Charlie Kirk Murder and TPUSA Insider Gossip

[admin]

Part 3 of 4

That's why I would think that. So I'm asking if you think that Israel and France were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk and you say with full confidence. 49 minutesI'm just asking for the evidence or at least walk me through the mindset of why it is that you could think that with evidence. I actually don't [clears throat] have to walk you through why I think.

Um I can also I can give you something that I think with full confidence. I think with full confidence that you know you lost the substance of this debate and now you're moving toward things that I have said that I think which I can do. I'm allowed to pertinent to this debate that it's not exactly pertinent to this debate. It's not pertinent because our debate these are claims made about Charlie Kirk's assassination.

That's the complete substance of the debate. No, actually would you like to remind him of what our debate claims actually were? And would you like to remind that you said I could ask you about any of these things to my heart's content? agree.

But you did you do not get to structure how I'm allowed to reply or ask me why are you structuring how you're allowed to reply. I'm just asking you direct questions. My I have full confidence that you do not feel that you represented your claim well. And so now what you came prepared to present yourself like a professor of fallacy.

I just want to know and to say you are not allowed to say that. You can't. It's my say whatever you want. 50 minutesWell, nobody's disputing that.

I'm asking Seems like you are disputing that. I'm asking specifically when it's all said and done. I've already explained to you I explained at the beginning of this why I think Israel is is is ultimately going to be proven to have involvement in this. Um I just explained to you in the middle and now you're wanting me to structure the sentence or provide evidence.

You don't have to. You're just allowed to think and I've explained to you my thought process. I don't need to structure it in a sentence. If you feel like a professor today, you picked the wrong day.

Don't you think that like tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people would want to know what Candace Owen's positive evidence for why it is that Israel and France were involved in the most traumatic public assassination of Jenz's lifetime is? That's why they watch my podcast. So you're just going to drip to them like here's why it's not dripping. I every time we come across any of these discussions they're watching this in context and they know why I'm saying it.

So, for example, when you're bringing up, well, Candace, where's your evidence for France doing this? I just told you someone who was high ranking in the French government, right? Who's nameless? Of course.

Of course. Of course. Of course. So, there's good reason to not conspiracy though if I then took it to the federal government.

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

This happens. I can ask you what I'm probing specifically. This is my podcast. I am sharing my life and my experiences and what has happened to me and you're basically coming in like you're going to what regulate what I how I'm allowed to say if I'm not trying to regulate anything.

I'm asking very questioning a bit like a professor trying to regulate and say Candace. You sound very defensive and like you just don't want to answer questions. I I I did answer your question three times. I didn't say it in the way that you wanted.

just kind of offiscate and you run away from it. But I would like for you to actually go through every clip that you guys have prepared because I it's pretty I I I think with full confidence people will recognize the strategy that you're trying to employ. So let's get to the next clip you have prepared. Sure.

They can pull up whatever clips whatever it is that you guys have prepared. But there but I I would still I on this point I just want to make sure that you have full confidence that France and Israel were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk and you have no evidence for it at all that you'll give us. Well, the high I I already did tell you where it came from. I like I said, I can explain it to you.

I can't understand it. Did that same higher up tell you that he was going to kill or that France killed Charlie Kirk or just that you were in danger? They said that the French Foreign Legion was involved and on the ground that day. I've already said that.

You just don't like hearing it. Just out of curiosity, when you pass down that message to a Tulsi or Trump, Tulsi's office. Yes. Tulsi's office.

Are you giving them who told you that or you're just saying here's what I heard from someone and I have this and I have this information and of course if they wanted to open a file on it which I thought was quite mysterious that Trump's office never got back to us. It was kind of weird about like from maybe that maybe they're not the correct office to I did receive a response from uh Tulsi Gabbard's office but I I don't think there was ever any investigation into what I said. " Yeah. That that that the French Foreign Legion was on the ground during Charlie's assassination.

Um uh and that I mean I it was a lot of information, but like Well, you didn't give specifics who it was from. Not in the first email cuz I figured they would like Perfect. So if they do contact you, are you comfortable giving 100% who it is? I would absolutely give them as much information as possible.

Question if if whoever is the US government, why are you not Yes. It's very strange to me, you know. So if that's the case now, they may respond back and say we did, you know, that's their position. That's why I did it in writing.

And so I'm glad that's the case because so so if they right away in Trump's office his like Margot got right back to me. She said it was on his desk. So he has that there's no and if you do say that and they contact that individual obviously you don't have to leak your sources here. Is there enough credibility where that person would be willing to talk to them and explain to them exactly what their sources are?

Yes. Okay. I mean that's it seems reasonable. And so why he's asking me to defend that is like I'm not I think those are two different things.

That's more something different. Why are they not reaching out to you? I've asked that many times on my podcast. What do you think about that Andrew?

What? the fact that she emailed, she gave it, and nobody reached out to want to contact the source. Probably didn't think it was actionable is my guess. But even if they did think it was actionable, great.

Every lead should be followed up on within the confines of what's rational and reasonable. Is it fair to say that this is maybe a different individual because this is a person that was involved with TPS, had a relationship with Char? No. No.

Her relationship like this isn't just anybody. So if an average person sends it Yes. Yeah. But I mean, we don't know who the source is.

We don't know any of this. Well, then if it wouldn't you if you were in that department, wouldn't you want to even you assign it to one of your guys? There's no guarantee they didn't look into it. How do we know?

We don't know. How could they come the information? More of the information because it was a long file. This is a separate This has got nothing to do with the debate.

This is more on on uh Well, I just I sent the email assuming that's I'm saying like you go and you you make a report. you if think they're going to come back to you and say, "Hey, what's more information? " And that didn't happen, and which is what I raised. I found that especially because this was at a time where they were saying that they wanted to explore every possible lead with I even texted Dan Bonino.

So, actually, it was three it was three offices. Let me ask one question, Dan Bonino and uh the and Tulsi Gabbert's office. Okay. So, a followup to that is the following.

Mhm. If they contact you to say, is that specifically to the French government or Israel's involvement in the killing of Char? It was that wasn't about Israel. Those are two separate things.

That wasn't about Israel. It was they were saying the French foreign that person as a part of it was saying that it was the French foreign legion that was on the ground that day. I'm surprised they haven't called you then. I find that to be very strange to I do as well because who would want to make a report like I mean I've never made a report with the federal government.

Let me ask one question. Let me just ask one question. Let me just ask one question and then I'm I'm going to bring it to you. Sure.

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

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

Other evidence should be brought forward. We've done that in our in our capacity. Like when people keep saying she has no evidence, it's kind of crazy. I think we've broken like more stories than any news source in the world.

I mean, down to pictures, details, police officers, uh, what the dog's name was, because we're not we're not the only people that believe there's a conspiracy here. The police officers that are were involved, the many police, sheriff's offices, um, that were departments that were involved that day all believed there was a conspiracy down to the US marshals believed there was a conspiracy. They were uh, my sources at the US Marshalss were saying they were basically sent in a wild goose chase that day. But do you see how you say my sources?

You're not allowed to have sources. The thing is CNN allowed to have sources. Hang on. I have sources if I said I have sources that claim none of that's true.

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

Yeah. " So, um, and then when what I say is then proven in court and nobody knew those things, uh, people are recognizing that my sources are legit. When I say Charlie, uh, was scared in in the last days and then I dropped the text message, which you've just learned about a couple of weeks ago of him saying he was leaving leading the pro-Israel cause when everyone was lying about that. Then they say, I think Kansas sources are legit.

So, I think what's happened is I've actually built up a rapport with my audience that it's not vibes and dreams and that's why they keep watching my content because I like for example when I just the other day released the content of the shooter on the roof uh doing the lateral crawl then they're going I don't think these are just vibes. It seems like Canada sources are legit. So, I've proven myself in the market. Yeah.

I'm not sure that that would legitimize your sources as being legitimate when it comes to the idea that oh, they all believe that there's a conspiracy going on, which is actually what your claim is now. How would that actually hang on, hang on, I'm almost done. I'm not talking to PBT. How would that legitimize Well, it's not his debate.

How would he how would it legitimize these sources that even if it's the case that you get some court footage or some things like this? Why would it legitimize that your sources are telling you all the marshals believe it's a conspiracy, the police believe it's a conspiracy, everybody believes it. How would that legitimize any what I am saying to you and you are not you are not forced to believe it. So let me just explain what I was answering here and I think that you understood what I was saying.

Um is I have because people trust me uh compiled a lot of information and presented it to the public and this information has been uh proven true. We've presented photos. We have presented videos never before seen stuff. The public has never seen it.

And so what that does is your audience goes okay when she says that she has these sources clearly she's telling the truth. No. " That's up to you. You cannot watch my content.

I'm I'm not here to tell you that you have to watch my content or believe everything I'm saying. Well, don't you think questioners should get questioned as well? By whom? I'm not committing a crime, am I?

By just like saying what? Are most of the people you ask questions of not actually committing crimes? But what do you mean they should answer questions where like at a police station? Like what are you saying?

It's like if you're if you want people to come in and answer questions for you. I have questions about this in the investigation. I have questions about this. I have questions about that.

You want them to answer your questions. Doesn't it seem totally fair that you answer back the questions people have for you? Well, they're not answering our questions. So, it's also fair that they don't answer them.

So, you're Kovette should be in this chair. He's not. But isn't that a double But isn't that a double standard? No, it's not because he's not doing it.

Yeah. But what that would still be a double standard. If you're if you're requesting that he does do it, then that seems to infer that you think he owes you answers. Oh, so inferences are allowed again.

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

Well, I feel like I'm answering your questions and his questions about I I mean, I'm I'm talking about Andrew Kobat. He is his position is he's a spokesperson for Turning Point USA. So when the crowd turns against Turning Point USA on the basis of a lack of information or because there has been I don't know seeds sewn of distrust, I would imagine uh and forget answering my questions because I doesn't need to be made. Aren't you sewing a lot of those seeds of distrust?

Well, I I think they're doing a pretty good job themselves if I'm being honest. Uh you can blame it on Candace all you want. The thing is funny is people act like I'm I'm ground [clears throat] zero of people not trusting Turning Point USA. I think there was some PR there.

I think there was some PR there. Sure. They could have done better. Absolutely.

I'm not disputing any of that. One thing though that I am I I want to just directly ask you is do you actually believe that anybody in TPUSA or Erica Kirk or Erica actually participated had Ford knowledge of or uh facilitated the murder of Charlie Kirk? I'm not going to get myself into a legal pickle here. Everything I've said is on my podcast.

I I I I think firmly that if if I was the investigating officers, I would I would seat them all and I would ask questions. I would at this phase. I would. Okay.

Hypothetical. Um does that mean that you do think so? I I think it was not a sufficient investigation in into what is what we know to be true of 80% of uh homicides. It's usually conducted by someone, you know, right?

And the fact that that was never even considered that the like I said earlier the backpack was returned. How do you know that was never considered? Because they gave back the backpack as as just one example. Uh they gave back the backpack.

They gave back the um that doesn't show a conspiracy. Well, I mean it shows that the police trusted everybody and didn't just hold things up for a second. Yeah. They ruled them out as suspects that quickly.

I I I'm not comfortable with that investigation. It's a pretty big organization. There's a hund00 million incentive. people.

This is $100 million incentive. What I'm saying is his organization like it had grown to I think it was hundred million plus per year. Yeah. Per year.

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

Yeah. Could also just ask. So right now their guys are going out and they're going to look for evidence and then by May, which is fortunately around the corner, then she'll see what they found. So what the f is that performance?

How could you sit up there and say I I Yes, I 100% believe Tyler Robinson did it. That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erica Kirk is not complicit somehow. cuz what that those two thoughts actually don't even follow. How would it be the case that even if Erica Kirk did believe that Tyler Robinson was 100% responsible for the death of Charlie Kirk, let's say she believed it with every fiber of her being, believed all the evidence, cuz she did.

She just actually did. Would it then follow that somehow she's complicit in his death? 4 minutesI didn't say implicit in death. You added those two words.

Okay. So, what's she complicit in? Yes. So sewing this narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty.

So you're chopping up clips like I said you didn't have the confidence coming up. We are showing a clip of her on Barry Weiss which I can't remember the date that she did that interview. Uh and Erica when she is asked are you know do you do you feel with 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson did did this and she says I do. Then again context matters.

I sit down with Erica for four hours under the assumption that she had some evidence, right? Like like I'm like I actually this is why I did not engage in any like Erica everyone's questioning what she's wearing and all this stuff. I was like I'm going to wait here because I don't know just it feels weird to think that do I did I think that some of her mannerisms were weird and stuff like that? Yeah, but that's not you can't convict somebody on weird mannerisms.

" Great. You know, that's why she's being that's why she has that much confidence two months ago. And when I sat down with her, it was nothing. It was nothing.

Okay. So, this is a conversation. How would that make her complicit? Complicit.

Again, you said complicit in the death of Charlie. in what? Yeah. Well, if you let me finish my sentence, I could tell you that.

But my point being is that then you take a look at this and you go, "Okay, well, this is weird. " And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, "Okay, great. I want to go out there and defend you now. " And she just blanks.

" And she called the lawyer. Again, all this is on my show, so out of context clips is not going to work because I know what I say on my show. " And he I'm like, "Okay, great. " He goes, "Well, we don't have anything yet.

" And he says, "Well, don't you know how it works? " So, basically, the state says that they're going to bring this forward. And now our people go out and they look for the evidence to uh assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty. And so I asked her directly, her lawyer directly, the phone's in between us.

I'm like, wait, so just so I'm clear, you haven't seen anything that the public hasn't seen? And he says, no. So I'm going back in my head, I'm going, okay, so why is Erica saying with such a degree of certainty, like she was sent out to convince the public and and people bit, by the way. I remember even Megan Kelly was like, uh, you know, let's wait.

She's going to have access to things. I did think she had access to things that we didn't have. Why express that confidence to the public as opposed to just being like, "We don't know yet. I'm I feel confident he's probably he's involved.

" I don't understand. How would any of this make her complicit in what? Well, I've already told you she was she she's complicit in in trying to fool the public into thinking this is some open and shut case. How is she trying to fool the public into this?

If she believes, if she believes that Charlotte that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk, if she believes that, how would that be complicit in anything? I I I do. Are you saying that you think she doesn't believe it? I I don't believe that at that stage when she sat down with Barry Weiss that that's what she believes.

No, but that's my opinion. Right. But so when you just say complicit, you just mean she believes that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk? That's it.

That's what we were talking about. That's why I said if your strategy was to dice up clips and take it out of context and make it seem like I said everything. Yeah. But then why not just play the full thing?

Like why? Because we don't have like infinite amounts of time. I'm guessing you probably don't want to watch. I I I'm going to go back to my theory that you didn't feel confident that you could defend your your claim that it was overwhelming evidence.

So now you're trying to move towards doctorred clips and getting there's no doctor anything. I'm just making sure that we got this right. That what you're actually saying is that Erica is just complicit in belieing when I reexamine her actions backward because I did not have this perspective of her at the beginning. Which is why it's so funny to me that you guys make it seem like I'm ground zero.

People thought Erica was sus from day I forgive him. And I was not a part of that. I did not lean into that. I did not contribute to that.

I was getting actually terrible messages from my fans being like, Candace, you and Charlie always say to go with your intuition. You won't address this how we all feel about her. Things changed for me when I saw that Zoom call. I will tell you that.

Um for sure. And the fact that she lied to me. So, I sat across from her and, you know, got to I wanted to have that conversation publicly, but they're probably grateful they didn't do it publicly. Uh, she told me some lies.

And so, the next thing that happens naturally when somebody lies to you, you go, when any person lies to you, whether it's a toddler, people only lie when they're trying to obscure something else. Have you addressed what that lie was? Yeah, I've talked about we have a list of lies that we've been told by we can find that in the meeting with her. Well, no.

I I didn't want her to cage up. I did I didn't want to do this and because I I didn't know what to expect. Like I I didn't I didn't know if she was going to be like, I'm so overwhelmed with everything, you know, and I don't know who to trust at the organization and I I don't know what I'm do. Like I didn't know I didn't want to just out of curiosity before anything happened with Charlie, how close were you and Erica?

Not very close. So there's not a relationship? No. There I mean there I like I would say it's totally normal.

Like it's not like there was any issues at all. Uh she was always we were always nice to each other. It just is our life went to a different phase, right? So Charlie and I hitting the ground running around traveling 4 days a week.

Now I get married. I I find love of my life. I get married and I get pregnant. I've been I haven't stopped being pregnant.

And what you want out of life changes. You don't want to be running around for 4 days a week and traveling on a plane non-stop. You suddenly want to start building at home and live. I was desiring that suburban life.

Did you guys ever do the double dates? You, George, her, and Charlie. Was there ever double dates between the four? Oh, I I was uh, you know, engaged to George quickly.

We were planning our wedding. I was kind of in my bubble with George. George traveled with me and Charlie, but Erica and him were just starting to date at the beginning of 2019. George and I were planning our marriage.

So, George really got to know Charlie. I wouldn't say that I really got to know Erica. I was just rooting for them because I knew how much Charlie wanted to, you know, find love. And so, I was kind of his wingwoman throughout that phase.

and I was just happy and I never was under the impression obviously that they were going to get married when they were dating. So it wasn't like I would have was consciously I didn't really need to get to know this person and so it was just kind of normal that by that time because of where I was in my life that I wasn't spending any time getting to know Erica so the complicit part about Erica to you is that a gut feeling do you think it transformed when she lied? You can take the lead. I'm just asking questions if you want to go forward.

I actually don't I still don't understand what she's you think she's complicit in. Yeah. So when I say Erica's complicit, that's my opinion. When you tweeted Erica's too to kill her husband.

Yeah. Would you like to explain how you developed your evidence, your positive evidence for the fact that Erica was Um yeah, sure. So I just think all women are Oh, so you're allowed to just say stuff. Who knew?

So, and and by the way, and what dramatically transformed your opinion of Erica after uh going to the headquarters because you were pretty hostile uh about I wasn't hostile towards him. You don't think calling somebody too No. Come on. That's like normal tongue-in-cheek stuff for me online.

Oh, you're being tongue tongue and cheek. Yeah. Usually when I call someone I'm being tongue and cheek. Yeah.

Like for instance, you got supporters. I mean, if you were if you want to use the same exact argument, you would take a supporter like Owen Benjamin, he called you bad names and one and called your husband bad names. Are you just like, well, that's no biggie. I've never answered him on anything that he said.

I'm saying that you now are her her biggest defender. So, do you still think she's not her biggest defender? Do you think still think she's too No, no, no, no. I didn't know Erica Kirk.

I'd never met her before. Okay. But you had an issue with Turning Point being led u by a bunch of femb bots saying talking about the feminist angle and then suddenly you go to the headquarters. You come you go into the headquarters now all of a sudden you've got text messages that you're sharing with them.

You say that your you and your wife are getting involved with management. No, no, no. I'm not involved in any management attorney. Well, I'm pretty sure there is a clip of you where you say that your wife went to their recent conference and sat down and then when you were on your ro No, no, no, no.

Hang on. I'll explain what happened just so that you understand. Yeah. So, I was invited there to do some debate training.

That's literally what I was invited there to do. Uh on recommendation. So, I went down and did some debate. That's the first time I ever met anybody at TPUSA.

Okay. And then you said you sat down with Erica. Well, I didn't sit down to her. I talked to her in a hallway.

So, you didn't sit down and speak with Erica? No, I didn't have like some sit down long conversation. We We talked in a hallway. Okay.

For Is that when you gave her the hug? Yeah. gave her the hug right there. My and my wife did too.

We were both very sorry for what happened. Okay. So, at what point did you start receiving text messages from that you cited in your opening statement? Well, I just reached out to TPUSA and said, "I'm prepping for a debate.

" Do you find it interesting that people have been asking for, you know, basic answers to questions and you're saying that you walked into their headquarters and reached out and they in It's amazing, isn't it? if you reach out in good faith and you're not demonizing them and saying that they're complicit in the murder of people's deaths that that perhaps they're actually willing to release things to you that are pertinent other than thinking that you know perhaps you're diabolical I feel like if I was going to release that information I didn't I didn't demand that it be released to me um I actually never demanded that it be released I just simply said that this is what was going on in the last maybe to the media they could release it they could release it to PBD they decided to release it to a guy that called Erica too in June. So what? Yeah.

I just think it kind of shows that Turning Point is sending you as their horse. Well, I don't know. They just don't have they don't have the courage to have the conversation. If they were just releasing something in good faith to answer questions never demanded.

It's not evidence that you're sharing your opinion that she's too I can't share my opinion that I think it's going to register as really obvious to the public that rather than presenting that throughout the course of everybody wanting to know what Charlie was going through through his last days, they decided to give it to you to come to my house as some sort of a surprise. Do you think the public's not smart enough to do that? Do you think that if you talking about terrible PR? If you know that there's a huge debate that's coming up that's going to be probably one of the most viewed that year and one of the debaters calls you and says, "I'm taking this position.

this is the position that I feel like there's the most evidence for. And Candace also agreed to answer many of my questions in regards to this. So, if you got pertinent evidence here that I can use, I'd definitely like take a look. It was actually amazing to me.

" They actually do talk to you. [laughter] It's amazing. Yeah. I I I just do not believe a that you that they are doing this in good faith.

I don't believe that anything you have done has demonstrated that's in good faith. It demonstrates that you walked into Turning Point USA headquarters and came out a different man because you were critical of the organization. You were critical of Erica and now you're sitting here going I want to interrogate you for an hour and a half about everything about critical of somebody that you hadn't met and then you meet him and you're less critical of them. Uh and the inverse has happened too.

I was critical about Erica and now I'm more critical you but I'm asking you isn't it the case that there's people you've been critical of and then you've met them and you're less critical after you meet them. uh too I I I feel like if you think that she's dumb and you Let's just talk about your record. I mean, you're a person that has spent time in what most people would term to be the manosphere talking about feminis Well, yeah. I debate against the the feminist and red pillars and a lot of the actual So, I'm a Christian ethicist.

I always You go on to Joe Rogan and you're like like soft explaining away Erica had to take over Charlie's company when they don't have a parent at home. So now you're a feminist icon. Like you just go into the headquarters and you just shift all of your perspective. That's a bizarre criticism.

Like nobody's in the bigger girl boss position than you. I'm actually No, you're in the biggest of the girl boss positions. Like you don't have to do this. You just do do this.

You could definitely not do it at all and be fine, right? But you still do. I I I would say that you are making a comparison that cannot be compared because because Erica's husband was just assassinated in front of the world, which makes sense why she would take the organization away. No, that it makes sense why you would go home to your kids, just so you know.

Wait a second. That's that's bizarre. They don't have a parent. They don't have a parent and they've just suffered a trauma.

You don't go into the office. You want to protect your husband's legacy, right? And you're trying to find some new legacy is his children, not the organization. It's it's both.

No, it it Yes, it is both. It's totally rational and reasonable to believe that it would be both Turning Point USA that is part of Charlie Kirk's legacy. He worked his whole life for it. This is why people think she's sus and his children.

Now, for you though to say that anybody's a girl boss, right? That's like the calling the kettle black. That came out of your mouth. No, that was you.

You brought up girl boss. Girl boss came out of your mouth. Yeah. I'm just I'm telling you that you brought up this idea that I'm defending some feminist nonsense.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that there there, by the way, she's not qualified to take over his company. There's always objective outliers to each situation. In fact, it's the exception that proves the rule.

And the interesting thing here is like I'm still just as critical of feminism inside of TPUSA as I've always been. And I'm just as critical of any pro-Zionist position as I've ever been. None of that's ever changed. By the way, I would think it's the most rational, reasonable thing on planet earth to do if you wanted to actually see an organization change to try to work with leadership or reach out to leadership to try to do so.

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

Well, I understand that you can have those criticisms, but I'm not understanding still how that would make her complicit. I don't I don't have to keep answering the same question. Your team is asking to how it's complicit. Your team is asking to play a clip.

So, if we want to play this clip to just finish this segment on the Erica Kirk topic, we can spend some time on that as well. So, if you guys are ready in the back, we're ready and causing that 30 six diameter as would happen with a patent explosives as as we've demonstrated to you in the past. It accidentally because of how Charlie was crouched went up and hit his neck and that ruined everything. That ruined everything.

It was problematic. It's the reason why Teraldin had to scramble to get the cameras down because they were never supposed to see it. They they could have said reasonably that a 306 got eaten by Charlie. much more reasonably obviously than saying that the chicken bones in his neck stopped it because he ate vegetables.

They panicked. That was what then that's why Terrell Zer was on the phone with me. Again, this is my theory and I am now very much sticking to it. Okay, they panicked.

It's the reason Erica had to step out once. That's why she would have got gotten on the phone with Terl so quickly because I was going, "Why is 20 minutesTerl saying, "Well, I didn't want Erica to relive. That's why I did it. He didn't have an answer.

He was nervous. It was crazy. And but he acknowledged that he spoke to Erica immediately. Why did you speak to Erica immediately?

So, do you believe that there was a shape charge that killed Charlie? Hey, can I ask you why you keep starting clips mid-sentence? Probably to get to where the clip is? No, it doesn't seem that way cuz you can always start a clip at the beginning of a sentence.

Like, you're just start of like it's completely out of context. Wait, I didn't I didn't prepare the clips, but I think I didn't. But it's fine to ask it to back up. I said this this the I don't need to say what's happening here because the internet will clock it.

But uh in this episode we are now going and that's why I said we're now going to look at some alternative theories. I made it very clear that this was a theory that I didn't want to look at. This is I believe because I don't have every episode on my head and but I'm pretty sure this is an episode where we presented the evidence that was in the car, the photos of what was in the car, right? And so we are now inferring off of what we see in the car that this very much does look like uh that we are see a bunch of shattered road microphone which was an early theory that I was actually interested in but couldn't really wrap my head around what was uh the shape charge explosive as I say at the beginning episode like I just it was just not my expertise and I was concerning myself with timelines and stories and St.

statements. It didn't make sense without question. Cheryl Farnsworth uh is is someone who made me think that we were missing a big part of the story. So, I'm walking them through uh John Bray's theory.

If we started to insert what we are actually observing with the evidence that we're taking a look at and what took place that day. So, we're completely in the hypothetical right here. Uh and you're now introducing this. If that's if that's the case, if you're just hypothetically exploring it, that's why I'm just asking directly.

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

Just trying to make sure. Do you think that your alternative theory? Do you think I think John Gray's theory should be explored? Yes.

Okay. Do you Do you think that Charlie Kirk was killed with an explosive? I think I think that that is a possibility. Yes.

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

I think it's viable. So, this was the big thing I wanted to get into with you on the explosives, too. What What is it about that theory that's actually compelling to you? So, I looked into the explosive mic theory multiple times, and the biggest thing that stood out to me is there's no explosion.

There's there's literally no explosion. In fact, there's videos when the shot rings out um that kills Charlie, at least it sounds like a shot to me, people are actually like looking up towards where the uh the gun is being fired. They're looking away for where the sound is. Like, where's the actual explosion?

Well, for every person that you say looks away, there's going to be a person that was looking forward. Uh we have former Marines that have gotten on and said, I it looks to me like there's an explosion under his shirt. Right. You obviously saw um uh Rob O'Neal go on to I'm forgetting which platform it was where he said the first thing I thought was that Rob O'Neal is the man that killed Osama.

[admin]

Part 4 of 4

Yeah. And I think he's qualified to say what he believes he saw. Uh we we should actually since they're pulling clips, we should run that clip of Rob O'Neal and what he said and what he observed and his experience. So I'm going to take that.

And also there were people who tested [clears throat] like immediately spoke to the media that day who said the same thing that they thought that something happened under his shirt. That was actually if you go back to like my first episode when I was just observing what I saw with my eyes. I was asking the serious question. I was seriously saying why is it like somebody shot him from underneath?

Why is his shirt moving first? It doesn't make sense to me. And uh I'm that's because of air dispersal from the bullet. So when a when whenever a bullet is shot, a projectile shot, you can actually run this experiment yourself if you have a rifle.

take like an empty box of ammunition and put it on the table and then fire it near the muzzle and that box will actually blow off the table. Okay. So, question for you. Does that box go sideways off a table?

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

You 3,000 lbs of energy or 2,000 lbs of energy coming at you. That's how much it carries. 2,000 pounds of energy. I We can fact check that.

How many How many How many pounds of energy is it a 30 six uh being shot? 15 yards away. That's a great question for Grock. I'm going to say when we looked at it, it was between 1500 and 2,000.

I'm pretty sure pounds of energy coming at you and you just go upward and to the side. I don't really buy that. I mean, and I'm going to just say I just think that that's not right. But possible.

It doesn't go through on top of that. So, there's another miracle. You didn't get blown backwards. You didn't It didn't go through.

But I also want to say that you're saying this can happen and Rob O'Neal is infinitely more qualified, I think, to speak on that. And well, because he's actually shot and killed people. Why would that have anything to do with anything? Well, because did he slow down all the videos of the people he shot to see if their clothes moved?

Well, why are you able to assert your pos? Because I'm going to I'm going to tell you how projectiles were. He's not even going to dis I guarantee you this guy is not even going to disagree with what I'm about to say. If it is the case that you have energy and you have mass and the mass is moving in the air, the air has to go somewhere.

It doesn't have a choice. I think you're like totally BSing right now, man. Not only am I not BSing, I'm telling you the truth. If a bullet is moving in air, air has to move out of way of bullet.

Well, maybe not at the bottom of a shirt here. I don't know. I I just I disagree with that. I'd like to say for the record, I've watched some of you do these sorts of things where you assert something with a lot of confidence and it's you can fact check it.

It's your bullets displace air. If a not about whether it displace air, it's where it dispersed the air underneath his shirt here. 26 minutesIt's not underneath his shirt. The bullet's this big and you're telling me it's going to hit his neck and then it's not underneath the shirt.

It starts up here and the collar's moving and then you see the wave here as he's moving backwards. Yeah, that's not true. It's not and we obviously can't show that clip. I disagree with you.

Okay, I understand you can't show it for purposes. Exactly. Uh I disagree with you. People can go watch and make up their own minds.

We don't need to debate it whether or not it was the first thing I said was why is his shirt moving first? That didn't make sense to me. It it it almost looks just like this. It goes across.

His necklace breaks first before Charlie even reacts. If you watch it in slow, his necklace breaks first, which I thought was very odd, and then you see a puff here and the next thing you know, there's a there's the uh entry wound on his neck. I I would not confidently assert that I see smoke. I've never said it on my platform.

You think that an explosion generally has smoke? I don't think that there's any quality version of video that would get us to be able to answer that question other than Terl's 4K footage that he has from the front. So there's a lot of um if you look at the Israeli pagers, it's assumed that they it's a similar if not the same type of explosive that was used inside the pagers that would have been used inside of this road mic. I think that you should since you love debating, you should debate someone like John Bray who's worked on that theory for 11 months and ask those sorts of questions of how a shape charge would work.

Uh, I presented the evidence of what was in the car and I also at that episode that you're clipping said John Bray has done an unbelievable amount of work on this and I think he has debated a ton of people actually regarding this topic. So that's the route that I would send you on purpose. Yeah, for the purpose of my show I I do believe to answer your question that it is a hypothetical. I mean that it is a a theory that should be thoroughly explored.

There's two clips uh your team wants to show. One of them is the rival clip since we're on it. So, if you guys are ready in the back before we go to ad break, if you want to pull it up, this is a good time to do so. And good to see, General Hull.

A lot of things bother um bothers me about this. Um nothing in particular, and it's not like I'm out there saying big lie or conspiracy or someone did it. I'm just saying I've been in a lot of shootings. I've killed more than a handful of people, and this thing looked shady off the bat.

I mean, just I've killed people closer than I saw the camera, and I've never seen a shirt move like that. That looks like an explosion to me. The uh just the fact that no one started doing uh first aid to Charlie Kirk, they were more concerned about getting SIM cards out of cameras, removing cameras, and then uh getting him off the X somehow. There didn't seem a lot of concern for for his life.

It seemed like just cleaning up. And then, I mean, I've been told they paved it over a couple days later. And then you get Erica Kirk uh behind all the razledazzle and she's really quick to forgive the alleged shooter which technically says uh that was him cuz I forgive him. But then you can't forgive Candace Owens for having an opinion or asking questions and they mock people by saying oh I'm just asking questions.

Yeah, I'm I'm a SEAL team 6 sniper. I'm asking a lot of questions. No one wants to answer them. And you're able to ask?

He's actually said very little about the explosive there. So he say he observed he said he's shot people up close and he's never seen a shirt move like that and it looked to him like an explosive. That's what he dispute. But when I play that video at full speed, I can't see a shirt moving.

I can only see a shirt moving when we slow it way down. So if I'm in real time, I'm just assuming this, right? I'm in if I'm was in real time and I was in like a close quarters combat, you kill somebody situation and I shot them, would you even see the shirt move? Well, I just feel like five minutes ago you were arguing that it was because the bullet carried air.

Now you're saying you don't see the shirt move at all. Yeah, but that's if you slow it down, the dispersement of air, that's where you're going to see it, right? It's going to be very quick. Very, very, very, very fast.

And then that's not what I saw and clearly it's not what he saw and he thinks that there could be an explosive. So, I'm just saying to you when you people disagree with you, your your opinions on a fact. That's all. I understand.

I think that's a good place for us to if you if we have another a break and then we can keep answer answering your questions. Yeah, I mean I think um yeah, sounds good. Perfect. We'll do a quick three and a half minute ad break.

We'll be back for the last segment. Cool. All right, thank you. All right, you guys.

I want to tell you about ethos because life has a way of changing your priorities when you least expect it. One day you're focused on what's next for you, the next you're thinking about a home, a family, and how to build a future that feels secure. As your world grows, so does your perspective. That shift in mindset is what led me to make life insurance a priority.

It's one of those things that's easy to put off, but having it in place gives me peace of mind. Knowing that the people that I care about would have financial support if the unexpected ever happened. Getting covered today is simpler, faster, and more affordable than many people realize. That's why I love Ethos, because with Ethos, you can apply online in just minutes.

No medical exams, no waiting rooms. Just answer a few health questions and you could be covered the very same day. 9 out of five stars on Trustpilot with over 5,500 reviews. What really stands out to me is that Ethos helps match you with coverage that actually fits your 31 minuteslife, your goals, and your budget.

With up to $3 million in coverage and plans starting around $30 a month, protecting your family can feel a whole lot more doable. Peace of mind should not be complicated. So take to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. com/candis.

com/candis. Application times and rates may vary. And I want to remind you guys about Tax Network USA because I know a lot of people owe back taxes. Maybe you have years of unfiled returns.

Maybe you file every year and you still can't get ahead because the balance keeps growing. Or maybe you withdrew money from a 401k or IRA and suddenly got hit with a tax bill that you didn't expect. Whatever caused the problem, one thing is certain. The IRS penalties and interest keep adding up every single month.

If you don't have a plan now, you could end up owing even more next tax season. Before the IRS starts sending more letters, garnishing wages, or freezing your bank account, call Tax Network USA. They've been helping taxpayers nationwide for more than 15 years, resolving back taxes, unfiled returns, and serious IRS problems. So whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, their team has resolved over $1 billion in tax debt.

Right now, they're offering a free IRS investigative call to find out exactly what you owe and what options you have to fix it. com/candis. com/candis. I also want to tell you guys about Field of Greens because I am always looking past the headlines and asking one simple question.

What is really in the product that I'm putting into my body? Think about it. When you buy a steak or a bag of vegetables, you see nutrition facts label. When companies take fruits and vegetables and turn them into a formula, you'll often see a supplemental fax label instead.

That makes me want to know more. Where do the ingredients come from? How are they processed? And can I trust what's actually inside?

That's one reason I love Field of Greens because their focus is on quality, transparency, and bringing together fruits and vegetables in a convenient daily formula. And it actually tastes good. Wild Berry is my favorite, but strawberry lemonade is a popular choice as well. No complicated routine, just one scoop mixed with water.

com. com. All right. Fantastic.

So, Andrew, if you want to go with your last couple thoughts. Yeah. So, I just have two two more clips to play. Okay.

Right. And then I uh we can do final thoughts, I'm guessing. Um I Yeah, I feel like uh we got where we were trying to go or at least for the most part. So, um the two other clips I do want to play the Twigs clip.

That one is important to me. The Twigs DNA clip. Yeah. and they're gonna pull it up just to have you respond to.

Well, you don't have to play it because like if if you're saying that when I initially watched it, I thought that Lance Twigs's DNA like he was directly responding to that because the testimony was a bit confusing. They started by saying that they were going to um uh like explaining how they got the samples and they said Lance, Matt, and Amber uh sorry, Lance, Matt, and Amber Robinson, how they got their uh DNA samples. And then they started speaking about the gun and said, you know, multiple prints were found on them. And then they moved and they said Lance Twigs's DNA was found on the screwdriver.

Uh when I went back and rewatched it, I realized well they haven't officially said that Lance or Amber are on the gun. So I think I've already conceded that we don't know that. So I think like but if you're if you want No, this is directly you saying it is on the gun. Twig is I'm saying that I feel like I've already said to you like I've made that concession.

Just to be clear, whenever I make a mistake, I just correct it. So that's why when you were asking me three times, I've already said we don't know yet and I've corrected that mistake. So if the purpose of you showing this is to demonstrate that Candace makes mistakes sometimes uh when she's taking in a lot of information and she's reading through legal documents and she's trying to remember testimony. It's to demonstrate something else.

It is in fact the case we're all going to make mistakes. I'm going to make mistakes and I've already I've already You're going to make mistakes in the case, 35 minutesbut in this case, you were very adamant that his DNA was on the gun itself. Yeah. So, I'm just saying that it's not ruled out.

We know that there's five plus prints. I've said this so many times. I had to rewatch the testimony again. It's like nine hours a day.

It got very scientific when they were speaking about this. And I think I wrongly extrapolated that they meant all three of them were on the prints when the only person they officially named was Matt Robinson. So, we don't know yet if um Lance Twigs has his DNA on the Prince offic DNA on the gun officially just yet. Okay.

I've already conceded that. So, that's fine. And then the last one is one with Erica Kirk. Sure.

This is like the Erica Kirk like All right. You could just sit down with me, Erica, but we could do it this way. This goes back to a previous claim that you made by bringing it up. Straight to jail.

Straight to jail for questioning. At least Erica, I don't care who's mad. I really do not care who wants to be upset after this episode. Really, you will be wasting your breath.

36 minutesYou can spend a billion dollars on influencers because this is all becoming increasingly inexplicable. You are asking me to be an idiot actually and I cannot do that for you. Someone once commented beneath this show that if the situations were reversed and there were this many verifiable lies straight straight to jail. Yeah.

So that's the show intro and straight to jail. Straight to jail is a monopoly term. Okay. So do not pass go.

Yeah. Do not collect $200. Yes. It's it's obviously tongue and cheek.

And then we explained that actually I think that she should be brought in for questioning because of inconsistencies. So, this is the exact episode when I started to think that she should be [clears throat] sat down and questioned. Uh, and I I still believe that. I still hold the perspective that Erica should be sat down and she should be properly questioned.

Do you know that she hasn't been? Um, no. Actually, that would be a great thing for the spokesperson of Turning Point USA to say that she's already I mean, my guess would be she hasn't because they returned everything to her. But I Why do they owe you that though?

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

I didn't say they owe me something. I don't think that's ever unless you have But if you say like you need to be sat down for questioning and you don't even know if they haven't been, that's strange, right? Do you know if they have been? No, I have no idea.

So, you're just saying what if they haven't been? Yeah. If you're if your entire filling the If your entire thing is junk, if you're No, it's not junk. If if the query is why is it that Erica Kirk's not being sat down for questioning, but you have absolutely no knowledge whether or not she's been sat down for questioning or not, what that does is it creates an innuendo.

It creates an inference. It creates out to the ethos that this should be happening because something's wrong here when you actually don't have the knowledge that anything's wrong at all. I just think that my opinion is that she should be sat down and questioned. But you're not sure if she hasn't been.

Yeah. And you're not sure if she has been either. M so like I said I feel like now you're just kind of filling the air during points like we want to make sure that you go in there and you defend Erica and I have to say I don't think you've done an extraordinary job with that but I'm not here to defend Erica. The thing is though that since four out of five of the clips that you had on the ready when we asked you guys ahead of time I mean I want to just assert how professionally we have dealt with this debate.

As you can see we have not planned any gotcha clips for Andrew. I expressed to him that what we were going to do was just to use people for fact checks and it because I might not remember something um or I do remember something and you're saying no and that is what I think will register to people as very fair. We did not take out of context clips of Andrew to try to repeat. No, when you said you were going to bring claims that you would want me to speak to, you didn't say, I intend on sitting you down with out of contexted clips to which we said to you before in an email, any clips that you want to share with us, send it over.

Let's assert a debate claim so that we can both be ready to respond to it. This just that's not really what happened. 39 minutesWell, that what's not what didn't happen. Yeah, this this uh the way that you're framing the exchange, that's not that's not actually what happened.

We were negotiating it is true. We negotiated out uh the claim itself, right? Which one's going to take which position? I wanted to make sure that I had at least an hour and a half on mine and you got the time for yours to question me.

We did. We got through your hour and a half on mine. Roughly an hour and a half now on mine. That's basically how this went.

But in the beginning, I did not take an hour and a half to just pull out of context list with Andrew. I actually debated the substance of what's going on in this trial in this hearing. And I I do think that he fell I think he fell short of that. There's nothing out of Hang on.

There's nothing here except holding you to account for your claim. Say yes or no. Well, we were supposed to be dating uh be debating the case and whether or not there was overwhelming evidence. These are your claims about the case.

No, you then admitted that that now you're getting into another sphere and you're you want to talk about the transcendentals and things that I said and like four out of five of your clips are about Erica Kirk. So, the general perception out of five even is your turning points horse? I think quite a few of them were. Was there three or four?

So you're just making stuff up. Can we get a count of how many were about Erica? I feel like I think it was three. Three.

Okay. Three. I said four. [clears throat] But those are extraordinary claims, which is why you're asked about Well, okay.

But the point being is now you're veering into trying to get me to defend my opinions and then you completely sherk responsibility when I point out yours. No, they're not claims. When you think Erica is too you go that's just whatever. And then you move on.

That's a claim that I and I'm responsible for the claim. Well, earlier when I brought it up, you said that it was tongue and cheek. Yes, sure. I That's me responding to your criticism of the claim.

That's all I'm doing here. I was interested and um and I'm happy to get into also the psy stuff now if you would like to. The team has one more clip. They got one.

We were getting into the py stuff and you stopped it and I was explaining to you. Oh, they have one more clip. Okay, let's go. They want to hit [snorts] the minimum of four clips you were saying with Erica.

No, 100%. [laughter] This is absurd. Okay. And this is the one you're saying from 7 days ago.

Okay. While they're looking for that, do you want to continue? Yeah. I I mean, can I ask a question?

I know it's been or or like can I ask a question? Are we Not really. We're I'm just going to we're going to hold to the actual contract itself. The contract is does not say that you are allowed to just question me without me being able to respond to you.

I've never said you can't or have a conversation. You've been able to respond to every question I've asked you. And by the way, the the other thing is is like let's have it your way. I want it to look like we've done everything Andrew wanted to so that people can fairly assess the situation.

So you have it your way. I will not ask a question. Totally fair with me. So, are you good with her asking the question or no?

You said no. Waiting for the clip. 42 minutesOkay. So, you want to wait for the clip first?

Okay. You guys have it in the back. Okay. Beautiful.

Team told me they had it. So that's what I heard. Okay, there we go. Come on, guys.

Did this crime, okay? Because Lance Twigs has DNA on the fine. Lance Twigs has his DNA on the rifle. And to be clear, Lance Twigs DNA four times was not as degraded as Tyler Robinson's DNA was on Tyler's rifle.

It's Tyler's rifle. No, you also said, yeah, it's not as degraded on the rifle. Yeah, cuz I thought he was one of the things. But I I've already That that's what I mean when I say that like it just seems like you're not actually here trying to engage because I even before you got to this and I knew that you had some secret clip planned.

I said to you when I rewatched the testimony, I realized that they didn't explicitly say Lance Twigs. They said five other profiles were on it and that his was the most degraded. So I hope your team feels fulfilled in playing that. Uh is there any more?

I'm happy to play every clip that he has on the ready. Anybody? You said you said you had some new evidence at the beginning of the Yeah, we should show that text message that you read just because I think that's important for the public. You shared it out of context.

I'll do it on my show. I'll share the uh the text. So, you're going to read it on my show but not show it. Correct.

Okay. So, I'll show it on my show. But that's that's what I'll do. I'll show it on my show.

Can I ask why? Well, because I want to drip out the evidence. You know, it's that's got to drip out that evidence. Keep people coming back for the show, right?

I don't know if Snark serves you so well. I'm just saying like um yeah, I'll I'll I'll release it there. Um yeah, that's that's my intention, but yeah, I'm fine with closings if you want to do closings. 44 minutesWell, I also would just if if I may ask a question, is is that a permitted?

Go ahead. Um, just so I also have clarity since your basis has been evidentiary, you keep saying that you have evidence or like you are following evidence. Which one of the charges against or or all of them do you think Tyler Robinson is guilty of? Um, the specific charge.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I think what I think is that um Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk. Yeah.

of the seven charges that he's he's being charged with. Yeah. Can we list them real quick? I'll tell you exactly which ones.

We'll pull them up. Well, do do you know any of the charges he's up for right now? Yeah, of course. But I want to make sure that we have them listed.

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

You're just not following it. It seems pretty like if you're going to engage and you're going to say the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson is guilty. I just think that you should like Can you tell me one Let's do the counter. You can really hang out.

This is a great gotcha. No, no. You just got to ask me, play clips out of context, [clears throat] put me in the hot seat. So, please just answer the question.

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

Yeah, you name all seven. I'm happy to do that, but can you name one? Uh, I think he's I think he's been charged with murder. That's actually incorrect.

Okay, great. Now, name all seven. He doesn't even This is like Name all seven. And And And I I Can you name all seven?

I I can. Then do it. Sure. You don't have to do it.

No, do it. I'll count them. Go ahead. You don't have to put your fingers up.

I can name them. Yeah, sure. Name them. Uh, the first charge is aggravated murder because that's what carries a death sentence in the state of youth.

No, that's not that is literally not murder. Okay. And so, just so people No, don't I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on and just to explain to people the difference of why that really matters and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all is because aggravated murder uh it's it's narrowly defined and because it carries a death sentence.

I'm not I'm going to answer the question. You're just going to recognize that your strategy of thinking that people are intimidated when you try to put a time constraint doesn't work and you'll be better the next time you debate. I got it. I got it.

Give me Give me the other ones. The more you cut me off, the longer I'll take. Do you want to just wait for me to finish of why that's a big difference so that people don't want you to list the charges? Yeah, I'm going to do that.

You just don't get to pretend that there's a time constraint for me to do that. Well, how how long does it take you to list seven charges? I'm cuz I'm speaking. You just got to It sounds like you're just delaying it cuz you don't know them.

I I know all seven of them. And I'm going to say again cuz you're going to get embarrassed. I you don't have to rush this. I'm also showing an example of a very flawed debate strategy.

I actually am under no time constraint. I got one. Great. The second charge is the felony discharge of a weapon.

Uh the next two charges are for obstruction of justice. Okay. The next two charges are for witness temp tampering. And the final What's the specific charges though?

That is them. Obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice. Witness tampering.

Witness tampering. Okay. W and there's no other specifics to them. Well, we I can tell you why he's being charged.

No, no, no. Just the the charges and then seven. Yeah. See, the bad thing is when you try to be an a-hole and it doesn't work.

What's the seventh? The last charge is uh violence in front of a minor. Okay, got it. So, then he's being charged with murder.

You just say aggravated murder. That's the distinction. You just want to It's a It's a massive It's like you can't even You cannot say murder versus aggravated murder. This gets to the entire crux of why him being up up for the death sentence.

And I actually find the defense's filing about why this is not aggravated to be uh very compelling of why it's not aggravated murder. I actually think that the state was going to even try to pull this off, they should have charged him with just murder. Um, and then I do also again want to stress to audiences that that debate strategy of thinking that you have to speak faster or somebody puts your hand up and they try to pretend like it's some sport. I think he thinks it's a blood sport.

It's not. It's about being right and being principled when you're engaging. And you can make mistakes. I make mistakes all the time.

But at least be genuine and 48 minutespretending that you care about this case enough to know one of the seven charges that are up against Tyler Robinson when you say the evidence is overwhelming, that he's guilty. Um, if you would like to move to final statements, I'm fine. I want to make sure Andrew has had the time that he has requested. I think your team would like to pull up the seven charges that he just asked you about.

If you guys want to pull that up just to confirm the seven you went through. Can you guys zoom in a little bit for me? Aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, uh obstruction of obstruction, the obstruction of justice, which is counts three and four, five and six, tampering with a witness, and count violent offense in the presence of a minor. Child.

Yeah. Yeah. So, five, six, tampering witness, thirdderee felony. Now, I did notice something I just was curious about if I'm just wondering when you pulled out your phone just before you asked that question.

Did somebody by chance text you that question? You can check my phone. I'm just curious. No, you can absolutely not.

I didn't I have not had one communication with a single person. Not even my producers who are in there this whole time we were here. You want to check my phone? I'm 49 minuteshappy to do it because you're just going to get double embarrassed.

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

Here you go. PBD, you're the moderator. Take it. Let's see.

See if anyone was texted at all during this debate. All right. About the violent charges or anything. I'm looking through this.

You give me permission. So, I'm looking at to go through my phone. I don't need to cheat. So, the last one has nothing to do with it.

It's just a compliment. Mhm. I haven't even read my text message. That's a compliment.

He's reading them. You're okay. You're giving me permission. I'm just going to read three of them.

So, 11:32 cuz after that, I don't need to read it. Any other texts? Could have been Telegram. Could have been something.

All I have is Signal. You can check that, too. I only have signal. Telegram I used in Russia and that was it.

I downloaded I'll take your word for it. Yeah. I don't I don't need to [clears throat] like I deeply care about this case. I don't need to pretend to know stuff.

care about the case. I just, you know, I have my other question is about the steakhouse receipt. You just said that you were done asking all your questions. So, you know, nothing there there.

I don't Yeah. Do you have the steakhouse receipt is my question? Um, I have said several times that I have I have never said I have the receipt for the steakhouse. I have said the person who's working on that story is going to be forthcoming with the receipt and that was what I was responding to and he then dropped the receipt.

He redacted elements of it and I said stay tuned. He's the one working on that story. Okay. So you you haven't actually confirmed that Robinson was at that steakhouse.

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

That's the extent of what I shared is what happened. Okay. So to be clear, there's no receipt. You I just said the opposite.

I said there there is. Well, you don't have a copy of the receipt. I The receipt was published online. Yeah.

Right. right with blurred out the person working on this story. Yeah, that blurred that out is what I was referring to when I said stay tuned and keep following his stuff because he went to go which do what I hadn't done which was he interviewed the actual server. So there's no evidence that Tyler was at that steakhouse.

I I would say the receipt with his debit card number it would be some hard evidence if that is I agree with that. So that's it. But you're questioning me. But is there as of right now he paid if you're asking me did he pay with a credit or debit card?

The answer is yes. No. No. Is there proof that that was actually his debit card that he paid with?

I think you should follow the person that um is behind that story. Well, the reason I'm asking you is because you always include it in your timeline that he traveled to the steakhouse. Yeah, we've been building a timeline with things that we feel are But is there any actual 1102 approved? I think speaking to the owner knowing that there's a receipt, seeing the receipt uh is good enough to put on our timeline.

But the receipt itself, the question I always had about it is couldn't you just call the merchant? " Yeah, I would I would stay tuned. I I feel that the haven't spoken to the owner that the evidence is compelling enough to put onto my personal timeline of what took place on that day. Uh that's where it's going to stay.

And if it gets debunked, I'm happy to take it off if that's what you mean. That's how an investigation works. Um like I said, I did more than enough. It would definitely pass the test by the Utah 1102 rule for sure.

For certain [laughter] Well, yeah, beyond that because they didn't even have receipts. They were like Bob told me. But the question but the question is the receipt itself. It has not been verified to have been Tyler.

[admin]

xxx