidence that
1:46:03there was fabrications by the feds,
1:46:05>> that's exactly when you would introduce
1:46:07that. So when in the document that they
1:46:09filed yesterday or a couple of days ago,
1:46:12>> the appropriate like what you're doing
1:46:14at this stage of the hearing is the
1:46:16state is saying we have enough evidence
1:46:19that we think this needs to go forth
1:46:20with the trial. Hence the reason that
1:46:21there's this extraordinary we allow
1:46:23hearsay because it doesn't really need
1:46:25to be perfect. It can be enough that we
1:46:26feel like we can move forward, right? Um
1:46:28and okay, I disagree with that in
1:46:30general when somebody's rotting in
1:46:31prison, but whatever. Uh the next phase
1:46:34is for them to meet in court and for the
1:46:38defense to essentially present an
1:46:40argument to the state that says we find
1:46:43this filing to be defective in and of
1:46:45itself. We don't even have to defend
1:46:46ourselves because you the state have
1:46:48enough uh you know what the laws are on
1:46:50the books and this filing is defective
1:46:52and you should get rid of these charges
1:46:54because they don't make sense based on
1:46:55what you can decide based on a law on
1:46:57the books. So then that's why they then
1:46:59file the dismissal. Right? So in the
1:47:01dismissal, what they're doing is they
1:47:03are engaging, and this is what was
1:47:04widely misinterpreted.
1:47:05>> Well, yeah, they they're engaging as
1:47:07though as as it's a hypothetical. If
1:47:09this is hypothetically true, then
1:47:10>> So you're saying all of these I'm not
1:47:12disputing any of that. So that's what I
1:47:14am. You're saying
1:47:15>> No, what I'm asking specifically is
1:47:16like, who could shut a shut parents up
1:47:19who are like, "No way. There's no
1:47:21possible. This never happened. This is
1:47:23ridiculous." They would be shouting it
1:47:25on CNN. They would be shouting it from
1:47:27the rooftops. They would be losing their
1:47:28minds. And you're like, "Nope. the gag
1:47:30order would be enough to to keep him
1:47:31quiet. Not enough for them to talk to
1:47:33your source, but enough to keep him
1:47:34quiet. I think that that's quite
1:47:35ridiculous. But I'll even concede this
1:47:38whole point to you. Let's just say maybe
1:47:40this was misconstrued, right? There's um
1:47:43there's a little bit of reason to doubt
1:47:45it because we're still waiting for the
1:47:46evidence for trial. If that's the case,
1:47:48then why not take the same standard for
1:47:50the evidence that you present? You're
1:47:51just waiting for trial.
1:47:52>> Well, you didn't do that.
1:47:54>> Wait a second. [laughter]
1:47:56>> I just I just want to make sure that I
1:47:57got this right. That's your argument to
1:47:59me, right?
1:48:00>> My argument to you is what?
1:48:01>> My argument your argument to me is
1:48:03[clears throat] that hey, wait a second,
1:48:05Andrew, there's not enough here that
1:48:07convinces me. Right.
1:48:09>> Well, that's actually my rebuttal to you
1:48:11is that you are saying, why are people
1:48:13engaging in what you term to be
1:48:15conspiracy theories? I I I term it to be
1:48:18thinking. They're just thinking because
1:48:20they're recognizing there are a lot of
1:48:21holes in these stories and that this is
1:48:23not strong evidence. Right?
1:48:25>> This is the reason they're doing it. I'm
1:48:26I'm explaining to you this is the reason
1:48:28that they're doing it. I'm I'm
1:48:29addressing what you view to be
1:48:31overwhelming evidence. And and by the
1:48:33way, I want to be clear
1:48:34>> that which convinces me.
1:48:36>> What? Yeah. Well, but thus far every
1:48:41point that you've brought up, would you
1:48:42did you feel like this is beyond a
1:48:44reasonable doubt? I mean, you're you
1:48:45realize what I said in my op going to be
1:48:48>> it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's
1:48:50just what I find convincing is what I
1:48:52find overwhelming. So, why are you so
1:48:54upset when people say they don't find
1:48:55it?
1:48:56>> If that was the limitation of the claims
1:48:58that you made, if it was just, wait a
1:49:00second, there's a little bit of
1:49:02problems. There's some problems in this
1:49:03case that I have questions for that I
1:49:05want answers to. Nobody would have a
1:49:06problem. Actually, least of all me. I
1:49:09would be the least likely person to have
1:49:11an issue with you, any of your fans,
1:49:13anybody saying. In fact, I've had tons
1:49:15of Discord calls about this. My
1:49:18position's always been clear. Of course,
1:49:20conspiracies exist. Some of them have
1:49:22way better evidence than others, but
1:49:24I've seen them myself. I know
1:49:26conspiracy. In fact, the federal
1:49:27government has hundreds of thousands of
1:49:29laws about conspiracies. They see them
1:49:31everywhere. We both know this, right?
1:49:34That's never the what the problem is.
1:49:36The problem is when you make claims
1:49:38outside of, well, wait a second. I'm
1:49:42just questioning evidence here. I'm just
1:49:44questioning what the state's case is
1:49:45here. I'm just asking questions. It's
1:49:47when you make claims outside of that
1:49:49where you claim that there's good
1:49:50evidence or good standards you should
1:49:53believe because and then it turns out
1:49:55that it's all nonsense or it's whackadoo
1:49:58stuff or it it makes no sense. And when
1:50:00we have a chance to cross-examine your
1:50:02evidence that you've presented, I'm
1:50:03going to show a lot of that. A lot of
1:50:05this conjecture that's based on
1:50:07literally nothing that leads from no
1:50:10inferences whatsoever. Like you couldn't
1:50:13even infer it logically. That's the
1:50:15problem. The problem has never been
1:50:17whether or not you just said, you know,
1:50:19there's not enough in this case so far
1:50:21until we get to the trial. I remain
1:50:23unconvinced. I'm sure there's tons of
1:50:25people who remain unconvinced yet until
1:50:27we get to the trial. I think that's
1:50:28fine. I think it's fine. There's people
1:50:30who are convinced, too. That's never
1:50:32been my problem. My problem is the
1:50:34claims which are external to that.
1:50:36>> Okay. Um
1:50:39I not sure I really care if you have a
1:50:41problem with what I think in my own
1:50:43spare time. I don't I don't understand
1:50:45this like lecture that you just gave. Um
1:50:46but beyond that, what I am saying is
1:50:48that the state is allowed to use this is
1:50:50what my this is what my problem is. You
1:50:52guys are not Yeah, you guys think while
1:50:54it's still illegal. You actually you can
1:50:55you are allowed to do that. So um but
1:50:58anyway, going back going back to you
1:50:59saying I wouldn't have a problem.
1:51:01>> I think I just demonstrated pretty
1:51:03thoroughly that what you claim that you
1:51:06have a problem with is exactly what the
1:51:07state is engaged in at this stage. So it
1:51:09doesn't make it just doesn't make sense.
1:51:11>> That's not the case. In fact, People
1:51:13look and they say, "I'm looking at the
1:51:15gun and I see and I'm inferring this."
1:51:17And someone else says, "I'm looking at
1:51:18the gun evidence and I'm inferring
1:51:20that." They're both doing the exact same
1:51:22thing. You're just saying, "I want to do
1:51:24it for the state."
1:51:24>> That's propositionally false.
1:51:26Explain exactly how
1:51:28>> it is the case that every proposition is
1:51:31going to have a true or false
1:51:33conclusion. Period. That's just logic,
1:51:35right? It's the law of excluded middle.
1:51:37All propositions are going to be true or
1:51:40they're going to be false. When we get
1:51:42into when we're making inferences, we're
1:51:44making inferences based on on
1:51:45propositions. We can make we can
1:51:47actually come to true conclusions with
1:51:49false uh premises inside of a
1:51:52proposition. In fact, what we're talking
1:51:53about here is not whether or not you
1:51:56feel that you're convinced by this
1:51:57evidence,
1:51:58>> but you felt like you were convinced,
1:51:59>> right? Sure. But here's the thing. When
1:52:01you ask me my reason, Andrew, why are
1:52:03you convinced by this? I can give you my
1:52:04reasons why I'm convinced by it. Why it
1:52:06seems reasonable and rational to me to
1:52:08be convinced. You could even say, "But
1:52:10Andrew, I'm just not convinced by it."
1:52:13If that was the limitation of your
1:52:14claims, we wouldn't even be having this
1:52:16conversation. That's why I wanted to
1:52:18have the conversation, in fact, was so
1:52:20that we could move into your actual
1:52:23claims that you've made, which transcend
1:52:25the idea of I'm just asking questions.
1:52:28>> Before we get into that, your team has
1:52:30one thing they want to show before you
1:52:31go into that. So, if you want to pull
1:52:33that up, this is the prosecution filing
1:52:35showing defense had full discovery by
1:52:38April 1st.
1:52:40>> They did not. That's not true.
1:52:41>> Wait a second.
1:52:42>> Yeah.
1:52:42>> To date, the state's prosecutors have
1:52:45disclosed all evidence that is presently
1:52:47and reasonably available to them as
1:52:49required under rule 16 Utah are criminal
1:52:52to be more precise as of April 1st.
1:52:54>> Yeah, that was that was not that was not
1:52:56100%. That's why that they're caging
1:52:58that by saying what's reasonable. There
1:53:00was I mean there was an entire and we
1:53:01can pull this up like we should now play
1:53:03the Kathy Nester clip because that
1:53:04that's from there. So and they were
1:53:06basically saying you don't need it at
1:53:07this stage meaning it's reason it's not
1:53:10reasonable that you're asking for this
1:53:11when we're going into a hearing that's
1:53:13just going to be based on hearsay and
1:53:15stuff things of that nature but of
1:53:16course by the time a trial comes you're
1:53:17going to get all the discovery cause yes
1:53:20so that's what they're saying there.
1:53:21>> Yeah I understand. Okay. So, that's
1:53:22>> and I'm even and I'm even fine with it.
1:53:24>> We all we all know. And then, by the
1:53:25way, just now that the hearing is over,
1:53:27and you can also fact check this, they
1:53:29now at the at the end of the preliminary
1:53:31hearing dropped like
1:53:33>> an insane amount of the discovery stuff
1:53:35they gave to them like the week after.
1:53:36You guys can give me the exact amount. I
1:53:38don't want to say cuz I don't know my uh
1:53:40um I don't remember how much it was. It
1:53:42was an absurd amount of stuff that they
1:53:43gave to them right after the preliminary
1:53:44hearing that they had been asking for.
1:53:45Because that was one of the things that
1:53:46I kept saying on my show is as we were
1:53:48watching that preliminary of the
1:53:50preliminary, why not just give them the
1:53:52stuff now so they can engage in these
1:53:53arguments is I feel like you. It's like
1:53:54I want to hear what they have to say
1:53:55about the text messages. I want why
1:53:56can't you just give them what they're
1:53:58asking for so that they can actually
1:54:00engage you? And uh it didn't happen. So,
1:54:02but the judge ruled that it wasn't
1:54:05necessary at this stage and that was the
1:54:07whole point of that uh
1:54:08>> because the preliminary. Yeah.
1:54:10>> Yeah. Would you like to play the Kathy
1:54:12video? Uh well he's saying he's not
1:54:13disagreeing so I don't think we need to
1:54:15>> Yeah. There's no disagreement that that
1:54:17she said that.
1:54:18>> So the Yeah. So I guess the
1:54:21disagreements now would move into the
1:54:22evidences that you have stated on the
1:54:25record which transcend elements of
1:54:28reason.
1:54:29>> Why are we having
1:54:31transcendental conversation now? Because
1:54:34I mean your your entire thing was about
1:54:38looking at the evidence which never made
1:54:40sense to me again because all of the
1:54:41evidence that you felt to be
1:54:42overwhelming was hearsay. That was
1:54:44bizarre to me.
1:54:44>> You told me that I could take as much
1:54:46time as I wanted to question your but
1:54:47I'm just asking you just to lay the
1:54:49groundwork of what you're saying is
1:54:52that it trips into something else. And I
1:54:54do still want to hold you for going
1:54:55through because we've discussed the gun.
1:54:57We've discussed your uh
1:54:58>> and you can hold me to those things but
1:54:59I would like to get into the things we
1:55:01should discuss the screwdriver as well.
1:55:02So, and I'll explain exactly what the
1:55:03groundwork is. When you make claims
1:55:05which pass the idea of I'm just asking
1:55:08questions because the state's evidence
1:55:09is not convincing. I think you have to
1:55:11answer for those claims because they are
1:55:12in regards to this case. You're saying I
1:55:15have a claim. It is in regards to the
1:55:17assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is
1:55:18what we're talking about, not just the
1:55:20case of Charlie Kirk, his assassination.
1:55:23You should have to answer for the claims
1:55:24that you've made in regards to the
1:55:26assassination itself. You should. Yeah.
1:55:29Agreed. So, if that's the case, then I
1:55:32would I would like to finally dive into
1:55:34some of that evidence and dive into it.
1:55:36>> Well, just to be clear, and I'm happy to
1:55:38to have you talk about, like I said
1:55:40publicly, you want to engage in some
1:55:42conspiracies, but I said I want to make
1:55:43sure that we get to the substance of our
1:55:44debate. The substance of our debate is
1:55:46the major is me demonstrating that all
1:55:49of the quote unquote evidence that you
1:55:51feel that you have, which demonstrates
1:55:53that Tyler Robinson, I mean, that Tyler
1:55:55Robinson shot Charlie Kirk,
1:55:56>> you don't find convincing. It's well,
1:55:58it's been invalidated by the by the
1:56:00testimony that we saw. And in your
1:56:01answer for when I explain to you that he
1:56:03had the most degraded prince was, I
1:56:05don't know. Okay. Well, there then there
1:56:07lies my ability to process that.
1:56:10>> It's just fine for you to not be
1:56:13convinced. up to this point, all of your
1:56:16viewers, everybody watching, nobody's
1:56:19giving, you're conceding,
1:56:20>> nobody's giving a dispute that if all
1:56:22your claims ever were just up to now,
1:56:25the evidence that the state's given, I'm
1:56:27just kind of not convinced. That is not
1:56:29what's been happening. What's actually
1:56:31been happening is that you've made tons
1:56:33of claims uh in regards to this case and
1:56:37in regards to the Kirk assassination
1:56:39which are far above and beyond I just
1:56:41doubt the state's theory.
1:56:44>> Okay. Yeah. I mean, sure. I do doubt the
1:56:47state's theory. I also am welcome to
1:56:50>> say what I think. Now, if you want to
1:56:52move into opinions, if you want to talk
1:56:53about Erica Kirk, if you want to talk
1:56:55about Turning Point USA,
1:56:56>> like to talk about all that
1:56:57>> and get into it, I'm totally happy to do
1:56:59that. But I just want to say that like I
1:57:01do not feel cuz I've said what's
1:57:02important to me is that we exhaust this
1:57:04topic
1:57:05>> first of our actual debate claims. I do
1:57:08not feel that you sufficiently have
1:57:10argued that the evidence is
1:57:12overwhelming.
1:57:13>> Question for you.
1:57:14>> But I am sorry you feel that way.
1:57:16>> Candace, one question. What what
1:57:17evidence do you need to see for you you
1:57:19to say Tyler Robinson killed Charlie
1:57:22Kirk?
1:57:22>> That's a great question. Um, so I
1:57:24actually expected in this preliminary
1:57:26hearing actually the almost the in
1:57:29inverse of what he was saying is true,
1:57:30right? So the this is now the time the
1:57:33state is putting on their evidence.
1:57:34That's the purpose of this hearing,
1:57:35right? The state is using hearsay, but
1:57:37they're also putting on their evidence.
1:57:38So I was just expecting some sort of a
1:57:40slam dunk. Like we got them on camera
1:57:41taking the shot. At least we have them
1:57:43clear on camera. You're telling me this
1:57:45guy drove 13 hours all around. Like we
1:57:47can definitely show you a picture that
1:57:49it's going to be beyond a reasonable
1:57:50doubt before we even get to the trial.
1:57:52people are going to see and go, "Oh
1:57:53crap, like it was really Tyler
1:57:54Robinson." Um, I was expecting to at
1:57:56least see evidence that because I had
1:57:59reported early on that uh the source was
1:58:02saying that Tyler did not step foot on
1:58:05campus that day. It is my perspective
1:58:07that he had something to do with
1:58:08something. I I do believe he was putting
1:58:09like disposing clothes at at this stage
1:58:12at this phase. I do believe he was
1:58:13disposing clothes. He was involved
1:58:14somehow. Um I I find Lance to be more uh
1:58:18suspicious if I'm being honest with you.
1:58:20Uh, and also like I said, the use
1:58:23immunity that was given to Lance by the
1:58:25feds. The fact that the feds didn't ask
1:58:26him any questions. The fact that I spoke
1:58:28with Lance Twigs's family, and they were
1:58:30like, "It's very weird that the feds are
1:58:32not asking him more questions. He's
1:58:34exactly the person um that I would
1:58:36imagine to be involved in some stuff
1:58:38allegedly. I'll say allegedly." Uh, but
1:58:41uh when we got to the preliminary
1:58:43hearing, there was no there was not a
1:58:44single piece of evidence that I felt was
1:58:46slam dunk. I was waiting for that. a
1:58:47photo. I mean, anything would have made
1:58:49me go, "All right, I think this this
1:58:51could be the guy." Uh, if they had
1:58:53handed over the discovery on the text
1:58:55messages since that was their big,
1:58:56"Tada, we've got the text messages."
1:58:58That would be the first thing that I
1:58:59would hand over. But actually, who was
1:59:00holding them up? Like I said, it wasn't
1:59:02the prosecution. They're right to say we
1:59:04we were handing things over and we heard
1:59:07the defense argue on behalf of the
1:59:08prosecution saying, "It's not them and
1:59:10it's not the FBI, it's the FBI that's
1:59:13holding on to things. It's the FBI took
1:59:14everything. The FBI took the gun. The
1:59:16FBI took initially the screwdriver and
1:59:19then when I heard testimony about the
1:59:20things that they didn't that they found
1:59:22that were suspicious. Um example being
1:59:24the backpack. That's something that
1:59:26really bothers me. Uh that they say they
1:59:28traced the shooter. They traced the
1:59:30route that he went on and then there was
1:59:31an abandon. We know like it looks like
1:59:33he's wearing some sort of a backpack. We
1:59:35know that there was an abandoned
1:59:37backpack found at the bus stop in front
1:59:39of a library and they felt that this
1:59:42should be taken into evidence. They took
1:59:43it. uh the FBI. Uh this was the
1:59:46testimony of Amanda Baker, I believe her
1:59:48last name is, but you might want to fact
1:59:50check that because I think I'm blending
1:59:51last names. Uh she so she was the
1:59:53forensics for the FBI. And then she says
1:59:56she gets a call on the 13th and they
2:00:00stop testing on this backpack because
2:00:02they find that the backpack actually
2:00:04belongs to somebody on Charlie's team.
2:00:06But if you know the map of the layout of
2:00:08the campus, you're going, "Well, what
2:00:10the hell are they doing all the way up?
2:00:11This is nowhere near anywhere." And by
2:00:13the way, that's not an acceptable answer
2:00:15for why you just gave it back. That's
2:00:17not that's like why would you give it
2:00:18back? You're acting like no one's ever
2:00:19been killed by somebody on their team
2:00:20before, right? So I found that to be
2:00:22very strange that it was on the exact
2:00:24route that the that the alleged gunman
2:00:27ran and that their excuse was we just
2:00:29gave it back because we heard that this
2:00:30was some this belonged to somebody on
2:00:32Charlie's team. So that to me is you
2:00:35this is why the the investigation itself
2:00:38feels underwhelming when you learn and
2:00:41this is completely crazy to me that the
2:00:44some of the artifacts that Charlie was
2:00:46wearing were immediately returned to
2:00:48Erica. That's absurd. That is absurd.
2:00:51Everything should be in evidence. When
2:00:53you learn that the car that they carried
2:00:55Charlie in to go to the hospital, they
2:00:58had immediately towed, cleaned, and back
2:01:00up for resale. That's absurd. That
2:01:03should be sitting in evidence. And any
2:01:04police officer that you speak to will
2:01:05say or person that's been involved in a
2:01:07crime will say, "I didn't get my stuff
2:01:08back for years. Had nothing to do with
2:01:10anything. It was just around." And I and
2:01:12they kept it into evidence until the
2:01:14trial was over and it has to be
2:01:15approved. I think somebody said by the
2:01:17attorney general has to sign off on
2:01:19giving you those objects back. And we
2:01:20were told this is all fine. And we see
2:01:23and this is just one example. Erica
2:01:25holding the uh crucifix. Uh that's that
2:01:29should be an evidence irrespective of if
2:01:32you feel bad for her and think she
2:01:33should have, you know, have it and it's
2:01:35sweet, that should be an evidence. Uh
2:01:37immediately paving over the crime scene.
2:01:40Is this is like the craziest thing ever?
2:01:41You're it's this like defies common
2:01:43sense. You immediately and when you
2:01:44heard the guy who did it actually go up
2:01:47on a podcast and explain. I got the
2:01:49call. They said it was a paver
2:01:50emergency. I don't I've never in my
2:01:53entire career heard of a paver
2:01:54emergency. They had already had someone
2:01:56come up and dig up the dirt. So by the
2:01:58time he got there on Sunday, the dirt
2:02:01had already been dug up for him to lay
2:02:03down pavers. That is what people are
2:02:05looking at and going, "This is weird.
2:02:08There needs to be answers for why this
2:02:09was done. And he tells us the call came
2:02:11from the feds and the governor's office.
2:02:13UVUs wa washed their hands of it. And
2:02:16what he's saying sounds true because we
2:02:17heard during the testimony uh one person
2:02:20described the regions of who was in
2:02:22control of everything, the feds were in
2:02:23control of the courtyard. So in order
2:02:25for anybody to have paved anything, that
2:02:26was federal territory, so to speak. I'm
2:02:29maybe not using that the best cop term,
2:02:30but the feds were in control of the
2:02:31courtyard. So these are things that I
2:02:35think should be answered for. Why? Why
2:02:38are we doing things differently than you
2:02:39would in any other criminal scenario of
2:02:43keeping the evidence until we know more,
2:02:45until we're confident? Uh, you know, the
2:02:47various decoys. I did it. I did it. It
2:02:49just doesn't look right.
2:02:52>> Okay. So, go back to the question. So,
2:02:54what would you need to see for you to
2:02:55say
2:02:56>> something if they had I was expecting
2:02:57here we have him. He took the shot. Here
2:02:59it is. And then I'd be like, great. A
2:03:00clear image of him on the staircase. I'm
2:03:02like, that's definitively Tyler
2:03:03Robinson. He was on campus. We got
2:03:04nothing. We got literally nothing. But
2:03:07hearsay of people saying,
2:03:09>> but you're basically getting no case.
2:03:11>> What?
2:03:11>> You know, basically no case on planet
2:03:13Earth. Do you get the Sure. Oh, we got a
2:03:14picture. Here's him with the murder
2:03:16weapon. Here's him taking the shot.
2:03:17>> Most most of this doesn't take place on
2:03:18a college campus that has surveillance
2:03:20everywhere.
2:03:21>> Yeah.
2:03:21>> One clear image of his.
2:03:22>> But I don't understand when when you're
2:03:24asked.
2:03:24>> If you're asked the question, what would
2:03:26it take to convince? It'd be the same
2:03:28question be asked to me. Andrew, what
2:03:30would it take to convince you that the
2:03:33oppositional is true, right? that he's a
2:03:35psy
2:03:37>> just good clear concise evidence that's
2:03:39been presented right and is being
2:03:41presented that I could go through and
2:03:43link all together to see if there's
2:03:45actually some clear picture of there
2:03:48being a pathy that's what it would take
2:03:49for me okay just I don't disagree with
2:03:51that we haven't heard the defense just a
2:03:53good evidentary standard and then of
2:03:55course I would change my mind
2:03:57>> so so just to qualify this so there is a
2:04:00possibility in the next few months that
2:04:02you may come out and say guys it's done
2:04:04title killed So you're saying yesterday
2:04:06I think it's very important for the
2:04:07audience hear that from you. Is there
2:04:09anything that you could see for you to
2:04:10say yeah this guy was a pass I'm going
2:04:13to always follow evidence. So my my
2:04:16whole thing is just this. It's it's
2:04:18really important to me. I don't mind
2:04:20people being truth seekers and justice
2:04:23searchers and the internet has helped
2:04:25solve tons of crimes. There's no ifands
2:04:27or buts about that. Right. However,
2:04:30there's also people who, you know, they
2:04:33they not only don't solve crimes, but
2:04:34they just come up with conjecture and
2:04:36they what's called flooding the zone.
2:04:38You flood the zone with tons and tons of
2:04:40conspiracy based ideas and they go
2:04:42nowhere, right? And in fact, they
2:04:44actually take away from uh legitimate
2:04:47investigation. Now, I'm not even saying
2:04:49anybody here is purposely flooding the
2:04:51zone. That's not even the claim. All I'm
2:04:53saying is is that the claims made absent
2:04:57absent. Oh, uh, this is just me not
2:05:00being convinced by the state's evidence.
2:05:02Those become claims. And claims have to
2:05:04be defended. Just like mine have to be
2:05:06defended, yours have to be defended. And
2:05:08that's what we're going to get to now.
2:05:10Yeah.
2:05:10>> You want to get into it?
2:05:12>> Would you guys like to take a ad break?
2:05:14>> Take an ad break. And then we'll talk
2:05:15Erica Kirk and TPUSCA
2:05:16>> and con and the conspiracies that have
2:05:19been conjectured by Candace Owens in
2:05:21regards to this case. Perfect. Folks,
2:05:23we'll take a three and a half minute
2:05:24break and we'll be back soon.
2:05:27>> All right, you guys. You have probably
2:05:28seen all the buzz around
2:05:30>> to create a shoe that blends comfort,
2:05:33function, and luxury. We had the choice
2:05:36to make it fast. We had the choice to
2:05:38make it cheap. We chose neither.
2:05:41Instead, [music] we chose Tuscan Italy.
2:05:43We chose true Italian craftsmanship.
2:05:46Each pair touched [music] by 50 skilled
2:05:48hands. We chose patience, spending two
2:05:51years perfecting every detail. And we
2:05:53chose the finest quality at every step.
2:05:56Introducing the future looks bright
2:05:58[music] collection. Not rushed, not
2:06:02disposable, not ordinary, rather
2:06:05intentional, luxurious, timeless.
2:06:17The beautiful thing about these events,
2:06:22you know how quickly it goes
2:06:25like this.
2:06:28>> Is everybody ready to get started?
2:06:33>> I've helped over 10,000 [music] business
2:06:34owners grow and scale their companies.
2:06:37I'm just passionate about watching
2:06:38entrepreneurs create great business.
2:06:41When you got guys like Jerry Rice,
2:06:44>> that was his work ethic.
2:06:46>> We were able to do some great things on
2:06:47the football field. The
2:06:49>> single most important trait I had was a
2:06:51healthy [music] dose of delusion. And
2:06:53that delusion is sometimes also referred
2:06:55to as self-belief.
2:06:58>> When I can do something that I love,
2:07:00that is good for business, and that I
2:07:02can [music] make content out of, that's
2:07:04my trifecta.
2:07:09It's time.
2:07:12[screaming]
2:07:34Hey guys and gals, Vincent Oshana here.
2:07:35My faith over fear line is taking off
2:07:37[music] and it's all thanks to you.
2:07:39We've got hats, shirts, hoodies, you
2:07:42name it. We also got brand new designs
2:07:43and new apparel dropping all the time.
2:07:45So, if you want to rock some faith over
2:07:47fear gear, hit the QR code on the screen
2:07:49or click on the link in the description.
2:07:51And remember guys, if you have true
2:07:53faith in God, you have absolutely
2:07:54nothing to fear. God bless and the
2:07:56future looks [music] bright.
2:07:57>> Many times when people think about value
2:07:59tamement, all they think about is a
2:08:00podcast, but it's a lot more than that.
2:08:02It's nine companies working together on
2:08:04an 11 acre campus. If I was to give you
2:08:07a virtual tour here, you'll see the HR
2:08:09department hiring [music] talent
2:08:10acquisition. We have full stack
2:08:12developers that are working on man and
2:08:14hire metrics. We have a full-fledged
2:08:15events team that puts together events
2:08:17with thousands of people. We have a
2:08:19merch department designing the latest
2:08:20product. We just launched the FLB shoes
2:08:23made in Italy. We have a marketing
2:08:25department. Then if you go to the
2:08:26complete opposite side of the building,
2:08:2750 60 people making calls, [music]
2:08:29working for Bet David Consulting, sales
2:08:31setters. And then on the complete
2:08:33opposite side of the campus, there's a
2:08:34full-on production company with editors,
2:08:36shooters, creating content, doing
2:08:38podcasts. Then you can drive down a
2:08:40couple miles and go to our [music]
2:08:41private boardroom cigar lounge with
2:08:43members only. Regardless of what it is,
2:08:45working at Value Tamement every day is a
2:08:47surprise. You could be walking into work
2:08:49and right next to you is a governor, is
2:08:51a billionaire, is an athlete. We are
2:08:53hiring aggressively, but Vitamin isn't
2:08:56for everybody. For the right person,
2:08:58this could be the last company you ever
2:09:00work for. So, if you're watching this
2:09:02and you want to learn more, go to
2:09:04vt.com/couriers
2:09:07and [music] apply now.
2:18:44Okay. So, we're officially back. Uh,
2:18:46Andrew, before we go into the other
2:18:47issues you want to talk about, is it
2:18:49fair to say you're good defending your
2:18:51position of the overwhelming evidence?
2:18:53>> Yeah. Okay. Beautiful. You take the
2:18:55lead. Go for it.
2:18:56>> Yeah. So, I have a bunch of questions
2:18:58for you and I want to make it super
2:19:01painless, right? So, uh, no traps, no
2:19:04gotchas. I'm just going to ask them
2:19:06direct. And I think that as long as
2:19:08they're not loaded, if they're loaded,
2:19:10you should not respond yes or no. But as
2:19:12long as they're not loaded, if I just
2:19:13directly ask them, I'm hoping that
2:19:15you'll just give me a direct answer.
2:19:17>> So, here's the questions that I have.
2:19:20>> Wait, wait, before we get into that, I
2:19:21would like to just reply to that. So,
2:19:22just to be clear, we agreed to debate
2:19:24our claims and then I agreed publicly
2:19:27that I have no issues having a
2:19:28conversation with you about other things
2:19:30that I've discussed that were outside of
2:19:32the court hearing and things like other
2:19:34evidence that's come across our lap and
2:19:36things that we've been speaking about.
2:19:37But I just do want to make it clear to
2:19:39viewers that
2:19:41for whatever reason you think that you
2:19:43have a right to sort of depose me.
2:19:45>> I'm not deposing you. I just want to ask
2:19:47you, but you literally said that I want
2:19:48to be able to question. This is a meta
2:19:50meta conversation having so now we're
2:19:53transcending like let's use a word to
2:19:55use a word that you're saying
2:19:57>> but this is but this is what you're
2:19:59doing right so this this part to me
2:20:00feels like a bit of
2:20:01>> am I allowed to ask the questions
2:20:03>> I'm going I've already said you can ask
2:20:05questions but I made it very clear to
2:20:06you
2:20:07>> via email and with you in conversation
2:20:11>> that
2:20:12>> we should be speaking this isn't like
2:20:13you get to sit and I said if you want to
2:20:15depose me you should join
2:20:18defense team but you're This is a
2:20:20legitimate question. Can you answer it?
2:20:21Blah blah blah. It's like I don't know
2:20:22what you're going to ask and I'm going
2:20:24to answer issues with it because I'm not
2:20:26>> I get it. Yeah. Just so we're clear.
2:20:28>> Usually in in the debate if something's
2:20:30not loaded, I'm just direct with
2:20:31>> because you kept saying I'm Joe Rogan.
2:20:32They have no evidence. They have no
2:20:34evidence. And now you're like, let's
2:20:34move away from the evidence. Let's talk
2:20:35about transcendentals.
2:20:36>> Actually, yeah. Okay. Anyway, so direct
2:20:39question, super easy. Was Lance Twig's
2:20:41DNA on the rifle as far as you know?
2:20:43>> We can't say that for for certainty.
2:20:45>> As far as you know,
2:20:46>> I I already answered that in the first
2:20:47part. We can't say that for certainty. I
2:20:49told you the context of which they spoke
2:20:50about those things.
2:20:51>> So no as far as you know.
2:20:53>> We can't say that for certainty until we
2:20:54know what other the five sets of prints
2:20:56were on.
2:20:56>> So that would be no as far as you know.
2:20:58>> We can't say that for certainty.
2:21:00>> You can say no as far as I know for
2:21:01certain.
2:21:02>> U we can't say that for certainty. I
2:21:04actually can't say that for certainty.
2:21:06If if your if your energy here is going
2:21:08to be like you're my dad and you can
2:21:09tell me how to speak or what I'm
2:21:10supposed to say, you're you're you're
2:21:12just going to come up against the wall.
2:21:13I I'm I'm familiar with this debate
2:21:14strategy. Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or
2:21:16no? We're not debating anymore. We're
2:21:18having a conversation. So, I already
2:21:19addressed that in the first half of this
2:21:21about why
2:21:22>> No, we're still definitely debating.
2:21:23This is still
2:21:25>> No, it's not a debate. Now, this is you
2:21:27saying I want to probe things that sit
2:21:29outside of the evidence. I actually
2:21:30already addressed this. You asked me.
2:21:32>> You're not going to go like we're you're
2:21:34you're sitting and I'm on trial. I'm not
2:21:35on trial.
2:21:36>> Okay, great. Can we have a conversation?
2:21:40>> Let's talk about the Foreign Legion.
2:21:42>> Sure.
2:21:42>> Was the Foreign Legion do you believe
2:21:44trying to kill you?
2:21:45>> Yes. That's why I reported it to the
2:21:47correct officials in government. That's
2:21:49what I was told and I handed over that
2:21:51information to Tulsi Gabbard's office.
2:21:53>> What's your best piece of evidence for
2:21:55that?
2:21:56>> Well, it was
2:21:57>> positive evidence.
2:21:59>> It was told to me by somebody who is
2:22:02high up in the French government. I
2:22:04passed off that information to Tulsi
2:22:06Gabbard's office. I also passed it off
2:22:07to Trump's office, Donald Trump's
2:22:08office.
2:22:09>> Um, and that's all I can tell you. I I
2:22:11wouldn't be able to probe any evidence
2:22:13because I don't have the power to do
2:22:14that. I'm not the federal government.
2:22:15And I would also like to say that this
2:22:16becomes this this other piece of what
2:22:18you do, which is when people say this, I
2:22:21was told this and this is the evidence
2:22:23that I have and I'm willing to have that
2:22:24conversation and write the email to the
2:22:26correct government body that deals with
2:22:28this. Like, I can't hack into Emanuel
2:22:30Mcronone's bank accounts and say whether
2:22:32or not the information, but then you go,
2:22:35well, where's your evidence? It's like,
2:22:36well, my evidence is that I I reported
2:22:37it. I did the right thing that you're
2:22:38going to do. So, if somebody calls and
2:22:39says, hey, Andrew, there's a viable
2:22:40death threat against you. and that
2:22:42person definitively has the rank to be
2:22:45able to tell you this and you say,
2:22:46"Well, what I'm going to do now is I'm
2:22:47going to report that to the feds." Then
2:22:48I go, "What's your evidence?" It's like,
2:22:50"Well, I got the information and I gave
2:22:52the information that I got from who I
2:22:54got it to the right body of people." And
2:22:56that's what I did.
2:22:57>> Got it. I just I just want to make sure.
2:22:58I'm not trying to trap you. I just want
2:23:00to make sure I got it clear.
2:23:01>> And that's why I said I want to know
2:23:02what you're doing now because this has
2:23:04always been the thing. It's like we
2:23:05actually can't win on the overwhelming
2:23:06claim. So, we're just going to go and
2:23:08bring up everything that I think can try
2:23:10to embarrass her. I reported exactly.
2:23:12>> I'm not trying to embarrass you. I just
2:23:13want to make sure that I get your
2:23:14positions clear.
2:23:15>> I have not said. Yeah. Go ahead.
2:23:17>> And now you have stated multiple times
2:23:18that you believe that Israel's involved
2:23:20in the death of Charlie Kirk.
2:23:22>> Can you give me
2:23:23>> Yes, we can pull up the clip.
2:23:25>> I'm sorry. I'm just saying.
2:23:26>> Can I finish the sentence?
2:23:27>> Go ahead.
2:23:28>> Can you give me the context for what
2:23:30you're are you talking about like when I
2:23:32say generally speaking why people think
2:23:33that Israel is involved?
2:23:35>> Okay. Where's your question?
2:23:36>> Yeah. Do you have any positive evidence
2:23:38whatsoever that Israel killed Charlie
2:23:40Kirk?
2:23:41>> Well, I couldn't say Israel was on the
2:23:43ground and shot and killed Charlie Kirk.
2:23:44I would say that there are various
2:23:46things that we're trying to establish,
2:23:48one being a motive. And since I don't
2:23:50believe that Tyler Robinson and his
2:23:52transfery uh is a convincing motive uh
2:23:56because he was fired up about politics,
2:23:59which Lance testified that he never
2:24:01spoke about with him, nor do I believe
2:24:03that he was, you know, so into LGBTQ
2:24:05issues since Lance testified they never
2:24:07spoke about LGBTQ issues, that he
2:24:09stopped and ate at Chick-fil-A, which if
2:24:11you are into LGBTQ issues, wouldn't be
2:24:13your lunch before you go kill Charlie
2:24:15Kirk for LGBTQ issues. Uh because, you
2:24:18know, Do you have positive evidence?
2:24:20>> I'm I'm I'm answering the question as I
2:24:21feel like I want to answer it. Like I
2:24:22said, you don't get to for an hour and a
2:24:24half pepp.
2:24:30And [clears throat] again, I already
2:24:32explained this at the top of the show,
2:24:33but the reason why people find Israel to
2:24:36be an interesting question is because
2:24:38truthfully, Charlie's perspectives were
2:24:40changing on Israel. And he was starting
2:24:42to realize how much pressure was being
2:24:44put on not just our government uh to
2:24:47constantly fight their wars, but also
2:24:48being put on his organization
2:24:50personally. If people had come out and
2:24:52been honest about that, uh, rather than
2:24:55rabid claiming he never flinched and
2:24:58everybody's lying and this is not true,
2:25:01you would probably have people that just
2:25:02go, "Eh, that's life. People change
2:25:04their opinions."
2:25:05>> I understand.
2:25:05>> Then then there was the rabbit. I mean,
2:25:07not even that. It's like everything was
2:25:08about trying to convince the public how
2:25:09much he liked.
2:25:10>> So then other than intuition, how you
2:25:12feel about things, do you have any
2:25:13evidence Israel was involved in killing
2:25:15Charlie Kirk? I have already said and if
2:25:18you're watching my show in the context
2:25:19of what I said this is the general sense
2:25:21of why people think Israel's involved.
2:25:23We don't nobody has made the claim that
2:25:25is Israelis there were also you know
2:25:27obviously
2:25:28>> made the claim
2:25:29>> well Joe Kent who I I think would uh
2:25:32have the right to assert it uh noted
2:25:34that there were 12 Israeli cell phones
2:25:36on the ground that day. I think most
2:25:37people would like to probe that. Now, it
2:25:39could be maybe there were students, you
2:25:41know, and there were Israeli students in
2:25:43Utah that day, but we'd like to probe
2:25:45that narrative because what we've seen
2:25:47after coming from the Israeli
2:25:48government, the Israeli prime minister,
2:25:50uh, kind of denying that he did it,
2:25:52which wasn't really necessary, he's
2:25:53quite busy, uh, the phone call that
2:25:56happened, which no one wants to discuss
2:25:57in the Hamptons the week prior, uh, or
2:26:00not the week prior, I think it was
2:26:02around August 5th or 6th that took
2:26:04place. And again, the almost desperate
2:26:07lies about Charlie shifting opinion on
2:26:09Israel lead us to believe that there
2:26:11could be an Israeli angle in this. Uh,
2:26:14but we cannot say for certainty that
2:26:16Israel called the shots and this is how
2:26:19it happened. But it is definitively, I
2:26:20think, a threat that a lot of us would
2:26:22like to say. There's no positive
2:26:23evidence.
2:26:24>> I I whatever you want to say, however,
2:26:26positive, negative, however you want to
2:26:27say it. I don't have a conversation.
2:26:30material evidence and other evidency
2:26:39building. There's no reason to lie about
2:26:41these things and yet people are lying.
2:26:43Uh BB ain't acting right. The Hampton's
2:26:46thing was weird. And the way they tried
2:26:48to shove the is Israel narrative down
2:26:50our throat immediately. I mean the day
2:26:53he died posting a picture of him with an
2:26:54American and Israeli AIed photo on the
2:26:57president's feed doesn't feel right. Do
2:26:59you have any evidence that Erica Kirk or
2:27:01TP USA participated in the murder of
2:27:03Charlie Kirk?
2:27:04>> I've never said they participated in the
2:27:05murder of Charlie Kirk. So, how could I
2:27:07say that I have evidence they
2:27:08participated in the murder of Charlie
2:27:10Kirk?
2:27:10>> Okay. So, then you don't believe that
2:27:12they did?
2:27:13>> I never have said that statement. So,
2:27:16I'm not going to get you to ask me
2:27:18personal questions about things that
2:27:19I've never said on record. Okay. Fair.
2:27:21Your team is sending messages in the
2:27:22back saying they have a video they want
2:27:24to play.
2:27:24>> Okay. Go ahead.
2:27:25>> I don't know what the video is.
2:27:32If you're
2:27:34Yes. You said that there's a video you
2:27:36want to play that Candace said she has
2:27:40full confidence Israel was involved.
2:27:42>> Yep.
2:27:43>> Yeah. You said evidence that I that they
2:27:45killed him. I said they're This is why
2:27:47people think they're involvement.
2:27:48Involvement.
2:27:49>> If they have the clip, they can play the
2:27:51clip. They're they're referring to a
2:27:52clip.
2:27:52>> Yeah.
2:27:57via whom?
2:27:59My guess is Pierre Cara. I think that
2:28:04there's a reason Pierre knew that
2:28:05Charlie was dead first. I think there's
2:28:06a reason he was a priority.
2:28:09How why I think France and Israel are
2:28:12involved in Charlie Kirk's
2:28:13assassination. And um I'm going to put
2:28:16that out there with full confidence.
2:28:18>> Okay.
2:28:18>> I also involvement
2:28:20>> I understand.
2:28:20>> Yeah.
2:28:21>> So you think you you with full
2:28:22confidence you think that
2:28:23>> Yeah. Yeah, I think is involved Israel.
2:28:26>> Yeah, I I I mean the person that gave me
2:28:27that thing that I reported said that uh
2:28:30French foreign legion were on the ground
2:28:31that day. Again, this would be this
2:28:33would be at a professional limitation
2:28:35for me to then go and probe that
2:28:37information that I handed over. I can't
2:28:39do that. I'm not the positive evidence
2:28:41of that.
2:28:42>> I don't you Can you just stop? It's It's
2:28:44actually just like annoying to hear you
2:28:45keep saying positive evidence. I've just
2:28:47asked me what I think and I just tell
2:28:48you yes, I think they are involved. No,
2:28:52I said here's what [clears throat]
2:28:53here's what I think.
2:28:54>> I have every right to ask you about your
2:28:56claim and if there's positive evidence
2:28:58for your claim statement. I literally
2:28:59just said I think and I am allowed to
2:29:01think in
2:29:03a claim. I have tons of positive
2:29:05evidence that I'm allowed to think.
2:29:07>> I agree. You're allowed to think.
2:29:09>> Nobody's disputing whether or not is
2:29:10allowed to think. What I'm asking is
2:29:11[clears throat]
2:29:12what's your issue that? What is your
2:29:14issue with the statement? I think
2:29:16>> that Israel [clears throat]
2:29:18>> is involved.
2:29:18>> That's not what That's not just what you
2:29:20said. You said
2:29:22>> that with it's with full confidence that
2:29:25>> you think that if you had full
2:29:26confidence
2:29:27>> confidence to think when you think
2:29:28>> if but if you if I said for instance I
2:29:30think I'm going to be late to work right
2:29:33with full confidence I would say my
2:29:34evidence for that is that I'm 20 minutes
2:29:36away and I need to be there at 5
2:29:39>> that's how you would know whether or not
2:29:40you had full confidence
2:29:42let me finish let me finish let me
2:29:43finish
2:29:44>> if it was the case that I said I have
2:29:45full confidence I'm going to be late to
2:29:47work I would say my evidence that I'm
2:29:49going to be is that work is 20 minutes
2:29:51away, right? And I have to be there in
2:29:525. So I have full confidence. That's why
2:29:54I would think that. So I'm asking if you
2:29:57think that Israel and France were
2:29:59involved in the assassination of Charlie
2:30:00Kirk and you say with full confidence.
2:30:02I'm just asking for the evidence or at
2:30:04least walk me through the mindset of why
2:30:07it is that you could think that with
2:30:08evidence.
2:30:08>> I actually don't have to walk you
2:30:10through why I think. Um I can also I can
2:30:12give you something that I think with
2:30:13full confidence. I think with full
2:30:14confidence that you know you lost the
2:30:16substance of this debate and now you're
2:30:18moving toward things that I have said
2:30:19that I think which I can do. I'm allowed
2:30:21to pertinent to this debate that it's
2:30:23not exactly pertinent to this debate.
2:30:25It's not pertinent because our debate
2:30:26>> these are claims made made about Charlie
2:30:29Kirk's assassination. That's the
2:30:30complete substance of your debate.
2:30:32>> No, actually would you like to remind
2:30:33him of what our debate claims actually
2:30:35were?
2:30:35>> And would you like to remind that you
2:30:37said I could ask you about any of these
2:30:38things to my heart's
2:30:39>> content? Hey, but you did you do not get
2:30:40to structure how I'm allowed to reply or
2:30:42ask me why are you
2:30:43>> structuring how you're allowed to reply.
2:30:45I'm just asking you direct questions.
2:30:46>> My I have full confidence that you do
2:30:49not feel that you represented your claim
2:30:52well. And so now what you came prepared
2:30:54to say to present yourself like a
2:30:56professor of fallacy. I just want to
2:30:57know
2:30:58>> and to say you are not allowed to say
2:30:59that. You can't. It's my say whatever
2:31:01you want.
2:31:02>> Well, nobody's disputing that. I'm
2:31:03asking seems like you are disputing
2:31:04that. I'm asking specifically when this
2:31:06is all said and done. I've already
2:31:08explained to you. I explained at the
2:31:09beginning of this why I think Israel is
2:31:11is is ultimately going to be proven to
2:31:13have involvement in this. Um I just
2:31:16explained to you in the middle and now
2:31:17you're wanting me to structure the
2:31:18sentence or provide evidence. You don't
2:31:20have to. You're just allowed to think
2:31:22and I've explained to you my thought
2:31:24process. I don't need to structure it in
2:31:26a sentence. If you feel like a professor
2:31:28today, you picked the wrong day. Don't
2:31:29you think that like tens of thousands or
2:31:31hundreds of thousands of people would
2:31:33want to know what Candace Owen's
2:31:35positive evidence for why it is that
2:31:37Israel and France were involved in the
2:31:40most traumatic public assassination of
2:31:42Gen Z's lifetime is?
2:31:44>> That's why they watch my podcast.
2:31:45>> So you're just going to drip to them
2:31:47like here's why
2:31:48>> it's not dripping. I every time we come
2:31:50across any of these discussions, they're
2:31:52watching this in context and they know
2:31:53why I'm saying it. So, for example, when
2:31:56you're bringing up, well, Candace,
2:31:58where's your evidence for France doing
2:32:00this? I just told you someone who was
2:32:01high ranking in the French government,
2:32:03right?
2:32:03>> Who's nameless?
2:32:04>> Of course.
2:32:05>> Of course.
2:32:06>> Of course.
2:32:06>> Of course. So, there's good reason.
2:32:08>> So, it's not a conspiracy, though. If I
2:32:09then took it to the federal government,
2:32:10like you can't just go out there making
2:32:12a claim to the federal government. You
2:32:13get in trouble for making false
2:32:14statements and things of that nature.
2:32:16So, and then you go, "Well, I'm going to
2:32:17probe that." Well, how can you probe
2:32:18that? This happens.
2:32:20>> I can ask you specifically. This is my
2:32:22podcast. I am sharing my life and my
2:32:24experiences and what has happened to me
2:32:26and you're basically coming in like
2:32:28you're going to what regulate what I how
2:32:30I'm allowed to say it. If I'm not trying
2:32:31to regulate anything I'm asking very
2:32:33questioning a bit like a professor
2:32:35trying to regulate and say Candace
2:32:36>> you sound very defensive and like you
2:32:38just don't want to answer questions.
2:32:40>> I I I did answer your question three
2:32:41times. I didn't say it in the way that
2:32:43you wanted.
2:32:43>> You just kind of offiscate and you run
2:32:45away from it. But I would like for you
2:32:46to actually go through every clip that
2:32:48you guys have prepared because I it's
2:32:50pretty I I I think with full confidence
2:32:52people will recognize the strategy that
2:32:54you're trying to employ. So let's get to
2:32:55the next clip you have prepared.
2:32:57>> Sure. They can pull up whatever clips
2:32:59whatever it is that you guys have
2:33:00prepared. But there but I I would still
2:33:02I on this point I just want to make sure
2:33:04that you have full confidence that
2:33:06France and Israel were involved in the
2:33:07assassination of Charlie Kirk and you
2:33:09have no evidence for it at all that
2:33:11you'll give us.
2:33:11>> Well the high I I already did tell you
2:33:14where it came from. I like I said I can
2:33:16explain it to you. I can't understand
2:33:17it.
2:33:18>> Did that higher up tell you that he was
2:33:19going to kill that France killed Charlie
2:33:21Kirk or just that you were in danger?
2:33:23>> They said that the French Foreign Legion
2:33:25was involved and on the ground that day.
2:33:26I've already said that. You just don't
2:33:28like hearing it. No.
2:33:29>> Candace, just out of curiosity, when you
2:33:31pass down that message to a Tulsi or
2:33:34Trump,
2:33:34>> Tulsi's office. Yes.
2:33:35>> Tulsi's office. Are you
2:33:38>> giving them who told you that or you're
2:33:40just saying here's what I heard from
2:33:42someone
2:33:42>> and I have this and I have this
2:33:43information and of course if they wanted
2:33:45to open a file on it, which I thought
2:33:47was quite mysterious that Trump's office
2:33:49never got back to us. It was kind of
2:33:51weird about like from maybe that maybe
2:33:53they're not the correct office to. I did
2:33:55receive a response from uh Tulsi
2:33:57Gabbard's office, but I I don't think
2:34:00there was ever any investigation into
2:34:01what I said.
2:34:01>> Got it. So, the call was, "Hey, I've
2:34:04been told some The email was I've been
2:34:07told
2:34:08>> I have information." Yeah. That that
2:34:10that the French Foreign Legion was on
2:34:12the ground during Charlie's
2:34:13assassination. Um uh and that I mean I
2:34:18it was a lot of information, but like
2:34:20>> Well, you didn't give specifics who it
2:34:21was from.
2:34:21>> Not in the first email because I figured
2:34:23they would like
2:34:23>> Perfect. So if they do contact you, are
2:34:27you comfortable giving 100% who it is?
2:34:29>> I would absolutely give them as much
2:34:31information.
2:34:31>> Can I ask a question? If if whoever is
2:34:33the US government, why are you not
2:34:35>> Yes. It's very strange to me.
2:34:36>> You know, so if that's the case now,
2:34:39they may respond back and say we did,
2:34:41you know, that's their position.
2:34:42>> That's why I did it in writing
2:34:43>> and so I'm glad that's the case because
2:34:46>> so so if they
2:34:47>> and right away in Trump's office his
2:34:49like Margot got right back to me. She
2:34:50said it was on his desk. So he has that.
2:34:52There's no.
2:34:53>> And if you do say that and they contact
2:34:56that individual, obviously you don't
2:34:57have to leak your sources here.
2:34:59>> Is there enough credibility where that
2:35:01person would be willing to talk to them
2:35:02and explain to them exactly what their
2:35:04sources are?
2:35:05>> Yes.
2:35:05>> Okay. I mean, that's
2:35:06>> it seems reasonable. And so why he's
2:35:08asking me to defend that is like
2:35:09>> I'm not I think those are two different
2:35:11things. That's more something different.
2:35:13Why are they not reaching out to you?
2:35:15>> I've asked that many times on my
2:35:17podcast.
2:35:18>> What do you think about that, Andrew?
2:35:20>> What? the fact that she emailed, she
2:35:22gave it, and nobody reached out to want
2:35:24to contact the source.
2:35:25>> Probably didn't think it was actionable
2:35:27is my guess. But even if they did think
2:35:29it was actionable, great. Every lead
2:35:31should be followed up on within the
2:35:33confines of what's rational and
2:35:35reasonable.
2:35:35>> Is it fair to say that this is maybe a
2:35:37different individual because this is a
2:35:39person that was involved with TPS, had a
2:35:42relationship with Charlie? No. No. Her
2:35:44relationship
2:35:45>> like this isn't just anybody. So if an
2:35:47average person sends it Yes.
2:35:49>> Yeah. But I mean, we don't know who the
2:35:51source is. We don't know any of this.
2:35:53>> Well, then if it wouldn't you if you
2:35:55were in that department, wouldn't you
2:35:57want to even you assign it to one of
2:35:59your guys?
2:35:59>> There's no guarantee they didn't look
2:36:00into it. How do we know? We don't know.
2:36:02How could they come get the information?
2:36:05>> More of the information. It was a long
2:36:07file.
2:36:08>> This is a separate This has got nothing
2:36:10to do with the debate. This is more on
2:36:11on uh
2:36:12>> Well, I just I sent the email assuming
2:36:14that's I'm saying like you go and you
2:36:15you make a report. you if think they're
2:36:17going to come back to you and say, "Hey,
2:36:19what's more information? We're
2:36:20investigating this." And that didn't
2:36:21happen, which is what I raised. I found
2:36:22that especially because this was at a
2:36:24time where they were saying that they
2:36:26wanted to explore every possible lead
2:36:28with I even texted Dan Bonino. So,
2:36:31actually, it was three it was three
2:36:32offices. Let me ask
2:36:34you, Dan Bonino and uh the and Tulsi
2:36:38Gabbert's office.
2:36:39>> Okay. So, a followup to that is the
2:36:41following. Mhm.
2:36:42>> If they contact you to say, is that
2:36:45specifically to the French government or
2:36:47Israel's involvement in the killing of
2:36:48Charlie? It
2:36:49>> wasn't that wasn't about Israel. Those
2:36:50are two separate things.
2:36:51>> That wasn't about Israel. It was they
2:36:52were saying the French foreign that
2:36:53person as a part of it was saying that
2:36:55it was the French foreign legion that
2:36:56was on the ground that day. So I'm
2:36:57surprised they haven't called you then.
2:36:58I find that to be very strange to you. I
2:36:59do as well
2:37:00>> because who would want to make a report
2:37:01like I mean I've never made a report
2:37:03with the federal government.
2:37:04>> Let me ask one question. Let me just ask
2:37:05one question. Let me just ask one
2:37:06question and then I'm I'm going to bring
2:37:08it to you. Sure. The question is in
2:37:10regards to I've not seen that clip so
2:37:12I'm seeing it now.
2:37:13>> The full I'm full confidence I believe
2:37:15that Israel French was involved.
2:37:17>> Is that also based on a source that
2:37:20somebody told you that Israel was
2:37:23involved in the assassination of Charlie
2:37:25Kirk or is that a gut feeling?
2:37:27>> Uh so in terms of Israel I mean what
2:37:29I've said is what I publicly have said
2:37:31here. I do think that at the end of this
2:37:34we are going to find that Israel was
2:37:36involved. I do. Uh now when in terms of
2:37:40any of the hard evidence that's been
2:37:41presented, I think this has been a huge
2:37:43problem that a lot of us have have had
2:37:44is that they won't even explore um
2:37:47anything else that was going on in Tyler
2:37:49Charlie's life personally. So if we're
2:37:50not satisfied that Tyler Robinson did
2:37:52this in any way, then every alternative
2:37:54theory should be explored. Other
2:37:56evidence should be brought forward,
2:37:57we've done that in our in our capacity.
2:37:58Like when people keep saying she has no
2:38:00evidence, it's kind of crazy. I think
2:38:01we've broken like more stories than any
2:38:03news source in the world. I mean, down
2:38:04to pictures, details, police officers,
2:38:07uh, what the dog's name was, because
2:38:09we're not we're not the only people that
2:38:10believe there's a conspiracy here. The
2:38:12police officers that are were involved,
2:38:14the many police, sheriff's offices, um,
2:38:18that were departments that were involved
2:38:20that day all believed there was a
2:38:21conspiracy. Down to the US marshals
2:38:23believed there was a conspiracy. They
2:38:24were uh, my sources at the US Marshalss
2:38:26were saying they were basically sent in
2:38:27a wild goose chase that day.
2:38:28>> But do you see how you say my sources?
2:38:31>> You're not allowed to have sources.
2:38:32Well, the thing is CNN allowed to have
2:38:34sources. Hang on. I have sources if I
2:38:35said I have sources that claim none of
2:38:37that's true. In fact, my sources claim
2:38:39that her sources are lying. My sources
2:38:41claim that there is none of them believe
2:38:43that there's a conspiracy. My sources
2:38:44claim all of them really think that
2:38:46Tyler Robinson was a lone gunman. If I
2:38:49just said that as a hypothetical,
2:38:50wouldn't you say what?
2:38:52>> Yeah. I think what probably adds weight
2:38:54is like then when I drop photos of the
2:38:56car that no one was supposed to see,
2:38:57people go, "Okay, her sources are
2:38:58legit." So, um, and then when what I say
2:39:00is then proven in court and nobody knew
2:39:02those things, uh, people are recognizing
2:39:04that my sources are legit. When I say
2:39:06Charlie, uh, was scared in in the last
2:39:09days and then I dropped the text
2:39:10message, which you've just learned about
2:39:12a couple of weeks ago of him saying he
2:39:14was leaving the pro-Israel cause when
2:39:15everyone was lying about that. Then they
2:39:17say, I think Kansas sources are legit.
2:39:19So, I think what's happened is I've
2:39:21actually built up a rapport with my
2:39:22audience that it's not vibes and dreams
2:39:24and that's why they keep watching my
2:39:25content because I like for example when
2:39:28I just the other day released the
2:39:30content of the shooter on the roof uh
2:39:32doing the lateral crawl then they're
2:39:34going I don't think these are just
2:39:36vibes. It seems like Canada sources are
2:39:37legit. So, I've proven myself in the
2:39:39market.
2:39:39>> Yeah. I'm not sure that that would
2:39:40legitimize your sources as being
2:39:42legitimate when it comes to the idea
2:39:44that oh, they all believe that there's a
2:39:46conspiracy going on, which is actually
2:39:48what your claim is now. How would that
2:39:50actually hang on, hang on, I'm almost
2:39:51done.
2:39:52>> Talking to PBT.
2:39:53>> How would that legitimize Well, it's not
2:39:55his debate. How would he how would it
2:39:57legitimize these sources that even if
2:39:59it's the case that you get some court
2:40:01footage or some things like this? Why
2:40:03would it legitimize that your sources
2:40:04are telling you all the marshals believe
2:40:07it's a conspiracy, the police believe
2:40:08it's a conspiracy, everybody believes
2:40:10it. How would that legitimize anything?
2:40:11>> What I am saying to you and you are not
2:40:13you are not forced to believe it. So let
2:40:14me just explain what I was answering
2:40:15here and I think that you understood
2:40:17what I was saying. um is I have because
2:40:20people trust me uh compiled a lot of
2:40:23information and presented it to the
2:40:25public and this information has been uh
2:40:28proven true. We've presented photos, we
2:40:30have presented videos, never before seen
2:40:32stuff. The public has never seen it. And
2:40:34so what that does is your audience goes,
2:40:36okay, when she says that she has these
2:40:38sources, clearly she's telling the
2:40:39truth. Now whether you would then go,
2:40:41well, I'm going to believe her when she
2:40:42says they don't believe they think that
2:40:44there's a conspiracy, that's up to you.
2:40:46You cannot watch my content. I'm I'm not
2:40:48here to tell you that you have to watch
2:40:49my content or believe everything I'm
2:40:51saying.
2:40:51>> Well, don't you think questioners should
2:40:52get questioned as well?
2:40:57>> By whom? I'm not committing a crime, am
2:40:58I? By just like saying what?
2:41:01>> Are most of the people you ask questions
2:41:02of not actually committing crimes?
2:41:03>> But what do you mean they should answer
2:41:04questions where like at a police
2:41:06station? Like what do you say?
2:41:07>> Just like if you're if you want people
2:41:08to come in and answer questions for you.
2:41:10I have questions about this in the
2:41:13investigation. I have questions about
2:41:14this. I have questions about that. You
2:41:16want them to answer your questions.
2:41:18Doesn't it seem totally fair that you
2:41:19answer back the questions people have
2:41:21for you?
2:41:21>> Well, they're not answering our
2:41:22questions. So, it's also fair that they
2:41:23don't answer them.
2:41:25>> So, you're Kovette should be in this
2:41:27chair. He's not.
2:41:28>> But isn't that a double But isn't that a
2:41:29double standard?
2:41:30>> No, it's not because he's not doing it.
2:41:31>> Yeah, but what that would still be a
2:41:32double standard. If you're if you're
2:41:34requesting that he does do it, then that
2:41:36seems to infer that you think he owes
2:41:37you answers.
2:41:38>> Oh, so inferences are allowed again.
2:41:39>> And they never weren't. So, that seems
2:41:41to infer that you think that he owes you
2:41:43answers. If that's the case, then don't
2:41:45you owe answers?
2:41:46>> Yeah. Well, I feel like I'm answering
2:41:48your questions and his questions about I
2:41:50I mean, I'm I'm talking about Andrew
2:41:52Colbeat. He is his position is he's a
2:41:54spokesperson for Turning Point USA.
2:41:56>> So, when the crowd turns against Turning
2:41:58Point USA on the basis of a lack of
2:42:01information or because there has been, I
2:42:04don't know, seeds sewn of distrust. I
2:42:06would imagine uh and forget answering my
2:42:09questions because I doesn't need to be
2:42:10made.
2:42:10>> Aren't you sewing a lot of those seeds
2:42:11of distrust? Well, I I think they're
2:42:13doing a pretty good job themselves if
2:42:14I'm being honest. Uh you can blame it on
2:42:16Candace all you want.
2:42:18>> The thing is funny is people act like
2:42:19I'm I'm ground zero. I'll be fair ground
2:42:22zero of people not trusting Turning
2:42:23Point USA. I think there was some PR
2:42:25there. I think there was some PR there.
2:42:26Sure, they could have done better.
2:42:28Absolutely. I'm not disputing any of
2:42:29that. One thing though that I am I I
2:42:32want to just directly ask you is do you
2:42:35actually believe that anybody in TPUSA
2:42:37or Erica Kirk or Erica actually
2:42:42participated had Ford knowledge of or uh
2:42:45facilitated the murder of Charlie Kirk.
2:42:47>> I'm not going to get myself into a legal
2:42:49pickle here. Everything I've said is on
2:42:52my podcast. I think I think firmly that
2:42:57>> if I was the investigating officers, I
2:42:59would I would seat them all and I would
2:43:01ask questions. I would at this phase. I
2:43:04would.
2:43:05>> Okay.
2:43:06>> Hypothetical. Um
2:43:07>> does that mean that you do think so?
2:43:08>> I I think it was not a sufficient
2:43:10investigation in into what is what we
2:43:13know to be true of 80% of uh homicides.
2:43:17It's usually conducted by someone, you
2:43:19know, right? And the fact that that was
2:43:21never even considered that the like I
2:43:23said earlier the backpack was returned.
2:43:25>> How do you know that was never
2:43:26considered?
2:43:27>> Because they gave back the backpack as
2:43:30as just one example. Uh they gave back
2:43:32the backpack. They gave back the um
2:43:35>> that doesn't show a conspiracy.
2:43:37>> Well, I mean it shows that the police
2:43:38trusted everybody and didn't just hold
2:43:41things up for a second.
2:43:42>> They ruled them out as suspects
2:43:44>> that quickly. I I I'm not comfortable
2:43:45with that investigation. It's a pretty
2:43:46big organization. There's a hund00
2:43:48million incentive. people. This is
2:43:50>> $100 million incentive.
2:43:51>> What I'm saying is his organization like
2:43:53it had grown to I think it was 100
2:43:55million
2:43:55>> plus per year.
2:43:56>> Yeah. Per year. We if that's something
2:43:57you want to factor your team wants to
2:43:59play video if you don't mind. There's a
2:44:00there's a video they want to play of uh
2:44:03Candace said it's impossible to not
2:44:05believe Erica's complicit. If you guys
2:44:07want to play that video.
2:44:08>> Yeah. Could I just ask? So right now
2:44:11their guys are going out and they're
2:44:12going to look for evidence and then by
2:44:14May, which is fortunately around the
2:44:16corner, then she'll see what they found.
2:44:19So what the f is that performance?
2:44:23How could you sit up there and say I I
2:44:26Yes, I 100% believe Tyler Robinson did
2:44:29it.
2:44:32That right there is why it is impossible
2:44:35for me to think that Erica Kirk is not
2:44:37complicit somehow. cuz what
2:44:39>> that those two thoughts actually don't
2:44:41even follow. How would it be the case
2:44:43that even if Erica Kirk did believe that
2:44:46Tyler Robinson was 100% responsible for
2:44:49the death of Charlie Kirk, let's just
2:44:50say she believed it with every fiber of
2:44:52her being, believed all the evidence,
2:44:53cuz she did. She just actually did.
2:44:56>> Would it then follow that somehow she's
2:44:58complicit in his death?
2:45:01>> I didn't say implicit in death. You
2:45:04added those two words.
2:45:05>> Okay. So, what's she complicit in?
2:45:07>> Yes. So sewing this narrative that Tyler
2:45:09Robinson is guilty. So you're chopping
2:45:10up clips. Like I said, you didn't have
2:45:12the confidence coming up.
2:45:15>> We are showing a clip of her on Barry
2:45:16Weiss, which I can't remember the date
2:45:18that she did that interview. Uh and
2:45:20Erica, when she is asked, are you, you
2:45:22know, do you do you feel with 100%
2:45:24certainty that Tyler Robinson did did
2:45:26this? And she says, I do. Then again,
2:45:29context matters. I sit down with Erica
2:45:32for 4 hours under the assumption that
2:45:34she had some evidence, right? like like
2:45:36I'm like I actually this is why I did
2:45:37not engage in any like Erica everyone's
2:45:40questioning what she's wearing and all
2:45:42this stuff. I was like I'm going to wait
2:45:43here because I don't know just it feels
2:45:46weird to think that do I did I think
2:45:49that some of her mannerisms were weird
2:45:50and stuff like that. Yeah, but that's
2:45:51not you can't convict somebody on weird
2:45:53mannerisms. And then when I sat down
2:45:56with her and I was expecting for her to
2:45:58say, "Well, you know, I'm obviously the
2:46:01victim on the case and we got to see the
2:46:03shot, you know, taken or this or that,
2:46:06whatever it is." Great. You know, that's
2:46:09why she's being that's why she has that
2:46:11much confidence two months ago. And when
2:46:13I sat down with her, it was nothing. It
2:46:15was nothing. Okay. So, this is a
2:46:17conversation.
2:46:17>> How would that make her complicit?
2:46:20>> Complicit. And again, you said complicit
2:46:23in the death of Charlie. in what? Yeah.
2:46:25>> Well, if you let me finish my sentence,
2:46:27I could tell you that. But my point
2:46:28being is that then you take a look at
2:46:29this and you go, "Okay, well, this is
2:46:30weird. Why Why would you have this
2:46:32confidence?" And then when you sit
2:46:34across from somebody and you say, "Okay,
2:46:36great. I want to go out there and defend
2:46:37you now. I want people to know that you
2:46:39can't say this stuff publicly, but you
2:46:41know more things." And she just blanks.
2:46:43And then she says, "Well, I'm going to
2:46:44call the lawyer." And she called the
2:46:46lawyer. Again, all this is on my show,
2:46:47so out of context clips is not going to
2:46:49work cuz I know what I say on my show.
2:46:50So, we call her lawyer and her lawyer
2:46:53says to us, uh, she calls him on the
2:46:55phone, pardon me, and, uh, it's me, her,
2:46:57and Justin Strife. And he I'm like,
2:46:59"Okay, great. What do you guys have?" He
2:47:01goes, "Well, we don't have anything yet.
2:47:03That's not We're not at that phase yet."
2:47:04And I'm like, "Well, what do you mean
2:47:05you don't have anything?" And he says,
2:47:06"Well, don't you know how it works? It's
2:47:08a probable cause hearing." So,
2:47:09basically, the state says that they're
2:47:11going to bring this forward. And now our
2:47:13people go out and they look for the
2:47:15evidence to uh assert that Tyler
2:47:18Robinson is guilty. And so I asked her
2:47:20directly, her lawyer directly, the
2:47:22phone's in between us. I'm like, "Wait,
2:47:24so just so I'm clear,
2:47:26you haven't seen anything that the
2:47:28public hasn't seen?" And he says, "No."
2:47:31So I'm going back in my head and I'm
2:47:32going, "Okay, so why is Erica saying
2:47:35with such a degree of certainty, like
2:47:37she was sent out to convince the
2:47:38public?" And and people bit, by the way.
2:47:40I remember even Megan Kelly was like,
2:47:42"Uh, you know, let's wait. She's going
2:47:44to have access to things." I did think
2:47:46she had access to things that we didn't
2:47:47have. Why express that confidence to the
2:47:49public as opposed to just being like,
2:47:51"We don't know yet. I'm I feel confident
2:47:53he's probably he's involved. They make
2:47:54the arrest."
2:47:54>> I don't understand. How would any of
2:47:56this make her complicit and what?
2:47:58>> Well, I've already told you she was she
2:47:59she's complicit in in trying to fool the
2:48:02public into thinking this is some open
2:48:03and shut case.
2:48:03>> How is she trying to fool the public
2:48:05into this? If she believes she believes
2:48:08that Charlotte that Tyler Robinson
2:48:10killed Kirk, if she believes that, how
2:48:13would that be complicit in anything?
2:48:15>> I I I do. You're saying that you think
2:48:17she doesn't believe it?
2:48:18>> I I don't believe that at that stage
2:48:20when she sat down with Barry Weiss that
2:48:21that's what she believes. No, but that's
2:48:22my opinion,
2:48:23>> right? But so when you just say
2:48:25complicit, you just mean she believes
2:48:27that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk,
2:48:29>> that's it.
2:48:30>> That's what we were talking about.
2:48:31That's why I said if your strategy was
2:48:33to dice up clips and take it out of
2:48:34context and make it seem.
2:48:37>> Yeah. But then why not just play the
2:48:38full thing? Like why?
2:48:40>> Because we don't have like infinite
2:48:42amounts of time. I'm guessing you
2:48:43probably don't want to watch.
2:48:44>> I I'm going to go back to my theory that
2:48:46you didn't feel confident that you could
2:48:47defend your your claim that it was
2:48:50overwhelming evidence. So now you're
2:48:51trying to move towards doctorred clips
2:48:53and getting
2:48:53>> there's no doctor anything. I'm just
2:48:55making sure that we got this right that
2:48:57what you're actually saying is that
2:49:00when I reexamine her actions backward
2:49:02because I did not have this perspective
2:49:04of her at the beginning, which is why
2:49:06it's so funny to me that you guys make
2:49:08it seem like I'm ground zero. People
2:49:10thought Erica was sus from day I forgive
2:49:12him. And I was not a part of that. I did
2:49:14not lean into that. I did not contribute
2:49:16to that. I was getting actually terrible
2:49:19messages from my fans being like,
2:49:20"Candice, you and Charlie always say to
2:49:22go with your intuition. You won't
2:49:24address this how we all feel about her."
2:49:27Things changed for me when I saw that
2:49:28Zoom call. I will tell you that. Um for
2:49:31sure. And the fact that she lied to me.
2:49:33So, I sat across from her and, you know,
2:49:36got to I wanted to have that
2:49:37conversation publicly, but they're
2:49:39probably grateful they didn't do it
2:49:40publicly. Uh, she told me some lies. And
2:49:45so, the next thing that happens
2:49:47naturally when somebody lies to you, you
2:49:49go, when any person lies to you, whether
2:49:50it's a toddler, people only lie when
2:49:53they're trying to obscure something
2:49:55else.
2:49:55>> Have you addressed what that lie was?
2:49:57>> Yeah, I've talked about, we have a list
2:49:58of lies that we've been told by we can
2:50:00find that
2:50:00>> end meeting with her. Well, no. I I
2:50:03didn't want her to cage up. I did I
2:50:04didn't want to do this and because I I
2:50:06didn't know what to expect. Like I I
2:50:08didn't I didn't know if she was going to
2:50:09be like, "I'm so overwhelmed with
2:50:11everything, you know, and I don't know
2:50:13who to trust at the organization and I I
2:50:16don't know what I'm do." Like I didn't
2:50:17know I didn't want to.
2:50:18>> Just out of curiosity, before anything
2:50:20happened with Charlie, how close were
2:50:23you and Erica?
2:50:24>> Not very close.
2:50:25>> So there's not a relationship?
2:50:26>> No. There I mean there I like I would
2:50:29say it's totally normal. Like it's not
2:50:30like there was any issues at all. Uh she
2:50:33was always we were always nice to each
2:50:34other. It just is our life went to a
2:50:37different phase, right? So Charlie and I
2:50:39hitting the ground, running around,
2:50:40traveling 4 days a week. Now I get
2:50:42married. I I find love of my life. I get
2:50:45married and I get pregnant. I've been
2:50:46pregnant. I haven't stopped being
2:50:47pregnant. And what you want out of life
2:50:49changes. You don't want to be running
2:50:50around for 4 days a week. And traveling
2:50:54on a plane non-stop. You suddenly want
2:50:56to start building at home and live. I
2:50:57was desiring that suburban life. Did you
2:50:59guys ever do the double dates? You,
2:51:01George, her, and Charlie. Was there ever
2:51:02double dates between the four?
2:51:04>> Oh, I I was uh, you know, engaged to
2:51:06George quickly. We were planning our
2:51:07wedding. I was kind of in my bubble with
2:51:09George. George traveled with me and
2:51:10Charlie, but Erica and him were just
2:51:12starting to date at the beginning of
2:51:132019. George and I were planning our
2:51:15marriage, so George really got to know
2:51:17Charlie. I wouldn't say that I really
2:51:18got to know Erica. I was just rooting
2:51:20for them because I knew how much Charlie
2:51:23wanted to, you know, find love. And so,
2:51:25I was kind of his wingwoman throughout
2:51:27that phase. and I was just happy and I
2:51:30never was under the impression obviously
2:51:32that they were going to get married when
2:51:33they were dating. So it wasn't like I
2:51:35would have was conscious I really need
2:51:36to get to know this person and so it was
2:51:39just kind of normal that by that time
2:51:41because of where I was in my life that I
2:51:43wasn't spending any time getting to know
2:51:46Erica.
2:51:47>> So so the complicit part about Erica to
2:51:49you is that a gut feeling you think
2:51:51>> it transformed when she lied.
2:51:54>> You can take the lead. I'm just asking
2:51:55questions. Yeah. Well, for I actually
2:51:57don't I still don't understand what
2:51:59she's you think she's complicit in.
2:52:01>> Yeah. So, when I say Erica's complicit,
2:52:04that's my opinion. When you tweeted
2:52:06Erica's too to kill her
2:52:08husband.
2:52:08>> Yeah.
2:52:09>> Would you like to explain how you
2:52:11developed your evidence, your positive
2:52:13evidence for the fact that Erica was
2:52:16>> Um, yeah, sure. So, I just think all
2:52:18women are
2:52:19>> Oh, so [laughter] you're allowed to just
2:52:20say stuff. Who knew? So, and and by the
2:52:23way, and what what dramatically
2:52:25transformed your opinion of Erica after
2:52:28uh going to the headquarters? Because
2:52:29you were pretty hostile uh about
2:52:32>> I wasn't hostile towards him.
2:52:33>> You don't think calling somebody too
2:52:35>> No. Come on. That's like normal
2:52:38tongue-in-cheek stuff for me online.
2:52:39>> Oh, you're being tongue tongue and
2:52:40cheek.
2:52:41>> Yeah. Usually when I call someone
2:52:42I'm being tongue and cheek.
2:52:43Yeah. Like for instance, you got
2:52:46supporters. I mean, if you were if you
2:52:48want to use the same exact argument, you
2:52:50would take a supporter like Owen
2:52:51Benjamin, he called you bad names and
2:52:55one and he called your husband bad
2:52:56names. Are you just you're just like,
2:52:58well, that's no biggie.
2:53:00>> I've never answered him on anything that
2:53:02he said. I'm saying that you now are her
2:53:04her biggest defender. So, do you still
2:53:05think she's I'm not her biggest
2:53:06defender.
2:53:06>> Do you think still think she's too
2:53:08>> No, no, no, no. I didn't know Erica
2:53:10Kirk. I'd never met her before.
2:53:12>> Okay. But you had an issue with Turning
2:53:14Point being led uh by a bunch of femots
2:53:17saying talking about the feminist angle
2:53:19and then suddenly [laughter] you go to
2:53:20the headquarters. You come you go into
2:53:22the headquarters now all of a sudden
2:53:24you've got text messages that you're
2:53:26sharing with them. You say that your you
2:53:28and your wife are getting involved with
2:53:30management.
2:53:31>> No, no, no. I'm not involved in any
2:53:32management at turn point.
2:53:33>> Well, I'm pretty sure there is a clip of
2:53:34you where you say that your wife went to
2:53:36their recent conference and sat down and
2:53:39then when you were on your ro
2:53:40>> No, no, no, no. Hang on. I'll explain
2:53:41what happened just so that you
2:53:42understand.
2:53:43>> Yeah.
2:53:43>> So, I was invited there to do some
2:53:45debate training. That's literally what I
2:53:47was invited there to do.
2:53:49>> Uh on recommendation. So, I went down
2:53:51and did some debate. That's the first
2:53:53time I ever met anybody at TPUSA.
2:53:54>> Okay. And then you said you sat down
2:53:56with Erica.
2:53:58>> Well, I didn't sit down to her. I talked
2:53:59to her in a hallway.
2:54:01>> So, you didn't sit down and speak with
2:54:03Erica?
2:54:03>> No, I didn't have like some sit down
2:54:05long conversation. We we talked in a
2:54:07hallway.
2:54:07>> Okay. For Is that when you gave her the
2:54:09hug?
2:54:10>> Yeah. gave her the hug right there. My
2:54:11and my my wife did too. We were both
2:54:12very sorry for what happened.
2:54:13>> Okay. So, at what point did you start
2:54:15receiving text messages from that you
2:54:19cited in your opening statement?
2:54:21>> Oh, I just reached out to TPUSA and
2:54:22said, "I'm prepping for a debate. Is
2:54:24there anything that's pertinent that I
2:54:26can use here?"
2:54:26>> Do you find it interesting that people
2:54:29have been asking for, you know, basic
2:54:31answers to questions and you're saying
2:54:33that you walked into their headquarters
2:54:34and reached out and they instant
2:54:36>> It's amazing, isn't it? if you reach out
2:54:37in good faith and you're not demonizing
2:54:39them and saying that they're complicit
2:54:40in the murder of people's deaths that
2:54:42that perhaps they're actually willing to
2:54:45release things to you that are pertinent
2:54:47other than thinking that you know
2:54:49perhaps you're diabolical
2:54:51I feel like if I was going to release
2:54:52that information I didn't I didn't
2:54:54demand that it be released to me um I
2:54:56actually never demanded that it be
2:54:57released I just simply said that this is
2:54:59what was going on in the last 48 hours
2:55:02maybe to the media they could release it
2:55:03they could release it to PBD they decide
2:55:05to release it to a guy that called Erica
2:55:07too in June.
2:55:09>> So what?
2:55:09>> Yeah. I just think it kind of shows that
2:55:11Turning Point is sending you as their
2:55:14horse.
2:55:14>> Well, I don't know.
2:55:15>> They just don't have they don't have the
2:55:16courage to have the conversation. If
2:55:19they were just releasing something in
2:55:20good news to answer questions I've never
2:55:22demanded.
2:55:24It's not evidence that you're sharing
2:55:26your opinion that she's too I
2:55:28can't share my opinion that I think it's
2:55:29going to register as really obvious to
2:55:31the public that rather than presenting
2:55:33that throughout the course of everybody
2:55:35wanting to know what Charlie was going
2:55:37[clears throat] through through his last
2:55:38days, they decided to give it to you to
2:55:39come to my house as some sort of a
2:55:41surprise. Do you think the public's not
2:55:42smart enough to see that?
2:55:43>> Do you think that if you
2:55:45>> talking about terrible PR?
2:55:46>> Do you know that there's a huge debate
2:55:48that's coming up that's going to be
2:55:49probably one of the most viewed that
2:55:51year and one of the debaters calls you
2:55:52and says, "I'm taking this position.
2:55:54this is the position that I feel like
2:55:56there's the most evidence for. And
2:55:58Candace also agreed to answer many of my
2:56:00questions in regards to this. So, if you
2:56:02got pertinent evidence here that I can
2:56:04use, I'd definitely like take a look. It
2:56:06was actually amazing to me. It really
2:56:08was actually amazing to me how if you
2:56:10approach people in good faith and just
2:56:12say, "Hey, I'd actually like to know
2:56:14what the facts and details are around
2:56:15this." They actually do talk to you.
2:56:18It's amazing.
2:56:19>> Yeah. I I I just do not believe a that
2:56:21you that they are doing this in good
2:56:23faith. I don't believe that anything you
2:56:25have done has demonstrated that's in
2:56:26good faith. It demonstrates that you
2:56:27walked into Turning Point USA
2:56:29headquarters and came out a different
2:56:30man because you were critical of the
2:56:31organization. You were critical of Erica
2:56:33and now you're sitting here going,
2:56:34"Candace, I want to interrogate you for
2:56:36an hour and a half about everything. Are
2:56:38you critical of somebody that you hadn't
2:56:40met and then you meet him and you're
2:56:41less critical of him?"
2:56:42>> Uh, and the inverse has happened too. I
2:56:44was critical about Erica and now I'm
2:56:46more critical about
2:56:47>> you. But I'm asking you, isn't it the
2:56:48case that there's people you've been
2:56:49critical of and then you've met them and
2:56:50you're less critical after you meet
2:56:52them? uh too I I I feel like
2:56:54if you think that she's dumb and you
2:56:57Let's just talk about your record. I
2:56:58mean, you're a person that has spent
2:57:00time in what most people would term to
2:57:02be the manosphere talking about feminis
2:57:05Well, yeah.
2:57:06>> I debate against the the against
2:57:08feminists and and red pillars and a lot
2:57:10of the actual So, I'm a Christian
2:57:12ethicist. I
2:57:13>> you go on to Joe Rogan and you're like
2:57:15like soft explaining away why Erica had
2:57:17to take over Charlie's company when they
2:57:20don't have a parent at home. So now
2:57:21you're a feminist icon. Like you just go
2:57:22into the headquarters and you just shift
2:57:24all of your perspective.
2:57:25>> That's a bizarre criticism. Like
2:57:27nobody's in the bigger girl boss
2:57:28position than you.
2:57:29>> Yeah. I'm actually No,
2:57:30>> you're in the biggest of the girl boss
2:57:32positions. Like you don't have to do
2:57:34this. You just do do this. You could
2:57:36definitely not do it at all and be fine.
2:57:38Right. But you still do.
2:57:40>> I I I would say that you are making a
2:57:42comparison that cannot be compared
2:57:44because because Erica's husband was just
2:57:47assassinated in front of the world,
2:57:49>> which makes sense. Why should we take
2:57:50the organization away?
2:57:51>> No, that it makes sense why you would go
2:57:52home to your kids, just so you know.
2:57:54>> Wait a second. That's that's bizarre.
2:57:56>> They don't have a parent. They don't
2:57:56have a parent and they've just suffered
2:57:58a trauma. You don't go into the office.
2:57:59>> You want to protect your husband's
2:58:01legacy, right? And you're trying to find
2:58:03some new
2:58:04>> legacy is his children, not the
2:58:05organization.
2:58:05>> It's it's both.
2:58:06>> No, it it
2:58:07>> Yes, it is both. It's totally rational
2:58:10and reasonable to believe that it would
2:58:11be both Turning Point USA that is part
2:58:14of Charlie Kirk's leg. He worked his
2:58:15whole life for it. This is why people
2:58:16think she and his children. Now, for you
2:58:19though to say that anybody's a girl
2:58:21boss, right? That's like the pot calling
2:58:23the kettle black.
2:58:24>> That came out of your mouth.
2:58:25>> No, that was you. You brought up girl
2:58:27boss.
2:58:28>> Girl boss came out of your mouth.
2:58:29>> Yeah. I'm just I'm telling you that you
2:58:31brought up this idea that I'm defending
2:58:34some feminist nonsense. I'm not.
2:58:36>> I'm pointing out that there there, by
2:58:38the way,
2:58:38>> she's not qualified to take over his
2:58:41company.
2:58:41>> There's always objective outliers to
2:58:44each situation. In fact, it's the
2:58:45exception that proves the rule. And the
2:58:47interesting thing here is like I'm still
2:58:49just as critical of feminism inside of
2:58:51TPUSA as I've always been. And I'm just
2:58:54as critical of any pro-Zionist position
2:58:56as I've ever been. None of that's ever
2:58:59changed. By the way, I would think it's
2:59:02the most rational, reasonable thing on
2:59:04planet Earth to do if you wanted to
2:59:06actually see an organization change to
2:59:08try to work with leadership or reach out
2:59:09to leadership to try to do so. Doesn't
2:59:12that make the most amount of
2:59:13>> sense? I would like to state for the
2:59:14record that I think Erica is
2:59:16underqualified from uh to run that to
2:59:18run the organization and on on the more
2:59:22emotional aspects. I agree with the what
2:59:26seems to be a majority opinion cuz not
2:59:29going to say it's scientific that any
2:59:31woman that would leave her kids and go
2:59:33right into the office after their
2:59:34husband was publicly assassinated does
2:59:37not have their priorities straight.
2:59:38>> Okay. Well, I understand that you can
2:59:40have those criticisms.
2:59:42>> Yeah.
2:59:42>> But I'm not understanding still how that
2:59:44would make her complicit.
2:59:45>> Yeah. I don't I don't have to keep
2:59:47answering the same question. So, let's
2:59:50>> ask how it's complicit.
2:59:51>> Your team is asking to play a clip. So,
2:59:53if we want to play this clip to just
2:59:55finish this segment on the
2:59:56>> Erica Kirk topic. We can spend some time
2:59:58on that as well. So, if you guys are
2:59:59ready in the back,
3:00:00>> we're ready.
3:00:03and causing that 306 diameter as would
3:00:06happen with a pet and explosives as as
3:00:08we've demonstrated to you in the past.
3:00:10It accidentally because of how Charlie
3:00:12was crouched
3:00:14went up and hit his neck
3:00:17and that ruined everything. That ruined
3:00:20everything. It was problematic. It's the
3:00:22reason why Teraldan had to scramble to
3:00:24get the cameras down because they were
3:00:27never supposed to see it. They could
3:00:29have said reasonably that a 30 six got
3:00:33eaten by Charlie much more reasonably
3:00:36obviously than saying that the chicken
3:00:39bones in his neck stopped it because he
3:00:41ate vegetables.
3:00:45They panicked. That was what then that's
3:00:48why Terl's nervous on the phone with me.
3:00:49Again, this is my theory and I am now
3:00:51very much sticking to it. Okay, they
3:00:54panicked. It's the reason Erica had to
3:00:56step out once. That's why she would have
3:00:59got gotten on the phone with Terrell so
3:01:01quickly because I was going, "Why is
3:01:02Terl saying, "Well, I didn't want Erica
3:01:03to relive. Oh, that's why I did it." He
3:01:05didn't have an answer. He was nervous.
3:01:06It was crazy. But he acknowledged that
3:01:08he spoke to Erica immediately. Why did
3:01:10you speak to Erica immediately?
3:01:13>> So, do you believe that there was a
3:01:15shape charge that killed Charlie?
3:01:16>> Hey, can I ask you why you keep starting
3:01:18clips mid-sentence?
3:01:20>> Probably to get to where the clip is.
3:01:22No, it doesn't seem that way cuz you can
3:01:23always start a clip at the beginning of
3:01:24a sentence like you're just sort of like
3:01:26it's completely out of context.
3:01:28>> Wait, I didn't I didn't prepare the
3:01:29clips but I think
3:01:31>> I didn't but it's fine to ask it to back
3:01:33up.
3:01:33>> Like I said this this the I don't need
3:01:36to say what's happening here cuz the
3:01:37internet will clock it. But uh in this
3:01:40episode we are now going and that's why
3:01:43I said we're now going to look at some
3:01:45alternative theories. I made it very
3:01:46clear that this was a theory that I
3:01:48didn't want to look at. This is I
3:01:50believe because I don't have every
3:01:51episode on my head and but I'm pretty
3:01:53sure this is an episode where we
3:01:55presented the evidence that was in the
3:01:56car, the photos of what was in the car,
3:01:58right? And so we are now inferring off
3:02:01of what we see in the car that this very
3:02:04much does look like uh that we are see a
3:02:09bunch of shattered road microphone which
3:02:11was an early theory that I was actually
3:02:12interested in but couldn't really wrap
3:02:15my head around what was uh the shape
3:02:17charge explosive as I say at the
3:02:19beginning episode like I just it was
3:02:20just not my expertise and I was
3:02:22concerning myself with timelines and
3:02:24stories and statements that didn't make
3:02:25sense. without question, Cheryl
3:02:27Farnsworth uh is is someone who made me
3:02:30think that we were missing a big part of
3:02:32the story. So, I'm walking them through
3:02:35uh John Bray's theory if we started to
3:02:38insert what we are actually observing
3:02:41with the evidence that we're taking a
3:02:42look at and what took place that day.
3:02:44So, we're completely in the hypothetical
3:02:46right here. Uh and you're now
3:02:48introducing this.
3:02:49>> If that's if that's the case, if you're
3:02:50just hypothetically exploring it, that's
3:02:52why I'm just asking directly.
3:02:53>> Yes. But if you But that's obvious when
3:02:55you watch this episode. So that's why it
3:02:57feels like I'm in the middle of an
3:02:59interview with CNN when they like pull
3:03:01up random clips and they're like,
3:03:02"What's this? What's this?" You watch
3:03:04the episode, you know?
3:03:05>> Just trying to make sure. Do you think
3:03:07that your alternative theory? Do you
3:03:09think
3:03:09>> I think John Bray's theory should be
3:03:11explored? Yes.
3:03:11>> Okay. Do you Do you think that Charlie
3:03:13Kirk was killed with an explosive?
3:03:15>> I think I think that that is a
3:03:17possibility. Yes. Okay.
3:03:18>> And it should be explored. He's done a
3:03:20lot of work on it. John Brea has done
3:03:21good work and I think that that's why
3:03:23that uh theory is now starting to gain
3:03:25steam since we released the second set
3:03:29of the photos of what was in the car. I
3:03:31think it's viable.
3:03:32>> So, this was the big thing I wanted to
3:03:33get into with you on the explosives,
3:03:35too.
3:03:36>> What What is it about that theory that's
3:03:38actually compelling to you? So, I looked
3:03:39into the explosive mic theory multiple
3:03:41times
3:03:43>> and the biggest thing that stood out to
3:03:45me is there's no explosion. There's
3:03:47there's literally no explosion. In fact,
3:03:49there's videos when the shot rings out
3:03:52um that kills Charlie, at least it
3:03:55sounds like a shot to me. People are
3:03:56actually like looking up towards where
3:03:59the uh the gun is being fired. They're
3:04:02looking away for where the sound is.
3:04:05Like where's the actual explosion?
3:04:07>> Well, for every person that you say
3:04:08looks away, there's going to be a person
3:04:10that was looking forward. Uh we have
3:04:12former Marines that have gotten on and
3:04:15said, "It looks to me like there's an
3:04:17explosion under his shirt." Right. You
3:04:19obviously saw um uh Rob O'Neal go on to
3:04:25I'm forgetting which platform it was
3:04:26where he said the first thing I thought
3:04:28was
3:04:28>> Rob O'Neal is the man that killed Osama.
3:04:30>> Yeah. And I think he's qualified to say
3:04:32what he believes he saw. Uh we we should
3:04:34actually since they're pulling clips we
3:04:36should run that clip of Rob O'Neal and
3:04:38what he said and what he observed and
3:04:39his experience.
3:04:41>> So I'm going to take that. And also
3:04:43there were people who tested like
3:04:45immediately spoke to the media that day
3:04:47who said the same thing that they
3:04:48thought that something happened under
3:04:49his shirt. That was actually if you go
3:04:50back to like my first episode when I was
3:04:51just observing what I saw with my eyes.
3:04:53I was asking the serious question. I was
3:04:55seriously saying why is it like somebody
3:04:57shot him from underneath? Why is his
3:04:58shirt moving first? It doesn't make
3:04:59sense to me. And uh I'm
3:05:01>> that's because of air dispersal from the
3:05:03bullet.
3:05:04>> So when a when whenever a bullet is
3:05:07shot, a projectile shot, you can
3:05:08actually run this experiment yourself if
3:05:10you have a rifle. take like an empty box
3:05:12of ammunition and put it on the table
3:05:14and then fire it near the muzzle and
3:05:17that box will actually blow off the
3:05:18table.
3:05:19>> Okay. So, question for you. Does that
3:05:22box go sideways off a table?
3:05:24>> It can.
3:05:25>> It It can.
3:05:25>> Yeah, it can. It depends on the
3:05:27dispersal.
3:05:27>> You 3,000 lbs of energy or 2,000 lbs of
3:05:30energy coming at you. That's how much it
3:05:32carries.
3:05:33>> 2,000 pounds of energy.
3:05:34>> We We can fact check that. How many How
3:05:36many How many pounds of energy is it? a
3:05:38306 [laughter]
3:05:39uh being shot 150 yards away. That's a
3:05:42great question for Grock. I'm going to
3:05:43say when we looked at it, it was between
3:05:451500 and 2,000. I'm pretty sure pounds
3:05:47of energy coming at you and you just go
3:05:49upward and to the side.
3:05:50>> I don't really buy that. I mean, and I'm
3:05:52going to just say I just think that
3:05:54that's not right. But
3:05:55>> possible. It doesn't go through on top
3:05:56of that. So, there's another miracle.
3:05:57You didn't get blown backwards. You
3:05:58didn't It didn't go through. But I also
3:06:00want to say that you're saying this can
3:06:01happen and Rob O'Neal is infinitely more
3:06:03qualified, I think, to speak on that.
3:06:05>> And well, because he's actually shot and
3:06:08killed people.
3:06:09>> Why would that have anything to do with
3:06:10anything?
3:06:11>> Well, because
3:06:12>> did he slow down all the videos of the
3:06:14people he shot to see if their clothes
3:06:15moved?
3:06:16>> Well, why are you able to assert your
3:06:18pos?
3:06:19>> Because I'm going to I'm going to tell
3:06:20you how projectiles work. He's not even
3:06:22going to dis I guarantee you this guy is
3:06:23not even going to disagree with what I'm
3:06:24about to say. If it is the case that you
3:06:27have energy and you have mass and the
3:06:30mass is moving in the air, the air has
3:06:32to go somewhere.
3:06:33>> It doesn't have a choice.
3:06:34>> I think you're like totally BSing right
3:06:37now, man. I
3:06:38>> not only am I not BSing, I'm telling you
3:06:40the truth. If a bullet is moving in air,
3:06:43air has to move out of way of bullet.
3:06:45And
3:06:45>> well, maybe not at the bottom of a shirt
3:06:46here. I don't know. I I just I disagree
3:06:48with that. I'd like to say for the
3:06:49record, I've watched some of you do
3:06:51these sorts of things where you assert
3:06:53something with a lot of confidence and
3:06:54it's you can fact check it. It's your
3:06:56shirt. Bullets displace air.
3:06:57>> If a not about whether it displace air,
3:06:59it's where it dispersed the air
3:07:01underneath his shirt here.
3:07:02>> It's not underneath the shirt.
3:07:03>> The bullet's this big and you're telling
3:07:04me it's going to hit his neck and then
3:07:07shirt starts up here and the collar's
3:07:09moving and then you see the wave here as
3:07:11he's moving backwards.
3:07:12>> Yeah,
3:07:13>> that's not true.
3:07:14>> It's not.
3:07:14>> And we obviously can't show that clip. I
3:07:16disagree with you. Okay, I understand
3:07:17you can't show it to for purposes.
3:07:19>> Exactly. Uh I disagree with you. People
3:07:21can go watch and make up their own
3:07:22minds. We don't need to debate it.
3:07:23Whether or not it was the first thing I
3:07:25said was, "Why is his shirt moving
3:07:26first?" That didn't make sense to me. It
3:07:28it it almost looks just like this. It
3:07:30goes across. His necklace breaks first
3:07:32before Charlie even reacts. If you watch
3:07:34it in slow, his necklace breaks first,
3:07:36which I thought was very odd. And then
3:07:38you see a puff here, and then the next
3:07:39thing you know, there's a there's the uh
3:07:41entry wound on his neck. I I would not
3:07:44confidently assert that I see smoke.
3:07:46I've never said it on my platform.
3:07:47>> You think that an explosion generally
3:07:48has smoke?
3:07:51>> I don't think that there's any quality
3:07:52version of video that would get us to be
3:07:54able to answer that question other than
3:07:56Terrell's 4K footage that he has from
3:07:58the front. So,
3:07:58>> there's a lot of um if you look at the
3:08:00Israeli pagers, it's assumed that they
3:08:03it's a similar, if not the same type of
3:08:05explosive that was used inside the
3:08:07pagers that would have been used inside
3:08:09of this road mic. I think that you
3:08:10should, since you love debating, you
3:08:12should debate someone like John Bray,
3:08:14who's worked on that theory for 11
3:08:15months and ask those sorts of questions
3:08:17of how a shape charge would work. Uh, I
3:08:20presented the evidence of what was in
3:08:21the car. And I also at that episode that
3:08:23you're clipping said, "John Bray has
3:08:25done an unbelievable amount of work on
3:08:27this." And I think he has debated a ton
3:08:29of people actually regarding this topic.
3:08:32>> So that's the route that I would send
3:08:33you on the purpose of Yeah. For the
3:08:35purpose of my show, I I do believe to
3:08:38answer your question that it is a
3:08:40hypothetical. I mean that it is a a
3:08:42theory that should be thoroughly
3:08:43explored.
3:08:44>> There's two clips uh your team wants to
3:08:46show. One of them is the rival O'Neal
3:08:47clip since we're on it. So, if you guys
3:08:49are ready in the back before we go to ad
3:08:50break, if you want to pull it up, this
3:08:52is a good time to do so.
3:09:00>> And good to see you, General Hall. A lot
3:09:02of things bother um it bothers me about
3:09:04this. Um nothing in particular and it's
3:09:07not like I'm out there saying big lie or
3:09:09conspiracy or someone did it. I'm just
3:09:11saying I've been in a lot of shootings.
3:09:12I've killed more than a handful of
3:09:14people and this thing looked shady off
3:09:16the bat. I mean just I've killed people
3:09:18closer than I saw the camera and I've
3:09:20never seen a shirt move like that. That
3:09:22looks like an explosion to me. The uh
3:09:25just the fact that no one started doing
3:09:27uh first aid to Charlie Kirk. they were
3:09:28more concerned about getting SIM cards
3:09:30out of cameras, removing cameras and
3:09:31then uh getting him off the X somehow.
3:09:33There didn't seem a lot of concern for
3:09:35for his life. It seemed like just clean
3:09:36it up and then I mean I've been told
3:09:38they paved it over a couple days later
3:09:40and then you get Erica Kirk uh behind
3:09:43all the razledazzle and she's really
3:09:45quick to forgive the alleged shooter
3:09:47which technically says uh that was him
3:09:50because I forgive him but then she can't
3:09:51forgive Candace Owens for having an
3:09:53opinion or asking questions and they
3:09:54mock people by saying oh I'm just asking
3:09:56questions. Yeah, I'm a I'm a SEO team 6
3:09:58sniper. I'm asking a lot of questions.
3:10:00No one wants to answer them.
3:10:02>> And you're able to ask.
3:10:04>> He's actually said very little about the
3:10:05explosive there. So,
3:10:07>> I say he observed he said he's shot
3:10:08people up close and he's never seen a
3:10:10shirt move like that and it looked to
3:10:12him like an explosive. That's what he
3:10:13>> dispute. But when I play that video at
3:10:16full speed, I can't see a shirt moving.
3:10:19I can only see a shirt moving when we
3:10:21slow it way down. So, if I'm in real
3:10:23time, I'm just assuming this, right?
3:10:25Right. I mean, if I was in real time and
3:10:27I was in like a close quarters combat,
3:10:29you kill somebody situation and I shot
3:10:32them, would you even see the shirt move?
3:10:35>> Well, I just feel like 5 minutes ago you
3:10:37were arguing that it was because the
3:10:38bullet carried air. Now you're saying
3:10:40you don't see the shirt move at all.
3:10:41>> Yeah, but that's if you slow it down,
3:10:44the dispersement of air, that's where
3:10:46you're going to see it, right? It's
3:10:47going to be very quick, very, very,
3:10:49very, very fast. And then
3:10:50>> that's not what I saw. And clearly, it's
3:10:52not what he saw. and he thinks that
3:10:54there could be an explosive. So, I'm
3:10:55just saying to you
3:10:56>> when you
3:10:57>> people disagree with you, your your
3:10:58opinions on a fact. That's all.
3:10:59>> I understand.
3:10:59>> I think that's a good place for us to if
3:11:02you if we have another a break and then
3:11:03we can keep answer answering your
3:11:05questions.
3:11:05>> Yeah. I mean, I think um yeah, sounds
3:11:09good.
3:11:09>> Perfect. We'll do a quick three and a
3:11:10half minute ad break. We'll be back for
3:11:12the last segment.
3:11:13>> Cool.
3:11:13>> All right. Thank you.
3:11:15>> When we set out to create a shoe that
3:11:17blends [music] comfort, function, and
3:11:19luxury, we had the choice to make it
3:11:22fast. We had the choice to make it
3:11:24cheap. We chose [music] neither.
3:11:26Instead, we chose Tuscan Italy. We chose
3:11:29true Italian craftsmanship. Each pair
3:11:32[music] touched by 50 skilled hands. We
3:11:34chose patience, spending two years
3:11:36perfecting every detail. And we chose
3:11:38the finest [music] quality at every
3:11:40step. Introducing the future looks
3:11:44bright collection. Not rushed, not
3:11:47disposable, not ordinary, rather
3:11:51intentional. luxurious, timeless.
3:12:02The beautiful thing about these events,
3:12:07you know how quickly it goes
3:12:11like this.
3:12:14Is everybody ready to get started?
3:12:18I've helped over 10,000 business owners
3:12:20grow and scale their companies. I'm just
3:12:23passionate [music] about watching
3:12:24entrepreneurs create great business.
3:12:26>> When you get guys like Jerry Rice,
3:12:29>> that was his work ethic.
3:12:31>> We were able to do some great things on
3:12:33the football field.
3:12:34>> The single most important trait I had
3:12:36was a healthy dose of delusion. And that
3:12:39delusion is sometimes also referred to
3:12:40as self-belief.
3:12:43When I can do something that I love,
3:12:46that is good for [music] business, and
3:12:48that I can make content out of, that's
3:12:49my trifecta.
3:12:54It's [screaming] time.
3:13:19Hey guys and gals, Vincent Oshana here.
3:13:21My faith over fear line is taking off
3:13:23and it's all thanks to you. We've got
3:13:24hats, shirts, hoodies, you name it. We
3:13:28also got brand new designs and new
3:13:29apparel dropping all the time. So, if
3:13:31you want to rock some faith over fear
3:13:33gear, hit the QR code on the screen or
3:13:35click on the link in the description.
3:13:36And remember guys, if you have true
3:13:38faith in God, you have absolutely
3:13:40nothing to fear. God bless and the
3:13:42future looks [music] bright.
3:13:43>> Many times when people think about
3:13:44valuement, all they think about is a
3:13:46podcast, but it's a lot more than that.
3:13:47It's nine companies working together on
3:13:50an 11 acre campus. If I was to give you
3:13:52a virtual tour here, you'll [music] see
3:13:53the HR department hiring talent
3:13:55acquisition. We have full stack
3:13:57developers that are working on manac and
3:13:59hiremetrics. We have a full-fledged
3:14:00events team that puts together events
3:14:02with thousands of people. We have a
3:14:04merch department designing the latest
3:14:06product. We just launched [music] the
3:14:07FLB shoes made in Italy. We have a
3:14:09marketing department. Then if you go to
3:14:11the complete opposite side of the
3:14:12building, 50 60 people making calls,
3:14:14working for [music] bed consulting,
3:14:16sales setters, and then on the complete
3:14:18opposite side of the campus, there's a
3:14:20full-on production company with editors,
3:14:21[music] shooters, creating content,
3:14:23doing podcasts. Then you can drive down
3:14:25a couple miles and go to our private
3:14:26boardroom cigar lounge with members
3:14:28only. Regardless of what it is, working
3:14:30at Value Tamement every day is a
3:14:32surprise. You could be walking into work
3:14:34and right next to you is a governor, is
3:14:37a billionaire, is an athlete. We are
3:14:39hiring aggressively, but Vitamin isn't
3:14:41for everybody. For the right person,
3:14:43this could be the last company you ever
3:14:46work for. So, if you're watching this
3:14:48and you want to learn more, go to
3:14:49vt.com/couriers [music]
3:14:52and apply now.
3:23:07All
3:23:18right. Fantastic. So, Andrew, if you
3:23:20want to go with your last couple
3:23:21thoughts.
3:23:22>> Yeah. So, I just have two two more clips
3:23:24to play.
3:23:25>> Okay.
3:23:26>> Right. And then I uh we can do final
3:23:28thoughts, I'm guessing. Um I Yeah, I
3:23:32feel like uh we got where we were trying
3:23:35to go or at least for the most part. So,
3:23:38um, the two other clips, I do want to
3:23:40play the Twigs clip. That one is
3:23:42important to me. The Twigs DNA clip.
3:23:44>> Yeah.
3:23:44>> And they're gonna pull it up just to
3:23:46have you respond to
3:23:47>> Well, you don't have to play it because
3:23:48like if if you're saying that when I
3:23:49initially watched it, I thought that
3:23:52Lance Twigs's DNA like he was directly
3:23:53responding to that because the testimony
3:23:55was a bit confusing. They started by
3:23:56saying that they were going to um uh
3:23:59like explaining how they got the samples
3:24:01and they said Lance, Matt, and Amber uh
3:24:03sorry, Lance, Matt, and Amber Robinson,
3:24:05how they got their uh DNA samples. And
3:24:08then they started speaking about the gun
3:24:09and said, you know, multiple prints were
3:24:12found on them. And then they moved and
3:24:13they said Lance Twigs's DNA was found on
3:24:15the screwdriver. Uh when I went back and
3:24:18rewatched it, I realized, well, they
3:24:19haven't officially said that Lance or
3:24:21Amber are on the gun. So I think I've
3:24:23already conceded that we don't know
3:24:25that. So I think like but if you're if
3:24:27you want
3:24:28>> No, this is directly you saying it is on
3:24:31the gun. Twig is
3:24:33>> I'm saying that I feel like I've already
3:24:35said to you like I've made that
3:24:36concession. Just to be clear, whenever I
3:24:39make a mistake, I just correct it. So
3:24:40that's why when you were asking me three
3:24:42times, I've already said we don't know
3:24:44yet and I've corrected that mistake. So,
3:24:47if the purpose of you showing this is to
3:24:49demonstrate that Candace makes mistakes
3:24:51sometimes uh when she's taking in a lot
3:24:53of information and she's reading through
3:24:55legal documents and she's trying to
3:24:57remember testimony.
3:24:59>> It's to demonstrate something else. It
3:25:00is in fact the case. We're all going to
3:25:02make mistakes. I'm going to make
3:25:03mistakes and I've already I've already
3:25:04>> You're going to make mistakes in the
3:25:05case,
3:25:06>> but in this case, you were very adamant
3:25:08that his DNA was on the gun itself.
3:25:12>> Yeah. So, I'm just saying that it's not
3:25:14ruled out. We know that there's five
3:25:15plus prints. I've said this so many
3:25:16times. I had to rewatch the testimony
3:25:19again. It's like nine hours a day. It
3:25:21got very scientific when they were
3:25:22speaking about this and I think I
3:25:23wrongly extrapolated that they meant all
3:25:25three of them were on the prince when
3:25:27the only person they officially named
3:25:28was Matt Robinson. So, we don't know yet
3:25:30if um Lance Twigs has his DNA on the
3:25:33Prince offic DNA on the gun officially
3:25:36just yet.
3:25:37>> Okay.
3:25:37>> I've already conceded that. So,
3:25:39>> that's fine. And then the last one is
3:25:41one with Erica Kirk.
3:25:42>> Sure. This is like the Erica Kirk like
3:25:44you like. [laughter]
3:25:46>> All right, you could just sit down with
3:25:48me, Erica, but we can do it this way.
3:25:49>> This goes back to a previous claim that
3:25:51you made by bringing it up.
3:25:54>> Straight to jail. Straight to jail for
3:25:57questioning at least, Erica. I don't
3:25:59care who's mad. I really do not care who
3:26:02wants to be upset after this episode.
3:26:04Really, you'll be wasting your breath.
3:26:06You can spend a billion dollars on
3:26:08influencers because this is all becoming
3:26:10increasingly inexplicable. You are
3:26:12asking me to be an idiot actually and I
3:26:14cannot do that for you. Someone once
3:26:17commented beneath this show that if the
3:26:21situations were reversed and there were
3:26:23this many verifiable lies
3:26:28>> straight straight to jail.
3:26:29>> Yeah. So that's the show intro and
3:26:31straight to jail straight to jail is a
3:26:32monopoly term.
3:26:33>> Okay. So do not pass go.
3:26:35>> Yeah.
3:26:35>> Do not collect $200.
3:26:37>> Yes. It's it's obviously tongue and
3:26:38cheek. And then I explained that
3:26:40actually I think that she should be
3:26:41brought in for questioning because of
3:26:42inconsistencies. So this is the exact
3:26:44episode when I started to think that she
3:26:47should be sat down and questioned. Uh
3:26:49and I I still believe that. I still hold
3:26:50the perspective that Erica should be sat
3:26:53down and she should be properly
3:26:54questioned.
3:26:55>> Do you know that she hasn't been?
3:26:56>> Um no actually that would be a great
3:26:58thing for the spokesperson of Turning
3:26:59Point USA to say that she's already I
3:27:02mean my guess would be she hasn't cuz
3:27:03they returned everything to her. But I
3:27:05>> Why do they owe you that though? Why?
3:27:07>> They don't owe me anything. that's my
3:27:09show you're watching. Just, you know,
3:27:10the clips that you're pulling are from
3:27:11my show.
3:27:11>> So, if I want to say something on my
3:27:13show, I can say that. I didn't say they
3:27:15owe me something. I don't think that's
3:27:16ever unless you have
3:27:17>> But if you say [clears throat] like you
3:27:18need to be sat down for questioning and
3:27:20you don't even know if they haven't
3:27:21been,
3:27:22>> that's strange, right?
3:27:23>> Do you know if they have been?
3:27:24>> No, I have no idea.
3:27:26>> So, you're just saying what if they
3:27:28haven't been?
3:27:28>> Yeah. If you're if your entire
3:27:30>> filling if your entire thing is junk,
3:27:32>> if you're No, it's not junk. If if the
3:27:35query is why is it that Erica Kirk's not
3:27:37being sat down for questioning,
3:27:39>> but you have absolutely no knowledge
3:27:40whether or not she's been sat down for
3:27:42questioning or not,
3:27:43>> what that does is it creates an
3:27:44innuendo. It creates an inference. It
3:27:46creates out to the ethos that this
3:27:50should be happening because something's
3:27:51wrong here when you actually don't have
3:27:53the knowledge that anything's wrong at
3:27:54all.
3:27:55>> I just think that my opinion is that she
3:27:58should be sat down and questioned.
3:28:00>> But you're not sure if she hasn't been.
3:28:01>> Yeah. And you're not sure if she has
3:28:02been either. So, like I said, I feel
3:28:05like now you're just kind of filling the
3:28:06air with turning points like we want
3:28:09>> make sure that you go in there and you
3:28:10defend Erica. And I have to say, I don't
3:28:12think you've done an extraordinary job
3:28:14with that.
3:28:14>> But I'm not here to defend Erica. The
3:28:16thing is though,
3:28:17>> that since four out of five of the clips
3:28:18that you had on the ready when we asked
3:28:20you guys ahead of time, I mean, I want
3:28:22to just assert how professionally we
3:28:24have dealt with this debate. As you can
3:28:26see, we have not planned any gotcha
3:28:28clips for Andrew. I expressed to him
3:28:30that what we were going to do was just
3:28:31to use people for fact checks and it
3:28:33because I might not remember something
3:28:35um or I do remember something and you're
3:28:37saying no and that is what I think will
3:28:39register to people as very fair. We did
3:28:42not take out of context clips of Andrew
3:28:44to try to
3:28:47bring you no when you said you were
3:28:49going to bring claims that you want me
3:28:51to speak to. You didn't say I intend on
3:28:53sitting you down with out of contexted
3:28:56clips to which we said to you before in
3:28:58an email any clips you want to share
3:29:00with us send it over. Let's assert a
3:29:01debate claim so that we can both be
3:29:03ready to respond to it. This just
3:29:05>> that's not really what happened.
3:29:06>> Well that what's not what didn't happen.
3:29:08>> Yeah. This this uh the way that you're
3:29:10framing the exchange that's not that's
3:29:12not actually what happened. We were
3:29:13negotiate it is true. We negotiated out
3:29:16uh the claim itself, right? Which one's
3:29:19going to take which position. And I
3:29:20wanted to make sure that I had at least
3:29:21an hour and a half on mine and you got
3:29:23the time for yours to question me. We
3:29:24did. We got through your hour and a half
3:29:26on mine. Roughly an hour and a half now
3:29:28on mine. That's basically how this went.
3:29:30>> But in the beginning, I did not take an
3:29:32hour and a half to just pull out of
3:29:33context list with Andrew. I actually
3:29:35debated the substance of what's going on
3:29:36in this trial and this hearing. And I I
3:29:38do think that you fell I think you fell
3:29:39short of that.
3:29:40>> There's nothing out of Hang on. There's
3:29:42nothing here except holding you to
3:29:44account for your say yes or no. Well, we
3:29:47were supposed to be dating uh be
3:29:48debating the case and whether or not
3:29:50there was overwhelming evidence.
3:29:52>> These are your claims about the case.
3:29:54>> No, you then admitted that that now
3:29:56you're getting into another sphere and
3:29:58you're you want to talk about the
3:29:59transcendentals and things that I've
3:30:00said through and like four out of five
3:30:02of your clips are about Erica Kirk. So,
3:30:03the general perspective even is your
3:30:06turning points horse quite a few of them
3:30:09were. Were was there three or four?
3:30:11>> So, you're just making stuff up.
3:30:12>> Can we get a count of how many were
3:30:14about Erica? I feel like
3:30:14>> I think it was three.
3:30:15>> Three. Okay. Three. I said four.
3:30:17>> But those are extraordinary claims,
3:30:19which is why you're asking about
3:30:20>> Well, okay. But the point being is now
3:30:23you're veering into trying to get me to
3:30:24defend my opinions and then you
3:30:25completely sherk responsibility when I
3:30:27point out yours. No, they're not claims.
3:30:29When America is too you go,
3:30:32that's just whatever. And then you move
3:30:33on.
3:30:33>> That's a claim that I and I'm
3:30:35responsible for the claim.
3:30:37>> Well, earlier when I brought it up, you
3:30:38said that it was tongue and cheek.
3:30:40>> Yes. Sure. I that's me responding to
3:30:43your criticism of the claim. That's all
3:30:46I'm doing here.
3:30:46>> I was interested and um
3:30:49>> and I'm happy to get into also the Patsy
3:30:51stuff now if you would like to. Your
3:30:53team has one more clip they want.
3:30:55They got one more clip.
3:30:56>> We were getting into the psy stuff and
3:30:58you stopped it and I was explaining to
3:30:59you. Oh, they have one more clip. Okay,
3:31:01let's go.
3:31:03>> They want to hit the minimum of four
3:31:04clips you were saying with Erica. So,
3:31:06100%. [laughter]
3:31:07>> This is absurd.
3:31:11Okay.
3:31:13And this is the one you're saying from 7
3:31:15days ago.
3:31:26Okay. While they're looking for that, do
3:31:28you want to continue?
3:31:29>> Yeah. I I mean, can I ask a question? I
3:31:31know it's been or or like can I ask a
3:31:32question or we
3:31:33>> not really. We're I'm just going to
3:31:35we're going to hold to the actual
3:31:37contract itself. The contract is does
3:31:40not say that you are allowed to just
3:31:43question me without me being able to
3:31:44respond to you.
3:31:45>> I've never said you can't
3:31:46>> or have a conversation.
3:31:48>> You've been able to respond to every
3:31:49question I've asked you. And by the way,
3:31:51the the other thing is is like
3:31:52>> let's have it your way. I want it to
3:31:54look like we've done everything Andrew
3:31:56wanted to so that people can fairly
3:31:57assess the situation. So you have it
3:31:59your way. I will not ask a question.
3:32:00>> Totally fair with me.
3:32:02>> So are you good with her asking a
3:32:04question or no?
3:32:04>> You said no.
3:32:05>> Waiting for the clip.
3:32:06>> Okay. So you want to wait for the clip
3:32:08first. Okay, you guys have it in the
3:32:10back.
3:32:13Okay, beautiful.
3:32:30>> The team told me they had it. So,
3:32:31>> that's what I heard.
3:32:33>> Okay, there we go.
3:32:33>> Come on, guys.
3:32:34>> Did this crime? Okay, because Lance
3:32:37Twigs my
3:32:40fine
3:32:40>> Lance Twigs has his DNA on the rifle.
3:32:44>> Lance,
3:32:44>> and to be clear, Lance Twigs' DNA was
3:32:47not as degraded as Tyler Robinson's DNA
3:32:51was
3:32:52>> on Tyler's rifle. It's Tyler's rifle.
3:32:54>> Oh, you also said, "Yeah, it's not as
3:32:56degraded on the rifle."
3:32:57>> Yeah, cuz I thought he was one of the
3:32:58things. But I I've already that that's
3:33:00what I mean when I say that like it just
3:33:01seems like you're not actually here
3:33:03trying to engage because I even before
3:33:05you got to this and I knew that you had
3:33:07some secret clip planned. I said to you
3:33:09when I rewatched the testimony I
3:33:11realized that they didn't explicitly say
3:33:12Lance Twigs. They said five other
3:33:14profiles were on it and that his was the
3:33:17most degraded. So I hope your team feels
3:33:20fulfilled in playing that. Uh is there
3:33:22any more? I'm happy to play every clip
3:33:24that he has on the ready. Anybody? You
3:33:27said you said you had some new evidence
3:33:28at the beginning of the
3:33:30>> Yeah, we should show that text message
3:33:31that you read just because I think
3:33:32that's important for the public. You
3:33:34shared it out of context.
3:33:35>> I'll do it on my show. I'll share the uh
3:33:37the text.
3:33:38>> So, you're going to read it on my show
3:33:39but not show it.
3:33:40>> Correct.
3:33:41>> Okay.
3:33:41>> I'll show it on my show. But that's
3:33:43that's what I'll do. I'll show it on my
3:33:45show.
3:33:45>> Can I ask why?
3:33:46>> Well, because I want to drip out the
3:33:49evidence. You know, it's that's got to
3:33:51drip out that evidence. Keep people
3:33:53coming back for the show, right? I don't
3:33:55know if Snark serves you so well.
3:33:57>> I'm just saying like um yeah, I'll I'll
3:33:59I'll release it there. Um yeah, that's
3:34:03that's my intention, but yeah, I'm fine
3:34:05with closings if you want to do
3:34:06closings.
3:34:07>> Well, I also would just if if I may ask
3:34:09a question. Is is that a permitted?
3:34:11>> Go ahead.
3:34:12>> Um just so I also have clarity since
3:34:14your basis has been evidentiary, you
3:34:17keep saying that you have evidence or
3:34:18like you are following evidence. Which
3:34:21one of the charges against or or all of
3:34:24them do you think Tyler Robinson is
3:34:26guilty of?
3:34:28>> Um the specific charge.
3:34:31>> Yeah.
3:34:31>> Yeah. So I think what I think is that um
3:34:36Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.
3:34:38>> Yeah. But of the seven charges that he's
3:34:40he's being charged with.
3:34:41>> Yeah. Can we list them real quick? I'll
3:34:42tell you exactly which ones. We'll pull
3:34:44them up.
3:34:44>> Well, do do you know any of the charges
3:34:46he's up for right now?
3:34:48>> Yeah, of course. But I want to make sure
3:34:49that we have them listed.
3:34:51>> Yeah. But but like that's Can you name
3:34:52one? Because my my general perspective
3:34:54is that you don't actually care about
3:34:55this case. You're not following it.
3:34:57That's the That's the question. You're
3:34:59just not following it.
3:35:00>> It seems pretty like if you're going to
3:35:01engage and you're going to say the
3:35:02evidence is overwhelming that Tyler
3:35:04Robinson is guilty. I just think that
3:35:06you should like Can you tell me one?
3:35:08>> Then let's do the counter. You can
3:35:10really Yeah, this is a great guy.
3:35:11>> No, no, no. You just got to ask me play
3:35:13clips out of context. Put me in the hot
3:35:14seat. So please just answer the
3:35:16question. all seven since you've been
3:35:18following the case.
3:35:19>> Okay, sure. You name You name one.
3:35:21>> Yeah, you named all seven.
3:35:22>> I'm happy to do that, but can you name
3:35:24one?
3:35:24>> Uh, I think he's I think he's been
3:35:25charged with murder.
3:35:26>> That's actually incorrect.
3:35:27>> Okay, great. Now, name all seven.
3:35:29>> He doesn't even [laughter] This is like
3:35:30>> Name all seven.
3:35:31>> And And And I I
3:35:32>> Can you name all seven?
3:35:33>> I I can.
3:35:34>> Then do it.
3:35:35>> Sure. You don't have to.
3:35:36>> Do it. No. Do it. I'll count them. Go
3:35:38ahead.
3:35:38>> You don't have to put your fingers up. I
3:35:40>> Okay, hang on. Name them.
3:35:41>> Yeah, sure.
3:35:41>> Name them. Uh the first charge is
3:35:43aggravated murder because that's what
3:35:44carries a death sentence in the state of
3:35:46youth. No, that's not that is literally
3:35:47not murder. Okay.
3:35:48>> And so just so people No, don't I don't
3:35:50have to do it in a time limit. There's
3:35:51nothing going on. And just to explain to
3:35:53people the difference of why that really
3:35:54matters and shows that he doesn't
3:35:55actually care about this at all. Is
3:35:57because aggravated murder uh it's it's
3:35:59narrowly defined and he carries a death
3:36:01sentence. I'm not I'm going to answer
3:36:03the question. You're just going to
3:36:04recognize that your strategy of thinking
3:36:05that people are intimidated when you try
3:36:07to put a time constraint doesn't work
3:36:08and you'll be better the next time you
3:36:09debate.
3:36:09>> I got it. I got it. Give me give me the
3:36:11other ones.
3:36:12>> If the more you cut me off, the longer
3:36:13I'll take. Do you want to just wait for
3:36:14me to finish of why? That's a big
3:36:16difference so that people don't want you
3:36:17to list the charges.
3:36:19>> Yeah, I'm going to do that. You just
3:36:20don't get to pretend that there's a time
3:36:21constraint for me to do that.
3:36:22>> Well, how how long does it take you to
3:36:23list seven charges?
3:36:24>> I'm cuz I'm speaking. You just got to
3:36:26>> It sounds like you're just delaying it
3:36:27cuz you don't know them.
3:36:28>> I I know all seven of them. And I'm
3:36:30going to say again cuz you're going to
3:36:31get embarrassed. I You don't have to
3:36:33rush this. I'm also showing an example
3:36:36of a very flawed debate strategy. I
3:36:38actually am under no time constraint.
3:36:40>> I got one.
3:36:40>> Great. The second charge is the felony
3:36:44discharge of a weapon.
3:36:46>> Uh the next two charges are for
3:36:48obstruction of justice.
3:36:50>> Okay.
3:36:50>> The next two charges are for witness
3:36:52temp tampering. And the final
3:36:53>> What's the specific charges though?
3:36:55>> That is them. Obstruction of justice.
3:36:57Obstruction of justice. Witness
3:36:58tampering. Witness tampering.
3:37:00>> Okay. W And there's no other specifics
3:37:01to him.
3:37:02>> Well, we I can tell you why he's being
3:37:03>> No, no. Just the the charges and then
3:37:05seven.
3:37:05>> Yeah. See, the bad thing is when you try
3:37:07to be an a-hole and it doesn't work.
3:37:08>> What's the seventh?
3:37:09>> The last charge is uh violence in front
3:37:11of a minor.
3:37:12>> Okay, got it. So, then he's being
3:37:15charged with murder. You just say
3:37:16aggravated murder.
3:37:18>> That's the distinction. You just want to
3:37:20>> It's a It's a massive It's like you
3:37:22can't even You cannot say murder versus
3:37:24aggravated murder.
3:37:25>> This gets to [clears throat] the entire
3:37:26crux of why him being up up up for the
3:37:28death sentence. And I actually find the
3:37:32defense's filing about why this is not
3:37:35aggravated to be uh
3:37:38very compelling of why it's not
3:37:39aggravated murder. I actually think that
3:37:40if the state was going to even try to
3:37:43pull this off, they should have charged
3:37:44him with just murder. Um and then I do
3:37:47also again want to stress to audiences
3:37:50that that debate strategy of thinking
3:37:51that you have to speak faster or
3:37:54somebody puts your hand up and they try
3:37:55to pretend like it's some sport. I think
3:37:57he thinks it's a blood sport. It's not.
3:37:59It's about being right and being
3:38:00principled when you're engaging. And you
3:38:02can make mistakes. I make mistakes all
3:38:04the time, but at least be genuine in
3:38:07pretending that you care about this case
3:38:08enough to know one of the seven charges
3:38:10that are up against Tyler Robinson when
3:38:11you say the evidence is overwhelming
3:38:13that he's guilty. Um, if you would like
3:38:15to move to final statements, I'm fine. I
3:38:17want to make sure Andrew has had the
3:38:18time that he has requested.
3:38:20>> I think your team would like to pull up
3:38:22the seven charges that he just asked you
3:38:23about. If you guys want to pull that up
3:38:25just to confirm
3:38:26>> the seven you went through.
3:38:29Can you guys zoom in a little bit for
3:38:30>> aggravated murder, felony discharge of a
3:38:32firearm, uh, obstruction of obstruction,
3:38:35the obstruction of justice, which is
3:38:37counts three and four, five and six,
3:38:39tampering with a witness, and count
3:38:42violent
3:38:42>> I said offense in the presence of a
3:38:43minor
3:38:44>> child.
3:38:45>> Yeah. So five, six, tampering witness,
3:38:47thirdderee felony. Now, I did notice
3:38:49something I just was curious about if
3:38:51I'm just wondering. When you pulled out
3:38:54your phone just before you asked that
3:38:55question, did somebody by chance text
3:38:56you that question? You can check my
3:38:58phone.
3:38:58>> I'm just curious.
3:38:59>> No, you can absolutely not. I didn't I
3:39:00have not had one communication with a
3:39:02single person. Not even my producers who
3:39:04are in there this whole time we were
3:39:05here. You want to check my phone?
3:39:07>> I'm happy to do it because you're just
3:39:08going to get double embarrassed. Where's
3:39:09my phone?
3:39:10>> You want to see it? I'm just curious.
3:39:12Yeah,
3:39:12>> you can literally do that. Here you go.
3:39:14PBD,
3:39:15>> you're the moderator. Take it. Let's
3:39:16see.
3:39:17>> See if anyone was texted at all during
3:39:19this debate.
3:39:20>> All right.
3:39:21>> About the violent charges or anything?
3:39:25>> I'm looking through this. You give me
3:39:26permission. So I'm looking at full
3:39:27permission to go through my phone. I
3:39:29don't need to cheat.
3:39:29>> So the last one has nothing to do with
3:39:32it. It's just a compliment.
3:39:33>> Mhm.
3:39:34>> I haven't even read my text messages.
3:39:35>> That's a compliment.
3:39:36>> He's reading them. [laughter]
3:39:37>> You're okay. You're giving me
3:39:38permission. I'm just going to read three
3:39:39of them for 11:32 cuz after that I don't
3:39:41need to read it.
3:39:42>> Any other texts? Could have been
3:39:44Telegram. Could have been something.
3:39:45>> All I have is signal. You can check that
3:39:46too.
3:39:48>> I only have signal.
3:39:49>> Telegram I used in Russia and that was
3:39:51it. I downloaded information.
3:39:52>> I'll take your word for it.
3:39:53>> Yeah. I I don't need to like I deeply
3:39:55care about this case. I don't need to
3:39:56pretend
3:39:57>> you deeply care about the case. I just
3:39:58you know I have my other question is
3:40:00about the steakhouse receipt.
3:40:03>> You just said that you were done asking
3:40:04all your questions.
3:40:05>> So you know nothing there
3:40:06>> there. I don't
3:40:07>> Yeah. Do you have the steakhouse receipt
3:40:08is my question?
3:40:09>> Um I have said several times that I have
3:40:11I have never said I have the receipt for
3:40:13the steakhouse. I have said the person
3:40:14who was working on that story is going
3:40:16to be forthcoming with the receipt and
3:40:17that was what I was responding to and he
3:40:19then dropped the receipt. He redacted
3:40:21elements of it and I said, "Stay tuned.
3:40:23He's the one working on that story."
3:40:25>> Okay. So, you you haven't actually
3:40:27confirmed that Robinson was at that
3:40:28steakhouse.
3:40:29>> All I did, as I said earlier in this
3:40:31conversation, was I spoke to the owner
3:40:32when when I broke that story. I think it
3:40:34was back in January. I spoke to the
3:40:36owner, understood what had happened um
3:40:38and that there was a receipt. That's it.
3:40:41That's the extent of what I shared is
3:40:42what happened.
3:40:43>> Okay. So, to be clear, there's no
3:40:46receipt. You
3:40:47>> I just said the opposite. that I said
3:40:48there there is
3:40:48>> Well, you don't have a copy of the
3:40:50receipt.
3:40:50>> I the receipt was published online.
3:40:54>> Yeah. Right. With blurred out.
3:40:55>> The person working on this story.
3:40:56>> Yeah.
3:40:56>> That blurred that out is what I was
3:40:58referring to when I said stay tuned and
3:41:00keep following his stuff because he went
3:41:01to go which do what I hadn't done which
3:41:04was he interviewed the actual server.
3:41:05>> So there's no evidence that Tyler was at
3:41:07that steakhouse.
3:41:08>> I I would say the receipt with his debit
3:41:10card number it would be some hard
3:41:11evidence if that I agree with that. So
3:41:14that's it. But you're questioning me.
3:41:15But is there as of right now
3:41:17>> he paid if you're asking me did he pay
3:41:18with a credit or debit card? The answer
3:41:20is yes.
3:41:20>> No. No. No. Is there proof that that was
3:41:22actually his debit card that he paid
3:41:24with?
3:41:25>> I think you should follow the person
3:41:26that um is behind that story.
3:41:28>> Well, the reason I'm asking you is
3:41:30because you always include it in your
3:41:31timeline that he traveled to the
3:41:32steakhouse.
3:41:33>> Yeah, we've been building a timeline
3:41:34with things that we feel are
3:41:36>> But is there any actual Utah 1102
3:41:38approved? I think speaking to the owner,
3:41:39knowing that there's a receipt, seeing
3:41:41the receipt, uh, is good enough to put
3:41:43on our timeline.
3:41:44>> But the receipt itself, the question I
3:41:46always had about it is, couldn't you
3:41:47just call the merchant? Like, if I've
3:41:48ever had a merchant account, I just call
3:41:50the merchant account processor and say,
3:41:51"What's the name on this?"
3:41:53>> Yeah, I would I would stay tuned. I I
3:41:55feel that the haven't spoken to the
3:41:58owner that the evidence is compelling
3:42:00enough to put onto my personal timeline
3:42:03of what took place on that day. Uh,
3:42:04that's where it's going to stay. And if
3:42:06it gets debunked, I'm happy to take it
3:42:08off if that's what you mean. That's how
3:42:09an investigation works. Um, like I said,
3:42:12I did more than enough. It would
3:42:14definitely pass the test by the Utah
3:42:181102 rule for sure. For certain
3:42:21>> to be submitted as hearsay.
3:42:23>> Well, yeah. Beyond that, because they
3:42:25didn't even have receipts. They were
3:42:26like, "Bob told me."
3:42:27>> But the question But the question is the
3:42:29receipt itself, it has not been verified
3:42:31to have been Tyler. I just want to say
3:42:33you're holding me to a higher standard
3:42:34than you are.
3:42:35>> I'm not even holding I'm just asking
3:42:37specifically.
3:42:38>> Yeah. I I I've been very forthcoming.
3:42:39I've told exactly what happened. I spoke
3:42:41to the owner. I got the tip and I
3:42:43>> So, should that be added in an official
3:42:44timeline that you
3:42:45>> It's in my timeline. It's my show. And
3:42:47we can add and subtract what we want.
3:42:49And we do if we get
3:42:50>> You can do what you want. Sure. But I'm
3:42:51asking should you include a thing that
3:42:53you know hasn't actually been verified
3:42:55to be Tyler Robinson?
3:42:56>> Yes, you should. If we're trying to
3:42:57build a timeline, you should. Yeah.
3:42:59>> You don't think that that falls? and you
3:43:00should remove it if you if someone
3:43:02somehow debunks it. But I think that the
3:43:05there is very strong evidence that that
3:43:06is where he was and that
3:43:08>> what's the strong evidence? Just the two
3:43:09people who said that they saw him.
3:43:11>> You know, I'm I'm actually all good with
3:43:12being I I I feel like I've sufficiently
3:43:14answered your question about how I got
3:43:15the information, what happened next. Uh
3:43:18would the next stage of this
3:43:19investigation being somebody accessing
3:43:22his knowing what his debit card was and
3:43:24confirming it? Yes. And I do believe
3:43:25that that will happen. And if it does
3:43:26not happen and it gets debunked, I'll
3:43:28remove it from my personal timeline that
3:43:30I share on my show.
3:43:31>> That officer, the first officer that was
3:43:32up on the roof,
3:43:34>> do you remember his name?
3:43:35>> Officer Bagley.
3:43:36>> Yeah. What was his first name?
3:43:37>> Christopher.
3:43:37>> Christopher. Um, when Christopher got up
3:43:40on the roof, you talk a lot about how
3:43:43his camera died.
3:43:44>> Well, he talked a lot about that during
3:43:46his camera died. Yeah.
3:43:47>> Do you think that he planted that
3:43:48screwdriver up there?
3:43:50>> No.
3:43:50>> No. Who do you think planted it? I if
3:43:54we're just going on my Am I allowed to
3:43:55have an opinion?
3:43:56>> Of course.
3:43:56>> Uh at this stage, I would say that I I
3:43:59don't buy his um assertion on the stand
3:44:02that he didn't check to see if anybody
3:44:04went onto the rooftop before um he got
3:44:07up there. I I do think that it's
3:44:11possible. It's at least plausible that
3:44:12the the uh screwdriver was planted. I
3:44:14don't believe him. What I can say
3:44:16strongly is that his uh cam died at just
3:44:21the right time. his body cam died at
3:44:22just the right time. I think that as you
3:44:25were just grilling me about whether or
3:44:27not I had got the merchant receipt for a
3:44:29debit card, that kind of makes difficult
3:44:32that we just have to sort of trust that
3:44:33a screwdriver was found and we don't
3:44:35have any should be evidence of a police
3:44:38body cam. But like I said, you accept
3:44:40that stuff and then are like, "Did you
3:44:42call the merchant and get like it just
3:44:44seems like you
3:44:46>> Well, I'm not adding like I said, you
3:44:48hold the prosecution to a to a bit a
3:44:50higher standard than you do unconfirmed
3:44:53evidence to an official timeline that
3:44:54I'm putting out either.
3:44:55>> What do you mean official timeline? This
3:44:56is my timeline. I made it at home.
3:44:58>> So then it would be official to your
3:45:00show.
3:45:01>> Sure.
3:45:02>> Yeah. Okay, great. So then the your your
3:45:04official timeline, Candace Owen's
3:45:06official timeline, includes a steakhouse
3:45:08stop that has not actually been
3:45:10confirmed at all.
3:45:11>> Well, yeah, it hasn't even been
3:45:12discussed by the prosecution, so it's
3:45:14it's not like you're debunking that it
3:45:16happened.
3:45:17>> Well, there's no there's no evidence for
3:45:19it. There's no good evidence for it at
3:45:21all. There's no camera there. And the
3:45:23steakhouse receipt itself has never been
3:45:25confirmed to be Tyler Robinson's. I'm
3:45:27assuming this is just like a talking
3:45:28point they gave you and you got to like
3:45:29keep pushing this or like
3:45:31>> I've been following it very closely on X
3:45:33>> the receipt. You didn't you weren't even
3:45:34following the charges of Tyler Robinson
3:45:36but you really wanted to know following
3:45:37it very closely because Wait, you think
3:45:40>> I'm calling owners of state houses and
3:45:42having a conversation you're following?
3:45:44>> I literally followed the entire trial or
3:45:46the preliminary live. I was live with an
3:45:48attorney. We covered all of it. You
3:45:50think because I have a momentary or
3:45:52lapse where I'm like, "Oh, it's murder."
3:45:54No, it's aggravated murder. Come on. You
3:45:56didn't know any of the charges. No,
3:45:58that's not splitting. It means you
3:45:59didn't follow the preliminary hearing at
3:46:01all.
3:46:01>> No, it doesn't mean that you don't know
3:46:02any of the charges that are against him
3:46:04when this is like the this is like
3:46:06getting literally to the crux.
3:46:07Aggravated murder versus murder.
3:46:09>> It's a ridiculous sentence. And not only
3:46:11that, let's point this out.
3:46:13>> Uh, one of the major things here is that
3:46:15this is your official timeline.
3:46:17>> It's mine.
3:46:19>> Yes. Who else could it be? Who else?
3:46:22>> It would be Candace. I just don't know
3:46:24what his issue is with my timeline.
3:46:25>> What's your issue with that?
3:46:27>> Well, so the issue is is that the
3:46:29entirety of the evidence revolves around
3:46:31two people who claim that he was there
3:46:33>> and supposedly a receipt. There's
3:46:35supposedly a receipt where Tyler
3:46:37Robinson paid for his steak and his soft
3:46:41drink. No alcohol, right? No alcohol,
3:46:44right? You know nothing about the case.
3:46:46But um anyway, this particular receipt,
3:46:51they could have called the merchant
3:46:52account, confirmed it, this type of
3:46:54thing. To date, this receipt has only
3:46:57the blurred information on it that would
3:46:59actually give you the information to
3:47:00confirm whose receipt it is. We have to
3:47:03date, nobody has confirmed that this was
3:47:06actually Tyler Robinson's receipt. And
3:47:09yet inside of Candace Owen's timeline,
3:47:11which she states over and over again
3:47:13when she says, "This is the longest 13
3:47:16hours. This is 13 1/2 hours." The
3:47:19requirement for about what roughly 5 and
3:47:22a half or 6 hours of that is that he
3:47:24went to the steakhouse.
3:47:26>> And so, and that's not been confirmed at
3:47:29all. Not even a little bit.
3:47:31>> I feel like saying that I spoke to the
3:47:32owner of the steakhouse is me like not
3:47:34just being on X looking at opinions, but
3:47:36actually doing the leg work. Um, and
3:47:38that's why I, like I said, if you think
3:47:40this builds up a rapport with your
3:47:42audience and makes you seem like a
3:47:43serious person, I we don't have to keep
3:47:45belaboring the point here. I feel like
3:47:47I've demonstrated that I did as much as
3:47:48I could to confirm this when it came in.
3:47:50I spoke to the owner of the restaurant.
3:47:52Um, you know, obviously took down
3:47:55everything he said, noted that there was
3:47:57in fact a receipt that he pulled. Um,
3:47:59that receipt that was published is real.
3:48:01Uh, a debit card and a credit card was
3:48:04used. If for some reason somebody
3:48:07misidentified something down the line or
3:48:09we find out it's a different Tyler
3:48:10Robinson, uh, I'm happy to remove it
3:48:12from my timeline, but for right now, I I
3:48:14think that there's enough under the Utah
3:48:161102 rule for me to keep it there. I
3:48:19don't really think we need to keep going
3:48:20into circles about this receipt. It's
3:48:21it's my timeline. I don't I don't know
3:48:22why the 1102 rule would apply here for
3:48:25years
3:48:26>> because you were constantly cite things
3:48:28that are said in that courtroom that
3:48:29have less evidentiary support than me
3:48:32contacting and speaking with the the um
3:48:35the owner of the restaurant. It's not
3:48:37like I dreamed it as to use your
3:48:39expression. So, it's in my timeline and
3:48:41I'm going to keep it there if that's
3:48:43>> sure you can keep whatever you want
3:48:44there. I'm just saying that there's no
3:48:45evidence he was ever there.
3:48:46>> Okay. Thank you. I think
3:48:47>> no hard evidence anyway. Yeah, we're I'm
3:48:49fine with closing.
3:48:50>> Okay. So, the last thing we're going to
3:48:51do before we go into ad break right
3:48:53after this will be final thoughts. I'll
3:48:54be asking both of you if anything if if
3:48:57anything on your opinion, thoughts
3:48:59changed on the case, uh, and then we'll
3:49:02finish it up from there. So, with that
3:49:03being said, a three and a half minute
3:49:04break and then we'll come back for final
3:49:06thoughts.
3:49:08When we set out to create a shoe that
3:49:10blends [music] comfort, function, and
3:49:13luxury, we had the choice to make it
3:49:15fast. We had the choice to make it
3:49:17cheap. We chose neither. Instead, we
3:49:20chose Tuskan, Italy. We chose true
3:49:23Italian craftsmanship, each pair touched
3:49:25[music] by 50 skilled hands. We chose
3:49:28patience, spending two years perfecting
3:49:30every detail. And we chose the [music]
3:49:32finest quality at every step.
3:49:35Introducing the future looks bright
3:49:37collection. Not rushed, not disposable,
3:49:41not ordinary, rather intentional,
3:49:45luxurious, timeless.
3:49:56The beautiful thing about these events,
3:50:00you know how quickly it goes
3:50:04like this.
3:50:07>> Is everybody ready to get started?
3:50:11>> I've helped over 10,000 [music] business
3:50:13owners grow and scale their companies.
3:50:15I'm just passionate about watching
3:50:17entrepreneurs create great business.
3:50:19>> When you got guys like Jerry Rise,
3:50:21[cheering]
3:50:22>> that was his work ethic.
3:50:24>> We were able to do some great things on
3:50:26the football field.
3:50:28>> The single most important trait I had
3:50:29was a healthy dose of delusion. And that
3:50:32delusion is sometimes [music] also
3:50:33referred to as self-belief.
3:50:36>> When I can do something that I love,
3:50:39that is good for business and I can make
3:50:41content out of that's my trifecta.
3:50:48It's time.
3:51:12Hey guys and gals, Vincent Oshana here.
3:51:14My faith over fear line is taking off
3:51:16and [music] it's all thanks to you.
3:51:17We've got hats, shirts, hoodies, you
3:51:20name it. We also got brand new designs
3:51:22[music] and new apparel dropping all the
3:51:24time. So, if you want to rock some faith
3:51:25over fear gear, hit the QR code on the
3:51:28screen or click on the link in the
3:51:29description. And remember guys, if you
3:51:31have true faith in God, you have
3:51:32absolutely nothing to fear. God bless
3:51:35and the future looks bright. [music]
3:51:36>> Many times when people think about value
3:51:37tamement, all they think about is a
3:51:39podcast, but it's a lot more than that.
3:51:41It's nine companies working together on
3:51:43an 11 acre campus. If I was to give you
3:51:45a virtual tour here, you'll see the HR
3:51:47department hiring [music] talent
3:51:49acquisition. We have full stack
3:51:50developers that are working on manac and
3:51:52hiremetrics. We have a full-fledged
3:51:54events team that puts together events
3:51:55with thousands of people. We have a
3:51:57merch department designing the latest
3:51:59product. We just launched the FLB shoes
3:52:01made in Italy. We have a marketing
3:52:03department. Then if you go to the
3:52:04complete opposite side of the building,
3:52:0650 60 people making calls, [music]
3:52:08working for bed consulting, sales
3:52:10setters. And then on the complete
3:52:11opposite side of the campus, there's a
3:52:13full-on production company with editors,
3:52:15shooters, creating content, doing
3:52:17podcast. Then you can drive down a
3:52:18couple miles and go to our private
3:52:20boardroom cigar lounge with members
3:52:22only. Regardless of what it is, working
3:52:23at Value Tamement every day is a
3:52:26surprise. You could be walking into work
3:52:27and right next to you is a governor, is
3:52:30a billionaire, is an athlete. We are
3:52:32hiring aggressively, but [music] Vitamin
3:52:34isn't for everybody. For the right
3:52:35person, this could be the last company
3:52:38you ever work for. So, if you're
3:52:40watching this and you want to learn
3:52:42more, [music] go to vt.com/couriers
3:52:45and apply now.
3:55:22All right, we are finally at the end.
3:55:24For those of you that are watching it,
3:55:26maybe a good commentary for you would be
3:55:28the following on if you're a Andrew fan
3:55:33and you still are still saying, you know
3:55:35what, Andrew's arguments were solid.
3:55:37Great. Candice, great. But did anything
3:55:40change your mind? Did you watch and say,
3:55:41you know what, I had this position over
3:55:43here. this would be an interesting
3:55:44commentary to hear. And of course, for
3:55:46all the people that are watching, I was
3:55:47just whispering to them here uh before
3:55:49we wrap it up. I think whether you're a
3:55:52fan of Andrew or not, whether you're a
3:55:54fan of Candace or not, nobody can
3:55:56dispute the fact that these guys agree
3:55:58to sit down and talk live, others were
3:56:02thinking this was pre-recorded. This is
3:56:03not pre-recorded. Just so everybody
3:56:05knows, this is purely live. This is a
3:56:07little bit scarier than pre-recorded
3:56:09because pre-recorded can do edits. So
3:56:11whether you agree with them or not,
3:56:13let's make sure we respect both of them
3:56:15for having this sit down. And before the
3:56:17final thoughts, I want to make sure you
3:56:18guys hear that from me as well for
3:56:20inviting inviting me here as well.
3:56:21>> Of course.
3:56:22>> I do know one day uh uh I think it was
3:56:24last week you sent a message on one of
3:56:27our accounts. She said, "Can I talk to
3:56:28Patrick?" We got on the call. You said,
3:56:29"Patrick, can you moderate this?" And
3:56:31then I said, "Great. Let's do this."
3:56:33>> And so before we wrap up, final
3:56:34thoughts. I'll come to you first.
3:56:36>> Yeah. She had nothing. just nothing
3:56:39[laughter]
3:56:39any for all of her claims of pathy
3:56:43nothing. She didn't have a single claim.
3:56:44She didn't have a single solid piece of
3:56:46evidence. She had no positive evidence
3:56:48Israel's involved in anything. No
3:56:50positive evidence that um France is
3:56:53involved in anything. No positive
3:56:56evidence TPUSA is involved in anything.
3:56:58No positive U evidence that Erica Kirk
3:57:01is involved in anything. when I ask her
3:57:03about her claims about Erica Kirk. Yeah,
3:57:05it's just fun and it's just fun anding,
3:57:08you know, or yeah, I do think that she
3:57:10needs to sit down, ask some questions,
3:57:11but uh or answer some questions, but you
3:57:13know what? Um I don't even know if she
3:57:17has like maybe she has. I have no idea.
3:57:20Yes, I'm going to have an official
3:57:21timeline with unconfirmed evidence.
3:57:23That's just fine. Hey, it's it's
3:57:25hearsay. If that's good enough for the
3:57:26state, it's good enough for me. But my
3:57:28biggest problem with the state is that
3:57:29they're ad admitting all this hearsay.
3:57:31[laughter] It's like it's she's a
3:57:33contradiction machine. On top of all of
3:57:35this, the thing that I wanted to get out
3:57:37of this more than anything else was to
3:57:40just demonstrate one thing. Yes, it's
3:57:42true. I'm not perfect on the case. I'm
3:57:44not going to ever pretend that I am and
3:57:47never did. But what has been very made
3:57:50very clear to me is that there's nobody
3:57:52with an alternative theory that has any
3:57:54evidence for it at all. None. Zero. and
3:57:58the continuous uh kind of expression,
3:58:02we're running an investigation.
3:58:04What kind of investigation builds a
3:58:06timeline out on on a receipt that they
3:58:09they don't even confirm? What kind of
3:58:11investigation
3:58:12uh tries to make these bold claims that
3:58:15Israel's involved and France is involved
3:58:18and all these different players are
3:58:19involved and never shows any evidence.
3:58:21We're just asking questions. It's my
3:58:23It's again, like I said, my opening.
3:58:24It's always intuition, my feelings, how
3:58:27I feel about things, how I think about
3:58:30things. You, Andrew, how many times you
3:58:32hear this today, Andrew, you can't tell
3:58:34me how I'm supposed to think. Yeah,
3:58:36nobody's trying to tell you how to
3:58:37think, but you should rationally come to
3:58:40your conclusions based on evidence and
3:58:42facts. And the truth is is that 90% of
3:58:45what you're saying is simply
3:58:46intuition-based.
3:58:48It's it did it came to me in a dream.
3:58:50It's intuition. Almost none of it has
3:58:52any evidence at all. just I'm skeptical
3:58:54cuz these people over here said things
3:58:56and that makes me skeptical. It's like
3:58:59but no evidence. Note this to the
3:59:01audience to everybody watching. You
3:59:03might hate my guts. That's fair enough.
3:59:05I get that. I'm not the most likable
3:59:07man. I understand that too. But there
3:59:10was nothing I mean no evidence at all
3:59:14that Tyler Robinson was a pathy that was
3:59:16ever uh put forward by Candace this
3:59:19entire debate. Now, maybe you could say
3:59:21that we stalemated when it came to
3:59:23whether or not Robinson did it. She
3:59:25says, "I found the evidence convincing."
3:59:28I unconvincing. Andrew says he found the
3:59:30evidence convincing. Okay, fair enough.
3:59:32Maybe you can't do too much about that.
3:59:34But there was nothing. She had nothing
3:59:36for Robinson being a pathy. Nothing for
3:59:39any of her conspiracies. Not a zero
3:59:42zilch. And she backed away on a bunch of
3:59:44them. This is the first time I think
3:59:46she's ever really backed away from the
3:59:47twigs thing. First time I've heard her
3:59:49back away from the Erica thing, back
3:59:51away from TPUSA, being very cautious
3:59:54about making any of those claims now.
3:59:56Whereas on her show, much more likely to
3:59:58be making those claims. So, she just had
4:00:00nothing the entire debate. Zero
4:00:03>> Candace.
4:00:05>> Uh, well, I think that is quite a
4:00:08conclusion admitting somewhere. Maybe we
4:00:10stalemated. It probably signifies what
4:00:12I've been saying from the beginning that
4:00:13you didn't feel that you were strong on
4:00:16the actual facts and the EV evidence
4:00:18which I was willing to engage with you.
4:00:19I wanted to go over the screwdriver. I
4:00:21wanted to go over the tal and things
4:00:22that you've mentioned and you wanted to
4:00:24then move the conversation into a
4:00:27defense of Erica Kirk and her character
4:00:29um and what I've said about Erica which
4:00:31is my opinion and I have not edited that
4:00:34opinion after discussing with you. Um, I
4:00:37would like to extend a compliment to you
4:00:40for being willing to sit down and to
4:00:41have the conversation. I still walk away
4:00:45feeling that the people who are jumping
4:00:49on the bandwagon about this case don't
4:00:51care about this case. They don't care
4:00:52about Erica Kirk. It tends to be follow
4:00:54that they take a meeting with Turning
4:00:56Point USA and they come out and suddenly
4:01:00have a lot of junk to say about Candace
4:01:02Owens. And I do want to also stress that
4:01:05Turning Point USA tried to pepper him
4:01:07with something as a surprise. He showed
4:01:09clips that were meant to be a surprise.
4:01:11I did no such thing. I stressed to PBD
4:01:13from the beginning that I was grateful
4:01:15he was taking Mana and that I wanted
4:01:17this to be a clean debate because I
4:01:19believe I can win this on the merits and
4:01:21I believe that I did win this fully on
4:01:22the merits by engaging the evidence of
4:01:25what has happened. Um, I do still
4:01:27believe that there is more evidence
4:01:29which supports that there are more
4:01:32people involved and that Tyler Robinson
4:01:34has been set up. Uh, and that none of
4:01:37the evidence that was presented was in
4:01:39any way overwhelming, which is why I
4:01:40think you wanted to move to end that
4:01:42discussion quickly and to speak to me
4:01:44about France and uh, to talk about this
4:01:47Panguage receipt and my timeline. I I
4:01:50want to remind people that a lot of the
4:01:53athome investigators which you were open
4:01:56to as you called them internet sleuths I
4:01:58think it was on a show that you did
4:02:00right after Charlie was assassinated
4:02:01that internet sleuths would solve this.
4:02:03Uh this is the reason why Charlie a year
4:02:06on is still a conversation every single
4:02:08day trending on Twitter. I knew Charlie,
4:02:10I cared about Charlie. I care about um
4:02:13finding out what the truth is here. My
4:02:15heart is in the right place. I think
4:02:16anybody who watches my show or even just
4:02:18watched this debate knows that if I get
4:02:20something wrong, I'll instantly correct
4:02:21it and own it. I don't I'm not arrogant.
4:02:23I don't need to sit here and pretend
4:02:25that I didn't misspeak on the Lance
4:02:26thing. It hasn't been ruled out. Uh but
4:02:28you saw that he just really wanted to
4:02:30hammer that point. You know, part of
4:02:32being a well-meaning person is to
4:02:34concede when you are wrong, to take
4:02:37something off a timeline when you know
4:02:38it's not right. And I would like to
4:02:40think that that is why I have earned the
4:02:42audience that continues to follow me
4:02:43because they know my heart's in the
4:02:45right place. that I deeply cared about
4:02:46Charlie and I deeply care about the
4:02:47answers. Um, I want to thank Andrew's
4:02:50team who were providing the fact checks.
4:02:51It's a very small room that they're in.
4:02:53Um, I want to as always thank my team
4:02:55who worked really hard to make this
4:02:56happen and flip the set. And for to you,
4:02:59uh, PBD just for being a great
4:03:02moderator, I think very fair, letting us
4:03:04both speak and making sure that Andrew
4:03:06got out of this what he wanted, which is
4:03:08a little more than what I wanted. But um
4:03:10I'm very content with how I dealt with
4:03:12this and I I won't let I trust I don't
4:03:14need to convince the audiences with the
4:03:15magic trick of what they need to think
4:03:16about this debate. They can watch it and
4:03:18draw their own conclusions.
4:03:19>> Beautiful. Fair from both of you. I
4:03:21think the audience won and again uh from
4:03:23the beginning. Uh all of this is because
4:03:25of how much love and respect we have for
4:03:27Charlie Kirk, a great man that's no
4:03:29longer here with us. His one-year
4:03:31anniversary is coming up here. I can't
4:03:33believe it's that quick that is here.
4:03:35The audience, I think you also won. If
4:03:36you did support the Crucible, support
4:03:39the Candace show, support the PBD
4:03:42podcast, subscribe the channel. This is
4:03:43how you help these voices get out even
4:03:46more, especially going into future when
4:03:48this happens. You want a lot of
4:03:49independent creators to have these types
4:03:51of discussions. And last but not least,
4:03:53the two of you. I uh respect you guys
4:03:54again for having this conversation. It
4:03:56is not easy to do so. Hopefully, this
4:03:58will lead to more discussions. A lot of
4:04:01different things we talked about. I'm
4:04:02sure there will be a lot of follow-up.
4:04:03With that being said, take care
4:04:05everybody. God bless. Have a great
4:04:06weekend.
4:04:07>> Bye.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Candace Owens vs. Andrew Wilson: The Charlie Kirk Debate | PBD Podcast by PBD Podcast, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 42,073 words across 6,237 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.