You're going to pay $300,000 to debate Candace Owens, the world's foremost expert journalist in this field, and you're not going to prepare for your debate at all. You're not even going to read the most basic documentation and court filings to do with it. You're not going to know the charges or basically anything else in detail. That's dumb. And you're about to pay the price for it in 4K.
0:24[music] >> [music] [music] >> What's up? Welcome back to Cancel and Carol. Um, the studio has been packed up for several weeks now, but I had to throw a little thing together to respond to this debate. um which I'm sure you are aware of between [snorts] Andrew Wilson and Candace Owens that happened yesterday. It's all over the internet.
1:02It's getting clipped like crazy. Um people have a lot of strong feelings and I think it's pretty obvious who the decisive winner was, but there's a lot that was left unsaid. There's a lot of points that didn't have room or time or the inspiration to be made at the time.
1:16There's a lot of misunderstandings. Um there's a lot of funny moments to unpack and um chillery and stuff like that. So, I decided that what I'm going to do is I'm going to do a full reaction to the whole thing um and add a lot of commentary over a lot of parts and it's going to be a pretty long video. We won't play it at normal speed, so it'll we'll move through it as fast as we can.
1:35But [snorts] for people that want the full thing all broken down with all sorts of points added in, um this will pretty much be that. And then we will also make a shorter edit um and try to get that out tomorrow or something like that that will be more sharable. And if you don't have the time for the whole thing or you just want the cliff, we'll try to make one that's a lot shorter that's clipped down from this as well.
1:56Um, but without further ado, let's not waste any time. Um, we have a lot to get through. Let's just pull up the video and get to responding to uh Andrew Wilson and Candace Owens. The debate of the century, the $300,000 debate, which some have pointed out that that might be the most expensive debate that's ever happened, which is weird on so many levels. um from Andrew Wilson being able to afford it or not. Um how he got the money to afford it or not, whether [snorts] the money was actually paid or not. I presume it was. Um and why you would pay so much money to get the opportunity to do this to yourself in
2:33your career on what amounts to national TV, international TV, really worldwide TV. But um we'll get to all that. Uh before we start, obviously I have a bias. I'm obviously on team Candace, both because of my friendship with her and my respect for her investigation and her perspective. Um, I obviously don't have a lot of respect for Andrew Wilson. Um, I don't know a whole lot about him, um, aside from, you know, the obvious stuff floating around online, but I try not to judge him for the personal stuff so much. Um, and I was trying to reserve hard judgment on how he would do until I saw him in this
3:08debate. Um, because I was assuming he was going to do a lot better than he did. I was thinking that he was an actually talented, skilled debater that had a mastery of his craft. So, I was expecting a lot more from him, honestly, um than what we got. But that's fine, whatever. Um I am going to point out flaws in whatever logic. I'm going to point out um mistakes that Candace made as well. Um [snorts] that's not because I in in many of those cases, you'll know that that's not because I'm thinking that she's dishonest or lying necessarily as much as in the moment it's hard to think of everything. in the moment, it's hard to
3:42come up with the right comeback or understand everything properly or give the exact perfect explanation for someone to understand what point you're trying to make, especially someone like Andrew Wilson who is >> [snorts] >> um trying to be intentionally obtuse. It seems like most of the time um and I think there's some places too probably where Andrew Wilson was trying to communicate something that Candace was missing either intentionally or unintentionally. So, they started talking past each other a lot. Um [snorts] but we'll just try to break it all down.
4:06Um so, what I'm saying is I've got a bias. Um, but for purposes of this analysis, I'm going to try my best to park it at the door, at least until the very end when Andrew makes a really absolute fool of himself and then it's hard not to, you know, form your own bias right there on the spot. But we'll get to that later.
4:23So, with that being said, Andrew, your claim is overwhelming evidence.
4:28>> Let's speed this up.
4:29>> That Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk.
4:32Opening statements, opening comments.
4:34>> Sure. And what I mean by overwhelming is I just find it very convincing. That's I think that's what most people mean when they say over.
4:39>> I know this is going to be too fast for some of you. Deal with it. Um we got a lot to get through.
4:44[snorts] Obviously, we're redefining overwhelming right at the start. Um which is, you know, pretty important.
4:50>> Evidence. So, I have a brief opening statement. On September 10th, 2025, Charlie Kirk was murdered. Many of you all >> reading your opening statement. Not a good move, bro. Not a good look. Um makes you look weak. Makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about. Um and not even a passionate reading. Not even a rehearsed oration.
5:07Not even a looking up at the camera, down at the text, back up at the camera, down at the text, back up at the camera.
5:12None of that. Just reading a canned statement that might as well be written by Blake Nef. Um, already know a lot about the events which occurred after Kirk's death. You remember the ghoulish laughter, celebrations, and madness we saw from leftists all over from Tik Tok invasions, debates, posts on social media, destruction of memorials, and things like this. Within weeks of Kirk's death, a cottage industry began to form, peddling various alternative theories on how he died, what special interests may have killed him, what nations were involved, and was our own government one of them. Because this was the first
5:38nationwide traumatic event in Gen Z's lifetime, the demand for answers was severe impulable. The leading theory from the conspiracy verse is that Israel worked with the United States government to murder Charlie Kirk. Within a day or two of Kirk's death, he and Carol carol claimed that Israel killed Charlie Kirk, and the conspiracy caught on like wildfire.
5:54>> Um, I love that tweet still to this day.
5:56I'm very glad I posted that tweet, iconic [snorts] tweet, um where I tweeted that um and they always cite it incorrectly. Um [snorts] what the tweet said was it was one day after the shooting and I [snorts] had refrained from making comment for a full 24 hours to watch what happened to try to not jump on the news bandwagon the moment of um which is not normal for people in my position. Normally people with a big audience would be jumping on it right away to get views. And I waited 24 hours and watched the internet and the whole internet came up with the Israeli angle right away. It was not me. It was
6:29everybody. And that was when I tweeted that the entire internet has already figured out that the most likely candidate culprit is Israel. And then I made a facicious statement um that I I stand by that Charlie was their friend and they killed him in cold blood in front of his family. They just shot themselves. And I stand by all of that.
6:50And I think that that has only been proven out more and I think it will continue to be proven out. And Israel 100% shot themsself. Um even if they had nothing to do with it, just the perception they've allowed the world to have of them at the moment in time when this unfortunate event occurred and then their response, everyone's response to the event. Look around you. The fact that everyone is saying Israel did it is evidence to that point. Even if they didn't, though I suspect they did.
7:18This theory was built on one misleading piece of evidence that in his final days on around September 8th, Charlie sent a text message reading, "Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not believe like this."
7:30That's actually not true. The [clears throat and snorts] entire theory um was built long before we had those messages. Um the theory actually started because Harrison Smith had tweeted a month prior. Harrison Smith being a journalist for Infowars, who I know personally, who is a very high in integrity person, a very good journalist. [snorts] Um, and he tweeted a month prior to the event, to the killing, that Charlie Kirk had told one of his good friends who had then told Harrison that Charlie was concerned that Israel might kill him if he turned on them. That's hearsay. It's secondhand. But it had been posted
8:06before the assassination with no knowledge of any assassination plan, just coincidentally. And when people went back and looked at that, that seemed very relevant. And then people started to notice George Zinn, which was a very strange immediate thing right on the day of. And then more pieces of evidence started to get put together.
8:22People started to talk about Charlie's recent podcast appearances, Charlie's recent uh events and the scandals around Dave Smith and Tucker Carlson being at them. And this whole conversation emerged, and it escalated largely because everyone that was pro-Israel vehemently painted it as madeup. and they vehemently tried to smear Candace and pretend that is that there was none of this was happening and it was all made up and then Candace dropped receipts in the form of these text messages that Andrew is citing as this misconstrued evidence. Ironically, one of the first pieces of evidence that Andrew is citing is evidence that
8:55Candace brought to the case, which he will later say that Candace brings nothing. She has no facts, no evidence, no sources, no nothing. despite the fact that one of the first pieces of evidence that he cites in his whole prepared opening statement is evidence that Candace brought that was obscured by the side that he is representing that was intentionally lied about by the people that he is representing. So [snorts] giving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause. This was sent in the context of a platforming dispute regarding Tucker Carlson. From this of misleading information, it was speculated that Israel killed Charlie
9:27Kirk because he would have successfully opposed the Iranian war. It was sent in the context of going to his donors. That that group text message included his donors. It included very powerful people. It's not the kind of group chat where you're talking to your boys about like your private thoughts. It was a public statement to the money saying this is [ __ ] up and it's going to force me out and I'm going to leave and this is how I feel. That's not a that's not a little text, but it's you're perfectly welcome to come to your own conclusion about what that text message means. Now, that's [snorts] a fun
9:59theory, and who doesn't like a good fun conspiracy theory? I like them. But there is no evidence that Israel actually killed Charlie Kirk. And if Candace has some, I'd like her to actually show it to me. I'm open to suggestions, but to date, there hasn't been any. There is, however, tons of evidence that a leftist killed Charlie Kirk. Just as Charlie feared they would.
10:11I believe Charlie Kirk, and I have the receipts. No, I have a dream where he came to me and told me that the left killed him. Uh, no, he didn't come to me a dream and say, >> remember that quip about the dream? It's an unnecessary character attack, Candace. That's totally irrelevant.
10:24>> Hey, Candace Owens betrayed him. That never happened. In fact, I don't need dreams of any kind because I hold my possession never before seen messages from Charlie Kirk to his security team on September 9th, 2025.
10:33>> So, he's carefully laying out in his prepared written statement that he has a secret text message that no one else has seen that [snorts] that Charlie sent the day before he was killed. How did Andrew Wilson get this text message? Obviously, he was given it by Turning Point USA um there by by Erica Kirk and he admits as much later.
10:53Um, so that's interesting. We'll we'll get to that in a second.
10:59>> I'm going to share the message with you today, which is the first time this information has ever been publicly revealed. On September 9th, Charlie security team wrote to him, "Yes, law enforcement has been fully supportive and agreed to uh security plan and posture. Tomorrow's event will be covered by both my team and the campus PD. If additional support is required, patrol units will be available. I have 11 on site." Charlie responded with this. Okay, great. Remind them that they are there for one person's security only because I'm somewhat worried the left is trying to kill me. That was a message
11:24sent September 9th.
11:27Whatever could he have meant by that?
11:28Well, I think he meant exactly what he said, that he was worried the left was going to try to kill him. Now, we'll discuss this more later on in the debate. And maybe I have more never-before-seen evidence that exposes just how wrong and in my opinion id.
11:39It's an interesting uh statement that he made in his written statement. He seems to have come in with a plan, with preparation, with a written statement, with prepared evidence to try to, you know, break this thing wide open. Um, and he sort of alluded to having more, but then never showed anything else.
11:53Never brought anything else later. And I don't know if that's cuz he got derailed, he got distracted, he forgot, or he was just making that up from the start, and he doesn't actually have any more, you know, exclusive TPUSA provided evidence. Listen, I got to interrupt for a second.
12:09Um, I'm going to have my editor slide this into the video somewhere early on because uh somewhere around like the 3 or 4 hour mark, I realized that we had made a mistake and trying to react to the whole thing is a little it got a little out of hand.
12:26You're you're I mean, you already know that you're watching a very long video.
12:32Uh, so I love you for signing up for that, but I just wanted to, you know, lay the groundwork, tell you that we ain't basically I can't do live streams right now. So this is the closest we can get. This is like a live stream just tomorrow. Um, but there's no edits. We didn't cut anything out. It's just it's just one chill afternoon together, you and me. And I miss that.
12:55Um, [clears throat] and I'm very excited for the day when we can do real live streams again and we can get kind of like the whole studio back together and everything get chop chop. Um, but for now we're making do and I really appreciate you and and I really appreciate you being here. Oh, and uh, while you're at it, um, I haven't seen you in a long time and uh, haven't been producing a lot of videos lately, but that means that it would be extra helpful um, here at the start if you were to like the video if you're not already subscribed. You're going to love it, dude. You're going to love it. Um,
13:27so press that at the end. And, uh, if [clears throat] anyone wants to watch, you know, I don't know, like what, eight hours of debate reaction, however long this video is, then share it with a friend. Share it with a friend. Or maybe you got a maybe you got an Ian Carol homie. Um, that you just share with them to to let them know I'm still alive and that would be a big help. Appreciate you. Love you guys. Cool. Um, I'm getting the [ __ ] out of here. So, it only took the internet um one day to dig up this juxaposition um that points out that Andrew Wilson has this new text message from the day before Charlie was killed of Charlie
14:03saying, "I'm worried the left is going to kill me allegedly." Um [snorts] which he doesn't share on the show person.
14:08Like, we'll get to that in a second. Um but he says that he has it and he claims that that's what it says. And obviously it was given to him by Erica Kirk because she's in possession of Charlie's phone now. There's nowhere else that it could have come from Erica and or TPS USA in general. and he uh admitted as as such later on in the debate or in on Twitter generally later um I forget where. So [snorts] there's some discrepancy now between what he is claiming in this debate with this text message and what Erica Kirk herself claimed several months ago during an interview. Charlie responded with this.
14:39Okay, great. Remind them that they are there for one person's security only because I'm somewhat worried the left is trying to kill me. That was a message sent September 9th.
14:55>> But he was not messaging people the day before saying, "I'm going to be murdered. They're coming after me.
15:02Someone's going to kill me." He didn't he didn't say that >> and I have his cell phone.
15:08>> Charlie responded with this. Okay.
15:10>> So, that Erica clip is from back in the day when a lot of us weren't sure what to make of Erica. back. That's back in the day when I thought that Erica knew what was going on and was searching for justice behind the scenes. That was back when I suspected that Erica Kirk was pushing for answers before we saw her do the cover up. This was one of the first interviews where it really started to come across that Erica Kirk is not interested in any investigation or any answers beyond the ones that are already being supplied as certainty. And um this statement, you could hear in her voice this sort of snide. He was not doing any
15:45of that. He didn't send anything like that and I know because I have his phone to sort of exaggerate it. And that really spoke to me at the time, still does as being like, "Fuck you and I've got the phone. I've got the evidence." And it's a weird tone to take about your husband's murder investigation to be snarky about how you know exactly what's true because you have the phone.
16:13Anyways, um I bring that clip up because it's just a little too tactical to uh come with your prepared written statement that references your never-before-seen evidence that was provided to you by TP USA, who's totally not paying your $300,000 bill for this debate at all, even though you went and met with them and then changed your stance on them and then started white knighting for them right after you were paid to train their debaters for debates. Um, it's all a very funny series of events to get Andrew Wilson here with that text message that is awfully suspicious and directly contradictory. So, it's like either
16:46Andrew Wilson is lying or Erica Kirk was lying directly into the camera on behalf of Deep USA. One or the other. Um, and neither one is good because realistically this is representing Erica Kirk. She's the one that sent him with the text message obviously and he's obviously coming to present it. That's it. So, that's awkward.
17:08That right there is pretty duplicitous and strange.
17:11>> Many of these conspiracy theories have been. But that's what happens when you rely on what's called the evidence of the gaps. In other words, they don't have evidence. They seem to just make up evidence. And what did they make up?
17:20Well, in my opinion, kind of whatever line the pockets. And I think it's ghoullish the profit.
17:24>> That's a weird definition of evidence of the gaps. I don't I mean, I think you just made up that phrase. I don't know if that's a real phrase, but what it sounds like it means is that where there is absence of information, that informs you of things. And where there is absence of evidence, that can be telling. And honestly, in a lot of conspiracy theories, that is 100% true.
17:42Is that the absence of evidence is often how you discover a cover up. Often the fact that this doesn't add up or this doesn't make sense or this video is missing or the murder weapon isn't there. Things that should exist that aren't, that is often very legitimate evidence of a cover up or a conspiracy or something bigger. And like you can look at 911 and search for the missing plane that hit the Pentagon.
18:08That's an absence of evidence, evidence of the gaps. That's very legit. The absence of any explanation for how building 7 fell is part of the beginning of a very serious inquisition into did planes really cause these collapses or was it something else? And obviously the something else is a controlled demolition. And so the evidence of the gaps is a very reasonable way to start asking questions and to start an investigation and to look for what fills those gaps. But then he just defines it all totally differently and to like you're just making things up. Is you know this guy's a fake conspiracy theorist. He doesn't actually believe
18:37any of these things he's talking about.
18:39>> The death of a good man. But we came here today to debate and so let's get to it. The debate topic today is one my belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk and two Candace's belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson was a psy and didn't kill Charlie Kirk. In some the audience is going to decide who has more evidence supporting their theory. My theory is that the state is correct that Tyler Robinson is a killer at least based on evidence so far in Kansas's theory that Tyler Robinson is not the >> note that he said his his theory his
19:00position is that the state is correct.
19:02That's his position that comes up later.
19:04>> Killer and he's a pacy set up by the feds. To be clear, this is not a question of reasonable doubt. If it was reasonable doubt and that's all it was and that's all Candace was profering, I wouldn't even be here having the debate with her. It's fair to have doubts as a trial has yet to occur and the state hasn't even begun to try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But Candace makes a more forceful claim. She claims that there's more evidence that Tyler is not guilty of murder and was set up as a pacy.
19:24>> This is a very weird statement. It's a weird moralizing that he's doing here at the start. It's okay to have doubts, just not too much doubt. You're allowed to have doubts, just not doubts I don't like. You're allowed to have doubt, just not doubts that I find morally disagreeable for my own personal morality. Um, you're allowed to have doubts, but you can't pair those doubts with suspecting alternative realities.
19:45Although those are inherently the same thing because if I if if my child tells me a story about where he was when he was missing and I doubt that story, it's because I suspect something else was happening. I suspect you were off skateboarding with your friends when you said you were doing homework, right?
20:02It's cuz you suspect something else was happening. So it's a weird moralistic nonsequiter of a concept of like let me tell you how much doubt you're allowed to have um bud than there is with the state's case. And I just think that that's absurd. And she will not be able to demonstrate that in any way. In fact, she has almost no real evidence at all of her theory. Whereas my theory is supported by compelling witness testimony, physical evidence, multiple confessions, all of which are independently compelling, but which are even more convincing as each piece of evidence corroborates the others. You'll
20:26notice the term overwhelming was included in both theories. This is because Candace demanded I defend my use of that term, which I think is fair in describing the evidence against Tyler Robinson. She, on the other hand, only wanted to defend her theory as merely viable. That is until I showed her her clips in which she said she believed the evidence of her theory that Tyler Robinson's a pacy was supported by overwhelming evidence. Um, I agree that it wouldn't be fair for her to come in trying to defend that it's like mostly me and he's trying to defend that it's overwhelming. Even though that is
20:48technically the actual state of play is that if you're trying to defend the death penalty for Tyler Robinson before the trial has happened, then you are climbing a steep cliff of, you know, the the body of evidence that you should be supplying, the level of certainty that you should have in order to make that statement. Whereas in order to say that I don't think that happened, I think that's a lie and I think something else happened and I want to find out what it was. The bar for that is not overwhelming evidence to support any one alternative claim. The bar for that is doubt. So in reality, Candace is only
21:20trying to establish that there's doubt in that. And because there's doubt in that, anything else is possible. And the vast majority of anything else includes a version of having a pathy because basically the moment that it's not a lone nut, it's a conspiracy. And the moment that it's conspiracy, there's almost no options that don't include a complex intelligence type of thing, you know, whether clandestine or criminal or whatever. And in that there will always be a pathy because that's just how you fake an assassination. That's how you run an assassination where you don't get caught. And there's lots of historical
21:51precedent for that that we can discuss in a minute. Um [snorts] so even though the uh the actual real life barriers for these two different claims is vastly different um and the actual claims that are being made are in different categories so to speak in terms of certainty and outcome um it's still more fair as a debate if they both have to positively defend a theory so to speak. So that's that's cool. I'm glad that Candace agreed to that um statement although I think that she could have done better um presenting it. We'll get into that in a little bit. Only then did she agree to defend that position.
22:23Regardless, we're both defending the claim. There's overwhelming evidence on our side. So, it's worth defining that term. When I say the evidence against Robinson's overwhelming, all I'm saying is that I mean that as of right now, I find it very convincing. That's not what overwhelming means at all. [laughter] That's not what overwhelming means at all. Um, but if you want to define it that way, whatever. We can give it to you. Overwhelming means it's convincing, which is basically the same as like probably like is like pretty good. like like the one thing he just said that he didn't want Candace to weasel into.
22:50>> I see.
22:51>> Even though they both kind of weasel into it a little bit throughout the debate.
22:54>> Almost no evidence at all in the speculation unverified claims and suggestions of things that could merely be hypothetically possible. Dreams, vibes, feelings, things like this.
23:00Almost done. By the way, I have no problem defending the state's case and welcome Candace bringing up any challenges she would like. But if I'm honest, the reason I was willing to pay the $300,000 was this for this debate was to finally have a chance for someone to demand Candace be held accountable for the unbelievable theories and claims she's been making.
23:12>> [snorts] >> Why would Andrew Wilson, who self-admittedly thinks all women are [ __ ] we'll get to that. Um, why would he pay $300,000 to debate a woman in her basement um about like the moral objectivity of her podcast and then come in with this level of conviction and give give this level of performance. It's let's just say you could use your common sense about whether that's suspicious and why that would be happening and what he's really up to and what's going on here cuz you know most of us clocked it from a mild way.
23:48>> Gand's investigation is indistinguishable from a leftist operation. She couldn't be doing more damage to the right if she were trying.
23:53She uses her considerable platform to relentlessly attack one of the most influential conser >> You know who couldn't be doing more damage to the right than possible?
24:00Trump. um the uni the uni party blob around him, the deep state and all the influencers that are pedaling all their [ __ ] and you know papering over all the lies, all the broken promises, covering up for the Epstein files, pretending like we all wanted the Iran war, pretending like we're not losing the Iran war objectively, intensely, and really horribly. Um there's really no one that is doing more damage to the right than Trump and you know the right that is currently in charge of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the [ __ ] White House. So let's be clear about who is destroying the right.
24:30Um, nothing wrong with commentators, you know, objective commentators that voted for him, that supported him, that are now pro promise broken by him. Nothing wrong with them criticizing him for all that. Um, perfectly fine. And to be clear, Charlie Kirk would have been one of them. That's the whole that's the whole premise here. Charlie Kirk would have been criticizing Trump over all these things, too. Um, he did objectively all throughout his final years of life.
24:52>> [snorts] >> And uh so then I mean you could I would make the argument I'd be happy to make the argument that Turning Point USA is actually doing more damage to the right by turning to now support Israel fullon support the Iran war try to you know finagle a version of like oh come on kids just there's no a formidability crisis. They're trying to pedal all of the mainstream slop when that was never what Charlie was doing. And so Turning Point is damaging themselves because they're going to destroy their own credibility by doing so. Not to mention, you know, all this stuff about the case and Erica and Blake and Andrew and all
25:23that >> of outreach organizations for young people. She's making a mockery of the online right-wing commentary class.
25:28>> He also just referred to TPSA as one of the largest right-wing outreach programs for young people in America. And um while that is technically true, it's that's that's not the whole story. It's one of the largest Zionist right-wing outreach organizations for young people in America. And that is critically important because the Zionists that paid to build Teusa probably want it to stay that way. They probably don't want it to become the Dave Smith and Tucker Carlson come out on stage and share their opinions all the time to millions and millions of young American people, right? But so she's harming Republicans in an election
26:06year by dividing them. She's attacking the very organization Charlie spent his life building and she's attacking the people he loved incl.
26:11>> She spent her life building it too, bud.
26:12It was obviously Charlie's. Charlie built it. Charlie was the face of it. It was all Charlie. But Candace was probably the next second biggest single contributor to Turning Point USA's public rise and image and perception among young people and success over the years. And without her, it would not be the same thing at all. And Charlie would not have had the same path and become the same man and achieve the same things. And you know, you could obviously make the argument that the donors probably come above Candace in terms of influence over T USA, but I I mean the list the short list would include Charlie Kirk, the big donors, um
26:45maybe like the Tyler Boyers of the of this story. Um maybe which is their whole own can of worms and then Candace Owens being the next biggest contributor for you know the vast majority of Turning Point storyline being his wife and it cost me $300,000 but today I hope that she find the answers for some of that. Thank you, Andrew. Candace.
27:05>> So, whatever. I was going to point out that he was looking down at a screen the whole time.
27:10>> Your system.
27:10>> I did.
27:11>> Okay, great.
27:12>> So, let's be real. That's the opening of Candace's sort of snark stance, which is a very wise debate stance. It's not it's not strictly speaking like a you know a truly good faith debate stance, but it's pretty obvious from the start here that Candace went into this knowing that Andrew Wilson was not coming in good faith and that the whole thing was sketchy and clearly not what it was presented as. And it was all kind of a joke. And I think Candace kind of took it as a bit of a joke the whole time despite trying to be professional and not, you know, stack the deck against him and not do gotcha clips on him and
27:44not bring a pickle jar to try to ask him to open and all that stuff. she still was, you know, she took the snarky, she took the position, her debate stance that she takes when she's debating someone who she's not worried about, who she's not even the slightest worried about. Um, and I think that it resulted in her not making as many good points as she easily could have um at certain times. But that's not to say that I would have done any better or that she like sucked, just that it's hard to, you know, nail it all perfectly in the moment.
28:12>> Well, I'm not going to waste time with the preamble because I think I just want to get the substance of the debate and I will just speak to the audience. I I've obviously had an audience since we've been covering this case, even though that there was a personal friendship between me and Charlie. Um, and diminishing the pursuit of something that makes sense regarding what happened on September 10th by throwing it to this is just people. These are people who are just trying to generate clicks. I I don't think that people should be satisfied by that. I want people to remember that it's important to think.
28:34We've been lied to by the government a great many times um over I mean just the last couple of years if you just think of the things that we've learned about our government. Um, and I do want to say this. What's been the most disturbing element I think for everyone is that not only does the narrative not make any sense, which I'm going to demonstrate. I need to waste time with the preamble going through the points or trying to insult you or pretending that I've been running the podcast saying it's just dreams and vibes like I'm Miss Cleo and that's the reason why it is taking so many influencers. It looks like a
28:54billion dollar industry of influencers um to dispute everything Candace says.
28:57It's not because I'm on my platform saying I had a dream last night. I don't think that that I think that diminishes you as as an argument. Obviously, we have presented a lot of evidence.
29:03>> This is such a strong opener where she basically extends an olive branch to him and say and says I don't think you're that dumb. Like I don't think that you're actually that like you you're smart enough to to not make that argument and I think that you that's a silly argument for you to make because you're you're you should be here to debate in good faith and you can and please do because like obviously that's not the thrust of what I'm here to do.
29:25Um obviously she cares and obviously she has a lot of expertise in it and obviously it's not all just dreams and you know gut feelings because of this like you paid $300,000 to come here and debate me. You wouldn't be doing that if it was because I had a dream. Um, clearly and really the theme of the entire debate is that Candace knows this case up, backwards, down, left, right, center, upside down, asleep, back of her hand, whatever you want to say. She's [ __ ] lived, eat, slept, breathed this case, ever since day one for obvious reasons. And there is no expert in the world more qualified than Candace wants
30:00to tell you about this case, except maybe Baron Coleman. um because Baron Coleman has covered it so extensively as well. There's really no replacement for that leg work, for doing that research, for living the case, for in actually like engaging with the information. And it's obvious that Andrew Wilson hasn't done that and that he does not have a grasp on this case in any detailed way.
30:19And over and over and over, culminating in the big roast at the end, over and over and over, you can tell in subtle and not so subtle ways that Andrew Wilson does not know the evidence that they're actually discussing. And then Candace Owens can in detail describe when it was presented, who presented it, where it came from, what the circumstances were, what the context was, what the credibility of it is, what the legal situation of it is, how it affects the case, etc. And she does that over and over and over.
30:44>> You just presented a text message and said, "This is evidence." Well, that's how this entire thing began. You're talking about how Israel got into the conversation. It was because immediately after Charlie died, uh, one of the first things we saw was this push to make us all think and remember how much he loved Israel. because the prime minister of Israel who's fighting like a 27 front war felt that he needed to come do a little mini tour and to be strangely to to state that I did not kill Charlie Kirk when nobody um was having that thought that I can remember nobody was going I wonder if Netanyahu killed
31:06Charlie Kirk and then we had a round of influencers who lied and said Charlie was not changing on Israel that he wasn't having any disagreements regarding that topic that the day he died he just loved Israel so much and I >> it's easy to forget just how intense that propaganda campaign was it was just as intense as the 4K video footage propaganda you [snorts] know, attempt that they just made. It was total. It was the whole scope. I mean, do you remember who Josh Hammer is? Do you remember back in the day when Josh Hammer had a face that was on the internet sometimes that anyone cared at all about? There was
31:36this brief moment in time in history where Josh Hammer was a person that people knew who he was and saw his face.
31:42And it was when he was trying to come out here and make this case that he was Charlie's good friend and that he was the biggest Zionist supporter, blah blah blah blah blah blah. And obviously they were all humiliated because that was all a complete and total lie because Candace Owens shared text messages that clearly showed incredible doubts about the whole situation and it really snowballed um once people started to dig into it all.
31:59So just remember how intense that propaganda campaign was >> demonstrated via text message which you just mentioned uh and you're now contextualizing pretending it was just about cover Carlson which is is not true. It was a part of a broader shift that Charlie was having over the last I would say actually on your show it began um since October 7th which is when I began asking myself more questions about Israel as well. Uh, and so yeah, when all of these things happen in the immediate aftermath, and then I drop a text message after everyone is dying that Tucker Carlson then comes out and confirms the conversations that he had
32:23with Charlie. Megan Kelly then comes out and confirms the private conversations that she had with Charlie. People then begin to ask a reasonable question, which is, "Why are we lying about this?"
32:30If they were forthcoming with that and they had said, "Hey, yeah, Charlie was starting to ask questions. I think after October 7th, it's reasonable that people are starting to reexamine our relationship uh with Israel, we wouldn't be here today." But it has been lie after lie after lie, debunk after debunk after debunk. Yes, I did share that I had a dream that Charlie was betrayed.
32:45It's not a dream anymore. It's a reality. I look at what the organization has become, the people that they are partnering with, the lies that they are telling, uh, the extraordinary people that they're sending out to say that I never I hadn't speak to Charlie since 2018. And it begins to look like a conspiracy. And just as a historical fact, that entire term was created by the CIA to gaslight people after the assassination of JFK. So, it's not exactly one uh that makes me nervous.
33:02Like calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is essentially saying that they demand further answers. They're not accepting. It's believable that if you know Charlie dies and Candace and people are making this claim that he was turning on Israel, it's totally believable that a certain amount of people out there on the internet would believe differently and and kind of want to vehemently defend that a little bit and be like, "No, he wasn't turning on Israel." That's totally believable. Um it's very, you know, normal for a large portion of the public media space to take different opinions just because of
33:30their own convictions. Believable.
33:34That's really not what it felt like. um during this whole Charlie loved Israel push after he died. Um it was organized.
33:41It was uh talking pointed. It was a little bit scripted. It was supported by institutions like TP USA >> [snorts] >> um and the US government and the government of Israel. And it just felt all very contrived as though it had a campaign behind it. And organic rational truths facts don't tend to have campaigns behind them. They tend to just exist and be discoverable to anyone who's interested. Um, the fact that there is a propaganda campaign to tell you that Charlie never changed on Israel should tell any logical thinking human, you know, a little something about what might be going on there.
34:16>> Fed slop. So, um, I'm grateful that you came today. I don't need to, like I said, take cheap shots and discuss your manner of debate or your strategy. And I'm also grateful that you shared that you have a text message today because everybody watching knows that I have been demanding not a debate, just a open conversation with Turning Point USA.
34:29They should be here. It shouldn't be you in that chair. It should be the person that took Charlie's place. Maybe Eric Kirk, maybe Andrew Cole that he's a spokesperson. And rather than doing that, they send us another influencer.
34:36So, let's see how it goes.
34:37>> Just out of curiosity, >> smart tactic to what is like shot Charlie Kirk and killed him.
34:42>> Based on the evidence right now, um, >> critical moment. What percentage of certainty do you have on your theory?
34:49>> I don't know. I'd say 75 85% >> Candace.
34:52>> So, he's 75 to 85% sure that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.
34:59That is not overwhelming. If you're 75% sure of something, you're not overwhelmed. Okay, three quarters, two coin flips, they land on heads.
35:12Whoops, you killed the wrong kid. Um, that's not overwhelming evidence at all, >> but whatever.
35:21>> 0%.
35:21>> 0%.
35:22>> I'm at zero. What we've seen in terms of the evidence, I'm at 0%. So, not not >> and yeah, I was at um damn near 0% just from the nature of the wound and the alleged firearm used just based on the bullet the alleged bullet the magical bullet alone were damn close to 0%. Like as in the chances of that shot making that wound is well under 1%. If you shot that shot a hundred times at a human neck, I believe based on what I've seen, I could be wrong, but I believe that less than one out of a 100 times the bullet would stop in his neck with no exit wound and no other exterior damage.
35:58And that would make it, you know, round down to 0%. Just from the wound with nothing else.
36:04>> Only, you know, that maybe somebody was behind him as a psy influencing him.
36:07You're not even going to say that he didn't even shoot.
36:09>> I would, if you said was he involved that day, as I have consistently said on my platform, I would say yes, he was. I I don't know what role he played, but as the shooter, 0%.
36:15>> Do you have any evidence for it?
36:16>> Uh, for what? My percent.
36:17>> The fact that he didn't he didn't shoot and kill Charlie Kirk.
36:19>> Yes. Which I'm hoping we're going to get to all of the evidence that he feels that he has. I mean, I don't I'm not even convinced that Charlie was shot from the rooftop on Loi that day based on the evidence that has been.
36:27>> Do you think he was shot?
36:28>> I I do not think that Charlie was shot from a 30 six from shot at all.
36:32>> I don't I don't know. I think that a projectile hit Charlie.
36:36>> At this moment, I thought that we were going to get a real conversation. At this moment, I was still hopeful that this was going to be a, you know, somewhat quality debate with actual information about the actual case discussed, but I was wrong. At the start, Andrew Wilson seemed to be interrogating her perspective about facts of the case and trying to find common ground and just sort of establish what she knows. And that seemed like a both logical strategy for him to win and also a good faith strategy to have a quality debate. And I'm open to other people's presentations, but I have not seen any compelling evidence that
37:09Charlie was shot by a 30 odd six.
37:10>> Can we see maybe if we're going to have an all branch answer to each other if maybe we can establish what we consider the facts of the case to be first?
37:16>> Yeah, sure.
37:16>> Okay.
37:17>> This is quality debate and he seems poised right now. This is what I would expect a highquality debater to bring.
37:24This sort of poise, this apparent, you know, fairness, this intellectual honesty, genuine questions back and forth. So you don't you're not sure if he was actually shot. You're open to alternative theories.
37:36>> He was definitely hit with a projectile of some description. If we're talking about was he shot from a gun, a 306, I would say definitively no. Okay. It defies it defies common sense to think that he had a Superman neck and even if he did have a superman neck, which has been demonstrated, I think actually recently a YouTuber actually set up Spalhalla steel cages and shot and it went through. So under no circumstance will I >> So at least not a 306.
37:55>> Definitively not a 30.
37:57>> That was pretty poorly described on her part in the moment, but you know, no worries. Um, yeah, Vajal VFT shot through multiple different plates of steel with his 300 6. Um, including, I believe it was 1/8, uh, 1/4 and 38 inch steel. Um, and it almost went through 1/2 in, maybe it was 38 inch steel. So, [snorts] it's he's, you know, we can shoot through steel plates, we can shoot shoot through cast iron pans. We've seen we've seen it go through all kinds of bone, pork, cinder blocks, um, all sorts of stuff.
38:27>> Feet, >> but you're not necessarily closing off the avenue that he could have been shot at all. maybe a smaller >> smaller caliber. Okay. And then um there are some things that I'm going to make concessions on that I do think we need more answers on and I'm fine with that and we can get to those things as well.
38:38>> The other thing >> we never do >> is in the timeline. One of the things that we just viewed I think on the timeline is that you think that uh Robinson drove hours away to a steakhouse in the timeline. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. It's such a weird detail for him to pin in on so much. And it speaks to me of prepared memorized talking points, not knowledge of the case, and not a genuine personal opinion. Because there's this thing you notice when you are one of us that has these online presences, you notice that the organized detractors that are associated with smear campaigns as opposed to genuine individuals that just
39:11don't like you, the ones that are associated with organized smear campaigns, they always come with the same prepared talking points independent of each other. like they're not like they don't know each other different times. Like I will get the same people or rather I will get totally different people bring the exact same like old Tik Tok video up as like a gotcha on me of like you never answered this or you lied in this old video from two and a half years ago and just random different people will bring that up over and over and over across the years because that's one of the talking points that when the you know little think
39:41tanks analyze our content they try to look for weaknesses and they identify that like that's one of his weak points because it he looked like he got it wrong or something was miss and so you should hammer him on that one always.
39:53And [snorts] that's the vibe that I get from this Panguish steakhouse thing. I don't think Andrew Wilson knows dick all about the actual timeline that Candace has established or any of the, you know, main elements on it. I think he just knows that the Panguish steakhouse one has some conflicting stuff that's awkward to kind of work your way through. It's very complicated to sort of assess reality there because there's conflicting um witness testimony. Uh, so it's like hammering on that part because that part is important to embarrass her about in public.
40:21>> And what's the compelling evidence that you think you have there?
40:23>> I spoke to the owner of the restaurant.
40:25Um, and I have seen the receipt. I know the conversation that I had and uh, I think it's enough that, you know, it will be presented. Obviously, if this goes to trial, but yes, I do believe that he was in Panguage, which is near his grandparents home.
40:35>> Did he give you an unedited copy of that receipt?
40:37>> I have seen an unedited cop copy of that receipt. It was not given to me from the owner. But I want to before you get into like all the timeline stuff, I want to address what you think is evidence so we can keep this on par with what your claim is since.
40:44>> Well, I think that that's a piece of evidence that's in dispute and that's why I'm >> Yeah, but we're trying to get to whether there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did this whether >> we want to use the first part of that for the >> internal. We should go over the actual evidence that we feel >> the first reason that I think and I think it's compelling evidence is [snorts] >> Yeah. So Andrew would have been wise to have developed a lot more structure around the beginning of this debate and to take charge and to lead the structure. he should very much have been um ready to make his case better. Um and this is the
41:16part where Candace could have could have blown him wide the [ __ ] open in this beginning portion if she had wanted to.
41:22[snorts] Um because this is the part where where technically Andrew is supposed to be making his case, but then he kind of opens it by trying to establish what they do and don't agree on and then kind of getting sidetracked into the penguish thing, which is really him trying to attack a singular random data point from her uh elements. Um, but he's supposed to be making his case right now. So, Candace redirects him to doing that and he kind of starts to bumble through that. And this is where Candace could have [ __ ] him up by just asking him any old questions about the literal just details of the case of
41:50like, so you're making your case across from me, Andrew. Um, what time was the bullet? What time did the the shot fire?
41:58What time do you think he dropped the rifle? Where where was the screwdriver found? Where how do you think it got there? How do you think this happened?
42:04Uh, what tell me about the mouser. like what whose was it, why was it there, um what yard was it found in? Do we have video evidence? Which which ring cameras surveiled him, um at what times? Cuz he doesn't know any of that. And she does.
42:17And if he doesn't know the documented facts of the perspective that he's trying to champion and and she can just show that on screen, oh boy, he's [ __ ] before we ever even get into the substance of the debate. Um she didn't do that. Um, and I think it's largely because she a didn't care as much about whatever the [ __ ] he was thinking and saying, but also because she was trying to um I think she was trying to get a read on him. And I think that she was expecting him to know more than he did.
42:41And it slowly dawned on her just how little he knew that Tyler Robinson's rifle was found uh near the crime scene.
42:46So, I would consider that to be very good evidence. And also, the fact of the matter is is that I dispute this claim that a 306 could not have made this wound. I think that that's absurd. 150 grain Remington corlocks absolutely could sh This is about to be a crazy statement right here. Um, but in general, he does a very poor job. Like this whole debate, we don't get any good strong explanations of Candace's side or of Andrew's side. Neither of them are extensive. Neither of them have any organized like these are the six points and I'm going to make them all. Neither of them stay on topic. It's not
43:15exhaustive in the in the least. Um, it's wildly uninformative. It's mostly a debate about the semantics of debate and the legal system. Um, which is pathetic.
43:23Um, particularly for Andrew. Um, but that being said, um, this statement that he's about to make is pretty special because remember, he's not an army sniper, even though his wife lied about that at one point on the internet. Um, he's never served in the military, even though he lied about Yeah. Yeah. So, he lied about serving in the military for a short time back when Rachel said that he was in the army. Um, and then he later admitted that he was not in the army and that that was a slip of the tongue. Maybe he stands by that he was kind of in the army for a year. I think that's what it was. He served in the military for one year,
44:08which doesn't make sense. Um, and probably indicates that you were discharged >> matter when it hits the neck of any think that that's absurd. But the point is that he was a firearms instructor, apparently, a rifle instructor, whatever that, you know, he taught rifle. Um, and a master gunsmith, I think is what his wife said. Um, and he owned a firearms company, I think, is the idea. So, he's supposed to be an expert in firearms to a certain degree, apparently, based upon his self-proclaimed bio. And then he says this, >> 150 grain Remington corlocks absolutely could shatter when it hits the neck of
44:42any human being. When you say that there's some steel neck and it's a smaller caliber, you have to make a counter explanation. Why wouldn't a smaller caliber also go through bone?
44:48>> Good. I didn't say it can't.
44:49>> Right. Exactly. So, if that's the case, then ammunition is going to be >> um smaller uh smaller rounds often penetrate more actually. Um it's kind of counterintuitive.
44:58>> The critical key here. And if we have frangible ammunition, which we do in this case, a flex tip.
45:02>> Do you hear that? We have frangible ammunition, which we do in this case, a flex tip, sorry, soft tip. One more time, >> then ammunition is going to be the critical key here. And if we have frangible ammunition, which we do in this case, a flex tip round. Well, I'm sorry, not a flex tip, a soft point round from 100.
45:18>> That's not frangible. That's not a frangible round. Totally different. Soft point. Not frangible. Um frangible decide designed to sort of turn to tiny particles on impact so that it doesn't penetrate anything and won't hurt, you know, civilians around often carried by police officers. That's not what a soft point is at all. And he should know that. Um, a soft point is a hunting round designed to mushroom and expand within the wound cavity and penetrate with expansion to kill an animal as effectively as possible. Not designed to break up into tiny little pieces and it's also not designed to fully
45:53penetrate like a um full metal jack round would be.
45:56>> 50 grain ringtones around the actual lead piece. These this thing could have split apart in air for all we know. But >> another amazing magical bullet statement. We just can't get enough of them. Apparently soft point rounds can just break up in the air without even hitting anything to quote Andrew Wilson.
46:17So either we're being disingenuous to try to manipulate a point out of nowhere or we're really stupid and have been lying about our past expertise with firearms and know nothing about bullets. Um because you can literally just Google that [ __ ] [snorts] It's not good.
46:33>> Definitely upon impact and we have the medical examiner who confirms this in a summary. My team can bring that up the summarization which means he would have to be a part of some kind of conspiracy as well.
46:40>> Okay. So just to start with your point about saying that the gun was found near him I mean uh near Losi center or I guess off in the woods that gun did you watch the the testimony? Did you watch it live?
46:50>> Okay. So forgetting what the summary of the medical report was. Did you watch the testimony that was given by the Caitlyn Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha Carer? Any of those people who went into the science of >> Yes, I recall you're talking about >> analysis. Yeah. When they went into the DNA.
47:02>> Okay. So that's kind of the most relevant part. I'm not dying. I've never denied on my platform or anywhere else that a gun owned by Tyler Robinson was found near the crime scene. Right. That doesn't that doesn't remove if you think somebody set up as a psy you could take a gun out of this room right now and you could walk out and planted in a woods near a crime scene. That's not committing evidence.
47:16>> I concur I concur with the fact that that's a possibility.
47:18That was actually one of the first pieces of evidence that led me to suspect he might be a psy because if I'm going to commit a super [ __ ] high-profile assassination, I'm probably not going to do it with an heirloom rifle that is directly traceable to my family lineage.
47:35A very unique heirloom rifle. Not not the move. um you would probably do it with a nondescript uh modern rifle that is not traceable to you if you wanted to be ideal about it.
47:48Um, it it just it just stood out to me right away of like if you're using a rifle that directly points at you because it's unique, that's the exact kind of thing you would want to have in order to plant evidence to get someone else in trouble. You wouldn't want a nondescript AR that has some complex like chain of showing that Tyler Robinson perched it with like a dummy card at this place at this time that you kind of have to go through all these details to prove it. That's very complicated and doesn't stick in the mind. It doesn't because the the rifle is the only thing connecting Tyler Robinson to the scene at all. We have no
48:29images of him. We have a blurry image of a car that's the same make and model, but no license plate, strangely enough.
48:35Um, so it's really the rifle that ties him to the scene in the public's mind.
48:38And it's simple because it's his grandfather's rifle. It's an heirloom.
48:42So, it's really easy to connect that in your mind. But if it was like some like just regular non-escript AR-15 that he had to like you had to carefully prove that it was his, that doesn't really stick in the mind and it doesn't really create the simple narrative of Tyler Robinson was at the scene because nothing else puts him at the scene until you look at the DNA on like the screwdriver allegedly and stuff like that. [snorts] >> You are you I think have said on a platform that you were a gunsmith.
49:05>> Mhm.
49:06>> Okay. And for how many years?
49:07>> Many many years.
49:07>> For many years. You also >> very clever way for Candace to get in a quick snipe of a character attack on him but sort of hiding it inside of being an actual relevant piece to what they're talking about. They're talking about bullets and guns. And so she's like this is your credentials that you said no.
49:23Even though she's also jabbing to be like, you remember when you lied about your [ __ ] military service, bro? Um so you know technically it's a little underhanded, but it's also very clever and well executed. Um no no shade.
49:35>> Said that you were an army sniper. I wasn't a sniper in the army and I never said that before.
49:38>> Sorry. Your wife tweeted that you were an army sniper.
49:40>> Yeah. I don't know. Like 15 years ago, she said something.
49:42>> Does it change 15 years later?
49:43>> She said that it was colloquially. So, >> army sniper is a colloial term.
49:45>> Yeah. I'm not I was never an army sniper.
49:47>> Okay. Um, what did you do in army? Did you teach? She said I corrected and said you taught rifles in the army.
49:50>> Not. No, I didn't teach rifle. No, I taught rifles as a private citizen.
49:54>> Okay.
49:54>> Mhm. Uh, >> and I was an NRA instructor for many, many, many years alongside my my gunship >> as with your expertise when she uh gave testimony on.
50:02>> So, he was an instructor, taught rifles, he was in the army for an undisclosed amount of time doing Lord knows what and he owned a gun shop and he apparently thinks that this corlock 150 grain soft point is a frangible round.
50:19>> Sand Samantha Carer that there was dust and there was debris >> that was found in the gun barrel. Y and then when we had the person who and this was I believe Caitlyn Oliver who explained painfully about the DNA the prince >> I'm not done you said something I'm going to finish my thought right >> no well sure if you want to respond to I want you to respond to two points I want I want you to start with two points dust and debris in the gun barrel secondly the fact that there were five sets of prints five plus actually by in the testimony five sets of prints uh for which we already had the woman who
50:46worked for the FBI forensics testify that above two prints you're taking a sample it it's no longer a science right she testified that when they took the sample of what was on the trigger They saw five plus prints and among those five plus prints, Tyler Robinson's was the most degraded. So I would like you to explain how Tyler Robinson's prints could be the most degraded when she said actually you could have DNA and something that you've touched.
51:06>> So she just did a lot of the work for him that I was describing her. It would be better if she made him do the work.
51:12If she asked him, do you know how many sets of prints were found on that rifle?
51:15Do you know who was the most degraded?
51:17Do you know these things? If she had presented that as questions rather than as giving him the statement to, you know, put into, he would have been more [ __ ] um, it's not necessarily an as honest of a debate strategy, but she could have really, um, got him. And this is where the debate kind of goes off the rails and we get into a long semantic conversation about a bunch of [ __ ] And we never really ever come back around to Andrew actually defending his position in any meaningful way.
51:39>> You could have DNA on something that you've never touched. And to get DNA degradation, we they've looked at pieces um, items 20, 40 years on that don't have degradation. Yeah, Tyler Robinson's prints amongst five plus other prints were the most degraded on that weapon.
51:51>> Yeah. So, let's get into all three of the claims. First with debris. When it comes to debris, firing rifle doesn't always blow the debris out of the barrel.
51:56>> Okay. That I I >> that makes perfect sense to me. Um I could see that being one of those funny myths that could go either way that you'd have to like do it to see. Um totally could believe that after you fire a rifle um once that there could still be debris in the rifle barrel.
52:12Makes sense. Um, and it also makes sense that if you took a rifle and you put it into the bushes, some stuff could get in the barrel and without detail on what this debris and dust is. Yeah, could be.
52:24Um, could also be because there's dust in the barrel because it wasn't fired.
52:29Um, but you know, >> you think there could be debris. Uh, I'm sorry, debris and dust.
52:33>> He just fired the weapon. Okay.
52:35>> Not only that, he left it in a forest.
52:36Now, I don't know if if you agree with me, but if you leave a rifle in a wooded area, it's also possible that debris could get in that way. But I'm not even sure that that's what the case is. I think it's >> Having been to the wooded area and seen exactly where the rifle was left and comparing it to the photos of the exact bushes that it was in and how it was placed in those bushes at the time when they found it, I doubt that it was getting debris in it from like the forest floor dirt, which is what he's implying cuz that's not what the location was and that's not where the positioning of its placement in the bush
53:03was. But it's possible. I mean, that's just its final resting place. Um, >> far more likely that you fired the shot, it just didn't blow the debris out. And it often doesn't. You'll find this if you if you take grandappy's, you know, dirty rifle and it's all dusty inside the board and you go fire it, you'll often look down the board and there's still dust. Okay. Happens all the time.
53:18>> Okay. And the prints.
53:18>> Yeah. So, so there's um two key pieces here.
53:22If there's dust in the barrel because it's never really being fired and then it just gets fired once and it doesn't blow out all the dust, doesn't burn out all the dust. Um that's one statement, right? But if there's if it's getting fired frequently, if it's getting used at the range, if it's getting passed around with friends to take, you know, shots at the range, um, [snorts] you know, on a semi-regular basis or something like that, if it's a gun that's in use, then there's probably not dust in the barrel, right? Because then it's getting fired a lot. Um, I would presume those are two different
53:52scenarios as we roll into this next part.
53:55>> The prince we don't know all of the details on just yet.
53:57>> We do. It was It was excruciatingly long.
54:00We don't because they haven't gone to trial so we don't know on the print frame. But Ty Robinson's DNA was on there. You made the claim that Lance Twig's DNA was on there and it was not.
54:06>> Well, when she gave the testimony first, let's go to your first point. That's wrong. We can get a fact check on that.
54:09What do you mean we don't know until it goes to trial about the degraded prince?
54:11She testified and she's the person who took the >> Yes. But the problem is is that inside of this particular testimony, you agree with me that there's going to be much more of the DNA analysis, right?
54:18>> But you also would agree that her fact is not going to change that among the prince was the most agreed. I'm asking you to address that.
54:23>> Yeah. They'll give more testimony to support the analysis that they put in their report. It's they're not going to change their report.
54:30>> How would that be possible?
54:31>> Let's give it um let's just grant this for a second as a possibility that his fingerprint >> granted. It's a fact.
54:37>> That's great.
54:38>> It's not a possibility. It's it's a fact. The person who took took it.
54:40>> I'm just granting it for the sake of argument.
54:41>> You should grant it because it's a fact.
54:42>> Now it's granted. So what?
54:44>> What do you mean? So what?
54:45>> So what what does that prove? [snorts] >> And this is Andrew Wilson. Um and lots of people that have debated Andrew Wilson talk about how this is how Andrew Wilson debates. Um it's a lot of debate.
54:56It's a lot of like blood sport debate tactic as opposed to good faith, you know, engagement with this with the information, the evidence that he is not familiar with. Um, and it's a lot of semantic and philosophical so whats. And like what does that mean? And let's abstract it to this. And you're arguing from a facelia standpoint, you're arguing wrong or you know those sorts of things. And this is where it starts to show. [snorts] >> It proves that if his prince were the most degraded amongst five of them, you're going to have to explain how that's possible. If he's the one that recently fired the weapon.
55:24>> Yeah. So wait a second. You're saying that it's an impossibility that if his fingerprints are the most degree you're the gunsmith, how would a gunsmith give an analysis on fingerprints or DNA? Do you think that I've >> By not being a [ __ ] [ __ ] Andrew, have um you probably don't hunt, Andrew.
55:38Um, I don't hunt, but you maybe you know the basics of tracking things. Um, [snorts] when you look for animal tracks or human tracks and there's one track print underneath another, is there any way in the world in all of world history that a track underneath another track was made first?
56:03Obviously not. Obviously, when you get one footprint and then another footprint goes on top of it, you can rightly infer that the second footprint on top happened later, right? Similarly, if you're packing things into your deep freezer, your chest freezer, the stuff at the bottom of the freezer got put in first, right? And so, if you have a bunch of fingerprints on a gun, which there's no reason there would be five sets of fingerprints on the heirloom that never gets fired, just to point that out. If it's an heirloom rifle that never gets fired, why are there five sets of prints on it? And so if the last person to
56:40shoot the rifle put their prints on last, then theirs are on top of all the others. And when you talk about degradation in regard to fingerprints, you're talking about like smudges and maybe chemical UV uh maybe water damage to the surface of the ridges of the fingerprint.
56:58And you know, the likely version is because someone smudged it or wiped it to get rid of their prints or didn't.
57:04But there's no scenario where the most recent set of prints to go onto something gets degraded. Even if I wipe it clean, there's no scenario where the prints that were underneath what I just did are not degraded and the ones that I just wiped off are degraded because obviously they all got wiped. It's and and this is not complicated. It's not complicated.
57:29He literally just had it in his hands and fired it and then you pull five prints, five different sets of prints and his are less degraded than all the others. That's very strange. That aligns much more closely with he has touched his own rifle before, so his prints exist on it. But then four other people have touched it more recently for some reason. As in maybe in the process of getting it from his house, maybe Lance Twigs, passing it off to someone in the operation, maybe an agent, driving up to the spot and maybe having another guy in the passenger seat run out and jump and place it in there and suddenly you've
58:03got four or five sets of prints. And Tylers are the most degraded because he doesn't use the thing because why would he? A, he doesn't fire a lot. He doesn't go hunting all the time. He's not like a crazy gun guy as far as we're aware. Um, he's not a crazy good shot. And furthermore, why the [ __ ] would you be firing your grandappy's heirloom rifle?
58:20That's not the one you take to the range. You take like your gun, like your your modern gun to the range. You wouldn't be like daily firing the old heirloom 306. I probably, right? Um, [snorts] so there's just all sorts of inconsistencies and Andrew Wilson is trying to play dumb about the nature of what Candace is saying and she could explain it better. Um, but it it shouldn't need to be explained like to a toddler um for Andrew Wilson to understand this point.
58:47>> Work in a DNA laboratory.
58:48>> So your answer is I don't know. You can just say you don't know. You don't have to.
58:51>> I did. But I did.
58:51>> No, you said so what? I don't know. I actually have an explanation for that.
58:54Candace. Well, I think that what it would prove is that it is a more viable theory that people who had stronger prints on the gun may have used it more recently.
59:01>> Did they tell did they say who else had fingerprints? They named Matt Robinson explicitly and then and this was a part of the testimony where she was speaking about how they got samples of elimination samples from the home of Amber Robinson, Matt Robinson, and Lance Twig. So those were the three.
59:13>> And notice over and over and over Candace is specifically describing the details of a piece of evidence. She's describing who said what in the trial, when they said it, what the evidence said, how it was discussed, where it came from, where it led, all these details about it. Andrew doesn't do any of that anywhere throughout this because he doesn't know any of it. Okay. But Candace is just free form dropping into her knowledge bank and then just talking about what's in that piece of the knowledge bank because she she's not on a script. She's not on a lane of little pieces of memorized information. She's
59:47just has it all in there and he wants to talk about this. So she goes to that part of her memory of what all happened and just starts talking about where that piece of evidence came from. And it is so glaringly obvious that even if you disagree with her points, I my sense is that the person that knows the material better kind of wins the debate by default when you're interested in like because we're not really interested in like who's more right as much as like who's more credible in a certain way. Um because obviously it's not decided yet and once we get all the evidence and the trial and everything
60:17then we're closer to like who's right.
60:19But at this point I'm just like who's more credible? Like does who is giving off the vibe that they know what they're talking about?
60:23>> Names they named. So, are you saying that Twitch?
60:25>> Would you like me to finish my statement? I'm >> clarify. I'm I'm trying to finish the answer, but it can't be clarified.
60:29>> He's trying to get her in a gotcha that he has prepared.
60:30>> This was a portion of her testimony where she was explaining how they got elimination samples from the home and she named Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson, and Lance Twigs as the elimination samples that she was using. Um, and so she explicitly said, she said some of them, some, so we can assume two out of the three uh were their prints were found on the gun. She's >> and explaining a very logical reason why she got it wrong when she said that Lance Twigs' prints were on the gun, which technically we do not know that for sure. And Andrew Wilson tries to gotcha her on that even though she's already conceded that that's not that
60:57that's she was wrong when she said that the first time and this is why she's wrong. And it's a detailed explanation of her of a very reasonable way to misunderstand the complex DNA and fingerprint conversations that were had in the courtroom >> explicitly named Matt Robinson >> which Andrew doesn't even like he doesn't even remember. So it's kind of irrelevant in that way >> as the one who had prints on the gun and then said there were five people that they had taken that sample from. And again, what's also relevant here is the earlier testimony uh which came from uh the FBI forensics analyst. I believe it
61:27was on day two where she said that when you're using those mixtures and those samples and you get up to five plus, it's really hard to make any sort of determination. So, both of those things are relevant. If you can't explain why his prints are the most degraded and you're saying he is the shooter, it's not really a so what. It's an open-ended question that people have a right to pursue. It's not a conspiracy. It's actually proof of my claim that there's evidence that he was set up as a psy.
61:45>> That wouldn't prove anything about him being a psy. They said it's evidence to support >> it would actually um it really would because it's important to remember the context here. We are told lone gunman one crazy leftist which is not the left by the way. That's the independent decision of one young kid who's you know mad and mentally ill making his own private decision without telling anybody which is obviously not the same as the left killed Charlie. It's just one dude who is whoever he is. So, let's point that out. But furthermore, the contention that that wouldn't prove he's a pathy, um,
62:27if there's any evidence whatsoever that indicates that this was not a lone gunman, Tyler Robinson, then by definition, that indicates a conspiracy because the whole FBI is fullront like force going, "This is it. this is what it is. Nothing else is true. This is the only case. To the point of shutting down the ability to for Joe Kent and his office to look into any foreign leads.
62:52Um to the point of shutting out anything else, restricting evidence and just rolling very quickly into this is our guy. We're not going to question his friends, his wife, his business uh partners, the donors that were mad at him. We're not going to [ __ ] look into these people in his phone that he had a, you know, several hundred million dollar dispute with. None of those people are suspects. It's just this guy.
63:14And so if you find any holes that obviously make it kind of impossible for it to be that guy, then immediately you're talking about a conspiracy as the most likely option. I would argue that that was the most likely option from the start because highle political assassinations are far more likely to be organized hits than they are random lone gunmen that can just happen to actually successfully pull it off. Lots of historical precedent to get into that that we won't dive into.
63:41So, it's not complicated because the moment that it's not a lone gunman, it's you're basically looking at a conspiracy that includes a cover up trying to make it look like a lone gunman. And that is they they those all involve psies. So, she doesn't really walk him through the baby steps of like, no, dude, if Tyler didn't shoot the gun, then he is a psy because that just that is an element of every other possible explanation pretty much. [snorts] That's the logical leap that is poorly explained here. the claim that he could have been set up as a patch.
64:11>> So, this is why I said earlier, so what?
64:12Because even if it's the case, this doesn't have an explanation for it yet.
64:15That doesn't actually give you any evidence in your corner for Tyler Robinson being a Pat.
64:17>> Okay, >> it does because it has to have an explanation.
64:22>> Hang on, hang on. I didn't cut you off, right? You would need to actually explain how this would demonstrate Tyler Robinson. This is tied into to Robinson being Apache. Are you claiming that these fingerprints were Lance Twigs or that he had any DNA there?
64:31>> I I'm saying that it could be Matt Robinson, it could be Amber Robinson.
64:33That sort of information is going to come out during the trial.
64:34>> How would that tie into the idea that he's a patchy? because of his.
64:37>> So, this is what Andrew Wilson looks like in a posture when he thinks he's winning. When he thinks he's in a strong position and he thinks he's got his opponent on a rope that he can push on.
64:45Just, you know, take note of how he acts and how he looks and how his body language is when he thinks he's like on a winning take right here.
64:52>> Most great prince and the information that I share on my platform is true that this gun was given to Tyler Robinson as an heirloom. I had conversation with members of the Robinson family, Twig's family, both of them. You know, like I said, we're not just dreaming. Um, and if we're having those conversations and they told me that that gun was only given to Tyler Robinson because it was a family heirloom. Okay. So, it was his grandfather's gun or great-grandfather's gun. I don't remember the difference.
65:09Uh, I don't remember which one it was.
65:10And so, he got it because he's the firstborn. So, but he's not much of a shooter. That's what I was told.
65:14>> Yeah. So, the heirloom that goes to the firstborn's son, who is secondarily not much of a shooter, that's not the kind of rifle that you're taking to the range to shoot.
65:24It It doesn't sound that way to me.
65:26Maybe it is, but I would need evidence to show me that that rifle goes to the range to shoot before I have any reason to believe that it has fired a bullet in the last 50 years.
65:34>> Uh, and so he has this because he inherited it essentially. So if I get something from my grandpa and I put it up on the shelf and I own this, you can see that could be >> how do we get to the pacy part?
65:41>> You don't let me ever get to the end of the sentence. Well, how could we get to the paci part?
65:45>> So that could be a reasonable explanation as to why there was dust in the barrel because he doesn't often shoot this weapon and he is indeed a fisher. Um, and it could also be a reasonable explanation for why we have Matt Robinson's prints on this.
65:53Obviously, Lance Twigs, even if he has prints on things, they live together, but that doesn't really mean anything.
65:56But that could demonstrate that somebody took his weapon and put it somewhere.
65:59His prints are the most degraded.
66:00Somebody else's prints, there there's more presence of somebody else's prints, and that could demonstrate that somebody is taking items from his house and putting it into very >> demonstrate nothing. So, the problem the problem that you have here is that this is pure conjecture. I I think she kind of missed there a little bit because it's wise to, you know, not overcook on, you know, complicated information, but like it it doesn't could indicate that it, you know, he wasn't the last person to shoot the gun. It it kind of [clears throat] does at at least if you're talking about like prints on the
66:29trigger, the stop, like prints on the holding position of the firing, you know, firing position of the rifle. And if Tyler Robinsons aren't the ones on top, the most recent prints, then by definition, someone else held it since Tyler Robinson. And if he's wiped those portions clean, and there's no prints there, then you're in a gray area. But that's not like we're that's not the description we're getting. If actually Tyler Robinson's prints are the most degraded defin by definition, if that's a fact and there's other people with prints that are less degraded physically speaking, as in they are more complete
67:02and they're in the places where you have to hold the gun to shoot it. There's actually no possible explanation for how Tyler Robinson's prints could be underneath those prints. That's not possible. It is not physically possible for your prince to go underneath someone else's prints that had touched it prior.
67:16Doesn't happen. Physics. So, so she's actually going a little soft on this one cuz it's not her wheelhouse. Um, and it's not really my wheelhouse either. I just had some time to think about it.
67:24>> This is Hang on. This is not evidence that Tyler Robinson is a Pepsi. It's only evidence that you have conjectured up that uh well, >> everything here is conjecture. It's irrelevant semantics on his part and we'll get into lots of that later.
67:35>> Well, if it's the case that these are the the more degradated prints, then therefore >> degradated. It's degraded.
67:41>> That means must be psy parents finger dad's fingerprints on guns. describe how this >> classic straw man. Um, that's not what what's being said at all. I just explained what's being said. He's pretending that he's too [ __ ] to understand.
67:52>> Actually links in to Robinson being a hot seat.
67:54>> Okay. I just described that for you, so I'm not I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. So, I'm going to move on from that. Uh, but to just go back >> that that line is going to live in infamy. I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. Is such a great mom line that a lot of moms are going to be using with their, you know, snarky children, teenagers in the next year or two. Um, that line is going to haunt Andrew Wilson for ever. That's like a have you ever been there type of a line and uh it's gold. Pure gold. So, I'm just going to move on from that. I can't can't understand it for you,
68:27Andrew. So, just going to move on.
68:30Just just sit down. Criss-cross applesauce.
68:32>> Back to your point about this is not evidence. Uh, you can't make that claim because your the entire basis for why you think that there is evidence for Tyler Robinson being the person that took the shot is based off of a hearing under Utah 112 rules. So, I think that this was a mistake on Candace's part, which she couldn't have necessarily foreseen when she started this line of thinking, but it turns into this whole kuruffle that she doesn't really sort of like like spoon feed it to Andrew in a way that can kind of shut him up about this line of questioning that's illogical. And he kind of latches on to
68:59the semantics in here and we get into this long drawn out just just foolishness about 11:02 and what hearsay is. and it never really gets said in any articulate way for either side about what they're trying to say. Um, and it's just like a very it's it's a >> that they are doing the exact same thing that I'm doing. This is the state. You said you're here to represent the state.
69:18Well, did you watch the preliminary hearing?
69:19>> Say I was here to represent the state.
69:20>> The state's position you think is strong and convincing.
69:21>> What I'm here to do is represent my own opinion based.
69:24>> Remember he said in his opening statement, we marked that that he represents that he thinks the state is correct. So he he does represent the state >> on the evidence presented so far by the state evidence under Utah's 1102 rule.
69:36doesn't demonstrate any patch.
69:37>> No, that's very important because that rule is hearsay. So, you can't say at the same time, Candace, you're not allowed to. And and what that means under the Utah rule, which I'm sure you know cuz I'm sure you watch the preliminary hearing and yourself understand what that means is that the entire hearing was hearsay. It means none of that information that was presented is going to be allowed. The majority of the overwhelming majority of it is is not going to be allowed at the trial. They're allowed to present when it's appropriate hearing.
69:53>> I think all the evidence that was that was put in was hearsay.
69:56>> Okay. You didn't watch this case.
69:56>> But not only that, no, this is a huge point and all the evidence. This was every single day Utah. So, this is an interesting one because Candace overcooked a little bit by saying everything is hearsay. Not literally everything. Um, a lot of it is actually the same type of evidence that's going to be on the stand in the real trial, but the vast a large let's say a large portion of it was hearsay. And most critically, the hearsay rule allowed for a whole bunch of very important pieces of evidence like for example, Lance Twigs's entire testimony, which is what corroborates all of the confessions from
70:27the note to the text messages and all that. um that so a lot of those key pieces were hearsay and so basically the the the uh the narrative that was put together on the stand in the preliminary hearing completely falls apart if you pull the hearsay out. And during trial, what they're going to do is they're going to replace all that hearsay with the proper court, you know, respectable version of that hearsay. For example, you can't have Lance Twigs on video giving his testimony, you know, from 5 months ago.
70:57you got to bring him to the courtroom so he can be cross-examined. And that changes it from hearsay to, you know, firsthand witness testimony. Those are the sorts of things where the hearay will be replaced by the actual version where it's like rather than officer bagby telling you about what that officer said about the report that he wrote, they'll get the actual officer that wrote the report to come and talk about the report that he wrote. Those sorts of things. But a lot of the stuff in in the uh preliminary hearing was not hearsay in the sense that they had the like actual DNA expert that did the
71:24actual DNA work in there talking about her actual reports and I that does not strike me as hearsay. Um by my understanding that is her firsthand testimony about her firsthand experience you know producing that material. Um so it is a mixture but it's pretty obvious from the body language and the words they're using that Candace is absolutely right that the hearsay 112 nature of this is extremely important. It came up over and over and over again. It's unique to Utah and if you don't understand that, you don't really understand what was going on with the preliminary hearing and why it worked that way. And Andrew does not seem to
71:54understand it just in the way he's talking about what she's talking about before they pull up the source and everything. Um it I I suspect that Andrew did not understand the significance of what we're talking about here.
72:06>> Go there. So they said they had there's a medical examiner's explanation of the shooting that's in the back. Rob, if you want to pull it up and then Candace, if anybody from your team wants to pull something up, no problem as well. But they're requesting it. If you guys got it, pull it up. Uh so we can show it in the inter room. Is that it?
72:18>> Yeah. So I'll read this.
72:19>> Just what are we looking at just so we know?
72:21>> Yeah. So >> over so this is one of the first of many throughout where Andrew Wilson has no idea what his team is going to be pulling up. And as he gets more and more worn down and more and more aware of how bad this is going for him, he gets so tired and worn out that like later on it's like literally his team putting the clips in, telling Patrick Bet David to play the clip through Pat Pat's ear and then him interrupting Andrew sort of floundering to be like, "Hey, your team has a clip that they want to play. Let's put it up." And then Andrew just going like, "Oh, thank [ __ ] god." And like,
72:53"Let's find out what I'm supposed to react to now." As opposed to having like a coherent argument with like, you know, a plan. [snorts] Um, and this is again where it's a fact check that like is to try to support his team brought it to try to support what he said, but like he doesn't know what this document is. He doesn't really know what it's going to say. He's just kind of discovering he's like, "Thank God his like he just trusts his team." Um, whereas Candace is like, "Which document is this?" Because I recognize them all because I know them all.
73:16>> The This says the bullet or at least part of it sequentially perforated the interior left of Mr. Kirk's neck. Strap muscles of the left side of the neck.
73:22This is a summary by the way. Uh, left common uh carttoid on the left internal external jugular carttoid. It's corroded >> veins. The bullet also obliterated the left side C27 vertebrae transacted the cervical spinal.
73:36>> See, there's these little things that are details. They're subtle, but details matter. And the way he read that sentence indicated that he doesn't knew he didn't know what he was reading.
73:47Your corateed artery is very important.
73:50It's like if you were trying to talk about someone severing their jugular vein and they said they're jugular and it's like so you've never heard a person, you don't know what that word is, right? You're not familiar with the word. So you're not familiar with the corateed artery. But also C27 is not what that says. It doesn't say C27. It says C2 through C7 abbreviated because that's saying your C2 vertebrae through your C7 vertebrae. C standing for cervical. And it's that level of understanding of what the C stands for, what C2 is, what C7 is, where that is in the body, how the anatomy works. It's
74:21that understanding that you develop from working with the material of a case or the subject matter of an area of expertise if you're like a biologist or, you know, whatever. [snorts] And so the fact that Andrew would read those sentences in that way is like maybe it's just him, you know, being flustered or reading poorly or the screen's far away.
74:38That's possible, but it's not how it came across to me. And it's those little details that just add up over and over and over and over. And you'll notice lots more of them that just makes me feel like Andrew doesn't know what C27 is because it's not one statement. It's the fact that this whole portion of his neck is obliterated and there's this whole chunk of his spine that is apparently like vaporized basically is what they kind of say there. [snorts] Um, and it he's reading it as though he's never read that before. cord.
75:08Medical examiner observed a significant portion of Kirk's cervical spinal cord was traumatically absent. Mr. Kirk suffered from other severe injuries including bilateral apical and posterior intercausal hemorrhages, pulmonary apical hemorrhages, multiple disruptions to the thyroid, etc., etc. So, the summary of the examination said he was shot. Okay, that was what they were pulling that up.
75:24>> Okay. And I don't I'm not disputing that he could have been hit with a projectile. I we're not disputing that.
75:27I don't know why this was brought up as a fact check. Uh, could you bring up 112 Utah rule? This is an >> Yeah, this is pretty pretty solid posture. Candace just has better posturing throughout the whole thing.
75:37>> Believe a point that you're making by saying that I am not allowed to infer off of evidence.
75:40>> You can infer. I'm trying to This is the [snorts] 1102 thing that what she's trying to say is that your whole case is based on inference too, bro. I'm allowed to infer. You're allowed to infer. It's all the same evidence and like deal with it. Um and and she never quite like cuts that in a way that shuts him up and he never cuts it in a way that kind of traps her. Um, so it's kind of just like all the inferences, but your entire reason like you you asserted that you believe there's overwhelming evidence on the basis of what we saw in the preliminary hearing. The entire preliminary hearing was hearsay.
76:08>> Yeah, I'm fine with your inferences.
76:09>> No, you just literally said I couldn't do that. Yes, I can.
76:11>> No, I didn't. I'm just saying from your inference, how do we get to Paty?
76:13>> This is how you got to shoot her. The Tyler Robinson did that. Yes, you did.
76:18>> So, this is where it would have been great if she had on the fly thought of something like like, you know, footprints uh you know, analogy that I used earlier. some way to explain the impossibility of like if his prints are not the least degraded we have a huge problem and if you know he's not the lone gunman then it's all psy because every like because there's like the whole next level of what happened is conspiracies um there's really not there's no other option lone gunman or conspiracy and so she didn't you know baby step him through all of that um and so >> again this is something important so we
76:52should pull up a fact check about what the 112 Utah under their constitution preliminary understanding like bad nails down well enough to really make him look bad about it even though it's kind of a bad look >> eving was basically say officer >> back all of it like I said >> the overwhelming majority I mean outside of the you don't want outside of no that is what's in See, here's the thing. I could have made Andrew Wilson's case so much better than he did. I I could have easily debated his side of this debate way more effectively than him. And it would have been an interesting show because it would have been in good faith
77:38and it would have actually probed the actual information of the case. But he's not aware of the information of the case. So, he doesn't even know the right questions to ask in order to challenge Candace properly. And it's it happens over and over and over again. But right here, if he was familiar with what was actually in the hearing and what actually happened in the case, he would have a lot of examples that he could just bring up. Like for example, the lady that talked about the DNA, right?
78:02Is that, you know, is that hearsay? The official reports, is that hearsay? Like as in the actual image of the medical examiner's report, the actual bullet itself, the images of the bullet, is that hearsay? Right. He could have easily brought up a whole bunch of things from the trial that are not hearsay, that are primary evidence that will be the same when they're submitted later on. And the fact that he didn't even know to do that is just glaringly obvious.
78:31>> It means that your entire brand of saying you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence falls apart when the entire preliminary hearing is based off hearay. In fact, Lance's testimony before they had about an hour debate, actually maybe it was more than an hour debate before he sat and they said this is not going to be allowed. You wouldn't even be allowed to do this. We'd be able to cross-examine him. Uh the questions that they're asking, Lance, are all leading. And what did he say? Well, I'm a magistrate under Utah.
78:48>> Again, it's the same thing. He could have pulled her apart on that one. He could have gone after and been like, "No, the entire case is not built on hearsay." Yes, the hearing allowed for hearsay and there was lots of it, but here's all these elements of what I believe that are not hearsay specifically, plus the hearsay, right?
79:02And and she's like drilling him on and there's this wide open angle in front of him that he doesn't even realize is there. And she can easily defend against that. That's not a problem. Um but like he doesn't even know to go for that angle.
79:11>> Constitution, you 1102. It is my job to allow all of this so we can see if the state has enough here that we can then move to a trial which will then they would not allow this stuff. They would say we get to cross examine landing things.
79:21>> No, but the entire substance of your argument is that people can't infer off of evidence. That's what you're saying to me. When you say Candace off of that Tyler could have been a Pat.
79:31>> So [snorts] she's right. Um that's kind of what he's doing. That's not how he sees it though. Andrew seems to see it.
79:37Um which is understandable especially since he wants to win. sees it as the evidence you have, Candace, that comes from your sources and your outside investigation is not credible. So, it doesn't count. It's all [ __ ] hearsay. Only the evidence that has been vetted by the government and released officially in Andrew's mind counts as legitimate evidence. And when you take it from that perspective, no [ __ ] [ __ ] the government's telling the truth and Candace is lying because you've just baked it into your own perception of reality. That's obviously not true.
80:06Candace has produced all kinds of evidence that is very hard and and like uh corroborated directly by people like Turning Point USA themselves. Um Andrew cited some of that evidence earlier. So he has this facious pers perspective that government evidence good you know public open source investigation evidence bad which is made up and not true. Evidence in the court can be flawed, fabricated lies, [ __ ] You know the magic bullet that killed JFK went in court. the photos were presented. It was total [ __ ] It's very possible. Um, and likewise, Candace has shared evidence from her own platform that everyone said was made up.
80:47It was fake. She faked the screenshot.
80:49It's not a real text message. And then Andrew uh Kovette directly corroborated that yes, T uh [snorts] yes, Charlie Kirk did send those text messages and I actually screenshotted them and sent them to the FBI. So, it's totally facious what Andrew is saying. Um, and Candace is kind of failing to like cut through his, you know, apparent stupidity about it and he's just totally missing this wide open angle in front.
81:10>> You're just literally making stuff up.
81:11So here's what the position is. I'm saying 112 there from the inference.
81:16>> They did. I'm looking at a piece of evidence and I am saying >> you're not get there. Describe to the audience what 11.
81:20>> So this just so everybody who's watching this at home, >> but you're not describing how you get there from the evidence. No, you're just not smart enough to follow basic logic, bro. like third graders can understand that the footprint on top came second.
81:33>> It's not complicated.
81:34>> Understands what I'm saying even if he doesn't. What Andrew is arguing is that I don't have the right to extrapolate from a fact like um making it up. Just purely making it up. I'm asking based on my evidence. You just showed yours reliable hearsay reliable hearsay in criminal preliminary examinations. The entire uh preliminary hearing that you just saw was on the basis of reliable hearsay. And what that means essentially is the people who are making a statements can just say Patrick told me that he did this on Monday. Patrick's not >> So this is not her saying that everything in the hearing was hearsay.
82:01She did say that earlier and it was like hey that's facitious. She walked it back to like the vast majority of it was hearsay which I think is a little overcooked. It wasn't the vast majority but you know a lot of it was hearsay. Um but this statement where she says the entire court case the entire hearing was on the basis of reliable hearsay that's a true statement because it's a legal statement saying that this hearing is operating under this rule set. So, uh, people like Steven Crowder, I think, tried to mis misconstrue her words there. Um, I think might be misremembering. Um, >> here, uh, and that is they can allow
82:32that into the hearing. That's just because it's just meant to be proative.
82:35And so, it's the state saying, "Here's what we have inferred." So, you are allowed to take a piece of evidence and then you are allowed to infer off of that evidence. Okay. Case in point, that's a demonstration to give you that's a demonstration of what I just did. I said the prince were the most degraded off of Tyler Robinson. From that, what I inferring is that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson was set up. That doesn't That's the point of contention.
82:51>> That's not a point of contention.
82:52>> That's the point of contention.
82:54>> So, the funny part is that Candace doesn't realize what he's trying to press her on because it's such a dumb question that I think it's just not occurring to her. That's what he's sort of trying to cut. Is that like, no, the prints that are the most smudged, the ones that are underneath everything else, those are from the guy that just How do you know that's not from the guy that just shot him? Which is like, what?
83:17And I think that she's like literally not even understanding where she needs to go in order to, you know, chop him at the waist here.
83:23>> If you're saying the point of contention, it's not the point of contention. I'm telling you that is what the entire hearing allowed for. So the evidence that he is describing that he is using to argue his case is all based on inference, not fact. Not fact they are inferring off of the facts.
83:34>> So again, >> so I think this is a miss from Candace because she's actually arguing a different point than what he's arguing.
83:39And she's not wrong about what she's saying. Um, but he's not trying to say that. And and so it's easy for PE Andrew Wilson fans to kind of, you know, clip this uh to her detriment even though she's not wrong about what she's saying.
83:51She just can't imagine how dumb his question is. Um but it's also a horrible it's a huge mistake from Andrew Wilson, too, cuz it's just the stupidest like >> we're going to take this and I'm just going to even grant it because it's irrelevant. I'm asking how you get to the inference that even if you dispute that piece of evidence, that means psy.
84:07I'm looking for the logical chain for how you get to that inference. What I am telling you is it's the exact same way that when you tweeted, I think that this evidence is overwhelming when they say that looks like Tyler Robinson's car. He drives a similar car. Okay. They are inferring that that's Tyler.
84:20>> Walk me through the inference so that I understand. So, she's making the argument that you're allowed to, you know, think, make inferences based upon evidence and that different people can make different inferences and that's allowed. And pointing out, um, though she could have articulated a little better, pointing out that the mainstream narrative, the Fed slop narrative that TPUSA is going with that he's going with. That's all just inferences based on evidence, too. And a lot of those inferences are pretty shaky. A lot of them are downright unbelievable.
84:48Starting with the bullet causing that wound. That's a hell of an inference.
84:52Um, he's missing that completely. They're on different train.
84:58>> It's not a fact. It's not a fact. When you show a blurry image, which you kept signing that we >> I'm talking about your inference that the fingerprints, even if they're degraded, equals psy. How do you get that inference?
85:05>> I didn't say it equals psy. I think it is enough evidence that it should be explored, which is exactly what this preliminary was in the inverse.
85:09>> That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is when you said, I'm using this as evidence that he could have been a psy.
85:13I'm asking, how do you get the inference to Paty from that?
85:16>> Because what I am saying is that it shows that somebody else had more DNA presence on that gun than Tyler Robbins did. So, it is plausible, which is all they're doing. They're presenting plausibility based off of the facts.
85:23Okay. It is plausible that somebody just took a gun and put it there. That's it.
85:26>> Is there equally that's how is there equally 100 other plausible explanations?
85:29>> I think that's the reason why most people are exploring when things don't make sense. So, yes, at the beginning of >> No, there's actually not. Um, there's only two two possible explanations.
85:37Either Tyler Robinson put the gun there or someone else put the gun there because the gun was found there allegedly. Um, [snorts] we have no reason to believe it wasn't and someone had to put it there. And so if it if either it was Tyler or it wasn't Tyler and if it wasn't Tyler it was someone else. So those are actually the only two possible explanations. And if it wasn't Tyler then we're talking Paty.
85:58>> That this is how this is how the court process works.
85:59>> So if there's a hundred other possible explanations then Candace why is it that we should go with this idea that it wasn't Paty >> because every single one of those other hundred means psy >> I'm not saying that we should go with the idea >> or it at least means conspiracy.
86:13possible that Tyler was 100% fully aware in on the plan >> but >> that it was a py. I am saying that there is >> I thought that was the whole defense though your whole claim.
86:23>> No, my whole claim was that there is more evidence that he has set up that he set up as a psy.
86:26>> How does that equal evidence of patchy?
86:27>> I don't know how many times I can say this. Like I I'm saying that I am using the exact same mechanism that you are accepting for some reason in the Utah courtroom, right, to say I'm going to look at the evidence and I'm going to infer an alternative theory. So you just saw the states and you're accepting it and they are they've not present any concrete facts. You listed on your own Twitter that what you found to be convincing was something that looked like his car pulled into the driveway.
86:43blurry image. No, I didn't. The standard white guy coming up the steps that could literally be anyone.
86:46>> This never happened.
86:47>> Can we get back on that? Can we pull up his tweet where he goes over?
86:49>> That's what convinced me.
86:50>> When you you actually didn't say it's what convinced me, but you said this is the evidence that you found to be overwhelming and you you named I believe actually five things. I think you said it was his car. Uh you said it was >> There's multitudes of things that I find. So, we're going to get a fact check on that. You did um you said the blurry images coming up the steps quite literally when Officer Bagley testified.
87:03they talk about.
87:03>> So, just note that she just brought that up as just a point of reference while she was saying like your perspective is this and you tweeted about it the other day and and in that tweet you said this is the stuff you find super compelling and so just like you take those pieces of evidence to be compelling. I take them to mean this other thing. That's why she brought this up. It's going to become a point of contention cuz he's going to try to say that she claimed that that was his entire argument was that tweet. She just brought it up offhand as in like you said that these were compelling things so I'm gonna
87:28address those. Um, I thought was the most absurd I've ever heard and pardon me, it was actually Hull, David Hull. Uh, they asked him a question. How did you know the guy in the maroon shirt was the same as the guy that came up the stairs later that was wearing the American flag black shirt?
87:41And he said they're wearing the same shoes.
87:44>> Why is that absurd?
87:45>> That's how you decide.
87:46>> Why is that absurd?
87:48Are we identifying murder suspects based upon their footwear now? As in like exclusively based upon their footwear when they are otherwise unidentifiable.
87:57If I accidentally wear the same shoes as a man that commits a crime on the same day in the similar location, am I going to go to jail for committing that crime?
88:05Because we would hope that that's not how the justice system works. Obviously, if you can't tell anything else about the person except the same shoes, that's not a good like duh the same people. Oh, wow. What a scientific. They're both wearing converses. Okay, that that's an absurd thing to say. That is not evidence that these are the same people if we're both wearing Converses. That was what he said. That's what flew on this. But I I still don't understand how that would be absurd if somebody >> absurd >> again with the fake retardation.
88:30>> For instance, if somebody were to change their clothes, >> my understanding is this is kind of a classic Owen or Andrew Wilson. Sorry, Owen. Didn't didn't mean to to drag you in here. Um classic Andrew Wilson style based upon other people other debaters um perspectives on him.
88:44>> Oh, but keep the same shoes on. Wouldn't you utilize the shoes to try to track that person?
88:47>> The idea that on a college campus two people wearing this totally different outfits but both wearing Converses can't happen is such an And like Andrew is not wrong that if you can positively identify that it's the same person and then the new person is wearing the same shoes, then you can yeah try to trace them based upon those shoes. But trying to establish that you're certain it's the same person based only on the fact that they both have similar shoes on that's stupidity that I don't even need to like argue that. I'm just going to let people just concede that point.
89:14Obviously it's absurd to say these are the same. It's like saying that there's that I saw a gray Dodge Challenger, so it must be Tyler Robinson. As if there were no other Grey Dodge Challengers on the road. No, you need the [ __ ] license plate to tell me that that's Tyler Robinson's car, which they don't have, by the way. Kind of weird.
89:30>> They're both wearing Converse.
89:30>> Yeah, I'm not sure if in context that's what happened, but get back on. But even if it is, um, again, we're utilizing inferences when whenever we're dealing with logic and we're dealing with making a logical inference, we're going to take the entire collaboration of evidence and we're going to make inferences from that. You would do that with any type of logical proposition. Otherwise, you could never have a true or false claim.
89:46>> So, when we're I never that never happened. You just making stuff up. So, anyway, when we're talking about logical inferences, what I'm looking for is the logical inferences that you have that Tyler Robinson based on the totality of evidence that you have.
89:55>> We can keep going through your other evidence. We should find a tweet where he please where he lists the reasons that he was convinced.
89:58>> So, let's start with the 36. I think that that's fine. Your team's looking for Do you remember how long ago that was?
90:02>> Uh the tweets of the uh five. Did you delete it or no? Okay, cool. Just look for he said the it was his car. It was his uh it was the car and it was definitely the staircase photos and it was when the trial was >> she has it you got Skyler has it if you want to pull it up so we can see it.
90:16>> Somebody said so give me the clear evidence right here. I want you to provide it right here. All I heard from the investigator was we believe this to be Tyler Robinson. Is belief something to go as a fact? You wrote the car pulling in. That's a totally blurry image. Um Robinson getting out of it.
90:26You have no idea if that's Tyler Robinson. The fact that he is seen four other times on camera. The fact being just a standard white boy with brown hair was seen getting walking up staircase. The DNA on the roof. We should discuss that. And on the screwdriver that he left behind. It's overwhelming, man.
90:38>> Yeah.
90:38And she's right to tear that apart because no, we don't have a license plate on the car. It's a nondescript gray Dodge Challenger. We don't know that it's his Robinson getting out of it. We do not know that. We have zero clear footage of Tyler Robinson anywhere near that car.
90:53Sorry. Um except for, you know, the photos that independent investigators released of him like at the gas station and stuff, for example. The fact he's seen it four other times on camera.
91:02She's right. Cannot identify him. It's clearly not identifiable, and we know that very well by now. Um, the DNA on the roof and the screwdriver. Well, actually the DNA on the roof, um, the palm prints by the jump down point did not seem to match Tyler Robinson, although it doesn't that's not super credible. Um, and the screwdriver has its own whole own story line here, which Andrew didn't seem familiar enough with to talk about at all. And Candace didn't get a chance to bring it up.
91:26>> That's not an exhaustive list.
91:27>> Just so we're clear, you did tweet it, >> but it's not exhaustive. Well, you said you should.
91:29>> You said I only said this one thing and said that that was overwhelming.
91:32Actually, >> that's not what I said.
91:33>> It is. You can even Can you Can you check if that was said or I did not hear it.
91:38>> We were just talking about it when it happened cuz I knew it was going to come up here. Um, she just brought it up as like one of the things that you you have made a statement online about the things you found compelling. I'm going to talk about the things that you said in that statement that you found compelling. She didn't claim it was his entire perspective.
91:53>> Thing is funny here is like we still aren't getting to any of these inferences. So, >> why are you pivoting? Just say I'm going to say I was wrong. I'm not wrong. So, back to the tweet the tweet aspect here.
92:00It's really funny. That's not an exhaustive list of what I find.
92:02>> I didn't say it was exhaustive. I said you said it.
92:03>> And on top of No, you didn't. Candace is in her this dude doesn't deserve my time posture. And although it's not like the epitome of good faith debate postures, it's incredibly effective and it's super hard to combat. Uh Destiny, who I have no love for whatsoever, did a really interesting analysis of this debate and watched along through a lot of it. Um and [snorts] he does not like Candace and he does not like Andrew Wilson and it made for a really interesting analysis and he had some really interesting things to say about Candace's posture and how hard it is to debate uh conspiracy theorists that
92:32believe what they're saying. um regardless of whether they're right or not just because it presents a really complicated challenge as a debater and Candace is one of the bests. Um and it doesn't hurt that it's because she believes everything she's saying and she's usually right and it's because she has all this [ __ ] information and sources and stuff.
92:47>> You said that I only said this at one thing and then said based on that it's over. I didn't. You didn't mention that I mentioned the screwdriver, DNA, all these other things. You never mentioned any of that. So, no, you're actually incorrect there. But on top of that, moving over to the actual evidence.
92:57>> Are you uh >> yes, I'm okay. Anyway, back to the >> funny for I didn't slip there. She did not say are you okay? She got to are you and she stumbled over her words thinking about how to phrase it and she was about to say something else I think.
93:09>> And then he assumed that she was gonna ask are you okay and he's like yeah I'm okay. What's wrong if you're okay? Actually I'm glad you were asserting that you're okay. I wasn't worried about your health. I'm just saying that I just said you tweeted this. You said no I didn't. We got a fact check and now you're like just going to gaslight me and pretend that I said it wasn't exhaustive. I never said that. I just said you did say this gaslight. I didn't say you couldn't have said more. But I would like to address the extra time. If this is how you want to spend interrogating my position, you can do it that way.
93:31>> I'm just addressing what you >> It's actually not, Andrew. It's your time. You have a limited time to make your case and then make her look stupid.
93:39And you're failing at making your case.
93:41You should be the one in charge of the time right now. You should be the one making your case. You should have a very prepared, organized way to fit as much facts and information and explanation into your time as possible. Um, you're the one that paid $300,000 for this.
93:54It's not her. She has all the time in the world. She could spend this three and a half hours sitting there just talking [ __ ] about whatever she wants and she'll come out of it just fine and she'll be done with you and doesn't have to deal with you ever again. You're the one on the time limit and you're the one that should be making the points here because you're the one whose reputation is on the line. Candace is going to be fine. No one's going to turn turn their backs on her after this debate. Like it or hated >> started on your Twitter was like the hard evidence that convinced you was overwhelming.
94:14>> That's not what you said.
94:16>> That's not actually in fact what happened in that exchange.
94:19I was here for it. So what's your position here?
94:21>> Yeah. Yeah. So my position is that based on all of the evidence which has been demonstrated at least all the evidence to my knowledge that I'm actually not seeing um anything that's compelling as an alternative theory, I'm not seeing anything which is convincing me of something otherwise than what the state is presenting as evidence. That's that's my position.
94:35>> Notice how his position is a lot of air with no statement of no positive statement of his belief. as in his his position is that what the feds are saying is pretty much right and I can like say the word screwdriver and bullet and you know the basic highle talking points and my basic position is that all those conspiracy theories are wrong. I see no evidence for any of it but nowhere in there does he put together a timeline talk about the evidence talk about his expertise explain why this means this and this means this and this is the detail there and so that and so that and that and that. He does not make any kind
95:14kind of even attempt and an exhaustive analysis of how he came to his perspective through careful analysis of the evidence because he didn't do any because he doesn't know the evidence because he can't he can't he can't do that. Um that's the problem. And so he's leaving all kinds of potential on the board here. This is where I say that like I could so easily make his case for the Fed slop better than him because like there is you can put that together if you can put yourself in their shoes, see the evidence from their perspective.
95:41It's not hard to make that that argument. Um, and there are some points along along the the thread that they have strong. Um, and he fails to make any of those points and basically just defaults to this open empty. I believe what the feds say and I don't see any evidence for any of the other stuff.
95:58That's my position. Not a convincing way to say it, bro. Even if you're tr even if you're right, that's a really unconvincing way to present your position in a debate, especially if you're like the master debater. That's what you're asking me.
96:13>> So, just going back to what you did actually tweet, is it fair to like to for me to ask questions about that?
96:17>> Is that the only tweet you're going to ask me about?
96:18>> Well, we're we're addressing your claim that the evidence is overwhelming and this is a tweet where you listed what you felt was overwhelming. I think that's fair. I feel like not exhausted, just so you know.
96:24>> And I never said it was exhaustive. You said I did. Um but yeah, so going back to that all of that as you say to me, well, Candace, why are you addressing and making inferences off of the testimony? I've never asked you why you're making inferences. I asked you how with the inference you made, you got to the conclusion.
96:36>> Okay. So, I would like to know how you got to the conclusion. Uh, and I'm just going to go right back at you because >> this was where she should have just dialed in on like, "No, tell me about like the timeline. Tell me when it happened. Tell me where it was. Tell me the details. Tell me what DNA they found. Tell me how they analyzed it."
96:48That's where this is where she should have drilled in on the details of his theory.
96:52>> You permit yourself to do it. And that's what I'm demonstrating is that you permit yourself to do it and then you say when I do it, it's a conspiracy, right? No. How are you able to infer off of blurry staircase images that that is Tyler Robinson?
97:00>> Yeah. So in that particular case, what you do is you take that evidence, you combine it with other evidence. So it's not just that Tyler Robinson is seen in the staircase.
97:06>> Why are you calling Tyler Robinson in the staircase? That's what I want to get to.
97:08>> Yeah. Because I mean, we'll just use this. If you don't agree that that's Tyler Robinson, then you would just have to humor me. I think it is. So I'm using the name.
97:13>> But why do you think it is? Cuz you make everybody to.
97:16>> So if you're asking for my inference why I think it's Tyler Robinson is because a Tyler Robinson said in his text messages, you you'll be able to see me on security footage of the campus. Said it in his own messages. On top of that, Twigs, yes, you can pull them up if you want to fact check that. He did say, >> "Yeah, I actually think I really did miss that. I'm not saying you're wrong.
97:28I just I don't remember him." Notice what she just said. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't remember it.
97:32I'm not sure he really did say that.
97:34>> Saying you're going to see me in pull out twigs.
97:38>> So she says, "I think that's not right.
97:39I'm not sure you're wrong. I don't remember that." Right. Very clear framing with what she just said because we're going to come back to later where Andrew tries to pretend that she said something different. You just watched the clip where she said, "I think you're wrong, but let's pull it up. I don't remember that." She turns out to be incorrect. He is right. And she conceds it immediately. And then he tries to pretend like she claimed some like fact and and all you know like the Steven Crowers of this world like played horns and were like fact jerk even though like she was very that's how you should
98:09phrase it. It's like that's not my memory. I could be wrong. Let's pull up the facts. Very respectable good faith way to debate.
98:16>> Said that he had that he had some um maybe a tiny bit of doubt but it sure looked like Tyler Robinson inside of this various uh surveillance footage that he saw. So, sorry. So, there's multi there's multiple reasons why it is that I believe that that's Tyler Robinson, not just because of blurry footage.
98:30>> Did you have a dream? Just kidding.
98:33>> Note that all the reasons he just listed the well elements of all the reasons he just listed, the photos in the staircase which the boyfriend identified him in kind of, not really. Um, the text messages which the boyfriend corroborated, the confession note which the boyfriend corroborated, all of it rests on Lance Twix as a reliable witness, >> notes.
98:55Okay. Uh, so let's address those multitude of evidences. The first one we're working on fact check on because I I do not ever remember him tweeting that's me in the stair or texting that that's me in the staircase. I think that >> I didn't say I didn't say that. I said he I literally didn't. What I said is that he texted over you'll be able to see me in footage at the at UVU. And I'm paraphrasing, but that's what you said.
99:11>> Yeah. Could we get a fact check on that?
99:12The second thing you said was Lance's testimony where and actually what Lance says is I'm not 100%. But in terms of what he wears, again pointing out the absurdity. Uh he wears Converses, he wears sneakers. If his boyfriend is not 100%, I'd like to understand why Andrew Wilson is overwhelmed by it. That's what I'm trying to get to. And lastly, I would like to remind you about Lance's statement. Would not >> Yeah, it is it is worth pointing out that Lance Twigs was shown all the photos that we have of the suspect and he looked at them and said, "It's not 100%." And then he went on to talk about the clothing that the person was wearing
99:41and how the clothing was similar to Tyler Robinson.
99:44So that's awkward and not not convincing. And if the boyfriend or spouse of someone is looking at the same image as Andrew Wilson is looking at and saying not 100% but based on the clothing, but Andrew Wilson is overwhelmed by it. That is that is a little weird. Um that Andrew Wilson is better at recognizing Tyler Robinson in blurry photos than Tyler Robinson's own boyfriend.
100:05>> Not to be permitted. This was a huge part of the preliminary hearing that they were leading. All the questions that were as asked of him were leading so they would be struck down at the actual trial. And also I would like to remind you that he got use immunity for that use immunity.
100:14>> I understand which means like >> that happens by the way all the time in these >> wondering why particularly happened for Lance in this testimony. And I would also like to point out that >> he's right. Use immunity happens all the time. Use immunity meaning like hey we don't really care that you were smoking pot when you witnessed the crime kid. We just want you to talk tell us what you saw about the crime. So we'll give you use immunity where we we won't go after you for the pot whatever drugs you were doing while you witnessed the crime.
100:35just come in and be really honest with us, please, and tell us what you saw, and we'll forget all about the drug stuff. That's use immunity, and it's used all the time. That's totally true.
100:42Um, usually it is contingent upon you speaking truthfully, and if you perjure yourself, then the immunity goes away.
100:48Um, that being said, the type of immunity that Lance Twigs has gotten, it feels awfully suspicious because it doesn't feel like he was ever a suspect, though he should have been suspect number two right from the start because it's very unlikely that Tyler Robinson could pull this off on his own if he did do it. If it was a leftist, the chances are way higher that it was Tyler Robinson with help from his buddies than doing it on his own. That's like this underlying thing that no one ever talks about because like a we have leftists online posting about Charlie dying days before he was killed that shows
101:23fornowledge that has been brought up many times is like why did no one look into this? Beyond that, you would need help. This is complicated. There's a lot going on and just having one extra body would make this thing way easier if you were trying to pull it off on your own. And uh yeah, there's there's a whole conversation to be had about why Lance Twigs should have been a suspect and should have been very carefully examined. Um and we don't have a lot of evidence about how much of that examination was ever done. And that's pretty suspicious.
101:51>> Something that's remarkable about this again leaning to my perspective that Lance has a lot more which I have said many times, Lance has a lot more involvement than the feds are are um letting us know. I think because they interviewed him on September 11th and then for whatever reason just ahead of what was supposed to be slated as the preliminary hearing which was initially supposed to be in May. They bring him back to do this interview.
102:08>> See how she knows all the timeline of everything. She knows the day he was first interviewed, the day he was second interviewed, how it related to the secondary year. He's like it was, you know, May 13th. It was that is a level of expertise that very few people have about this case. Very few. And certainly Andrew Wilson is not one of them.
102:25>> Which, in my opinion, should never been allowed. I I actually agree with the defense that it's a violation of his constitutional rights not to allow them to have cross-examined him. But I understand Utah 1102 do what you do.
102:32It's all hearsay. Uh but to allow it in that way for him to just be able to also have use immunity knowing that he's not going to be he's not in control. He could literally up there and lie about anything and he's not going to be in trouble because the use immunity was given to him in April. I believe April 28th is when they uh gave that testimony to the defense. I think they shot it in like April 20th 2026. That is not compelling to me for somebody who has use immunity to give a testimony and to say I'm not really sure but definitely like he wears jeans and stuff.
102:53>> That's not what he said.
102:54In theory, if it was done properly, his use immunity would be contingent upon him telling the truth. Um, I I'm not really worried about that because I suspect there's a conspiracy going on here and so I suspect that there are some elements of the official case that were handled uh let's say not above board. Don't know which parts it was. don't know who's involved necessarily, but I am quite suspicious of Lance Twigs and the whole apparatus surrounding his uh not being prosecuted or investigated at all.
103:26>> Yeah, actually you can fact check on that.
103:28>> I think I really want to So, so a couple things we have. We have rule 801 Tyler's messages that says it's not yours say, but first go to what Candace is asking about Skyler. I think you have it. You just text me if you want to pull it up.
103:37You said you have the text if we can uh put that up on the screen. Thank you.
103:40>> It was me. Look at the pictures from the survey. It was me. Okay. I literally said to you if I said I didn't remember this and I'm happy I have to effect check on that. Okay, that I didn't call for the fact of saying you're wrong. I literally said I don't remember that.
103:47>> No, I'm just saying to you like trying to be concise, >> right? Remember she phrased it as like I don't think you're right, but we should check it cuz I don't remember him saying that. And that's what it was. Not that big of an oof. It's actually her being honest about what she does and doesn't specifically remember.
104:02>> And then also bring the 801 that you just decided will be on.
104:05>> Yep. The 801 uh Tyler messages saying it's not here safe if you have that as well.
104:12There you go.
104:15>> They're confused because it's not really relevant and Andrew doesn't really know what's going on so he doesn't know how to explain here. A statement that meets the following conditions is not here.
104:22>> It was here say they said it in the trial. Hang on. Hang on. Okay.
104:25>> Okay. Uh uh is consistent with the deterren's testimony and the declarant denies having made the statement or has forgotten or is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut express implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated or act in a recent improper influence or motive in testifying. So then wouldn't that mean that a bunch of this wasn't here? So the issue with >> that makes you would that mean that a bunch of this wasn't here said >> notice how he frames that as let me read all the text on here >> and then not give any statements that indicate that I understand it just flip
104:52it to a question over to you bud those things I just read doesn't that mean that it's not hearsay I suspect that Andrew Wilson does not understand what he just read I suspect he does not know what any of that means because um there was no substantive analysis or explanation of why that means it was hearsay brought by him and if he had done so, it would have been a much stronger question to point at Candace. And she correctly, I think, is about to explain how it's uh the video testimony of Lance would never fly in the real court. And I I think technically becomes considered hearsay.
105:23It could be a different phrase because it was done outside of the courtroom and he can't be cross-examined. And any witness that can come in and be cross-examined needs to be in the real trial. It wouldn't be avail.
105:37the opposing party, which down the line, like I said, they talked about this for an hour and a half and they discussed how if Lance was in court and he was giving his first party, you know, giving his testimony as the opposing party, whatever, all of this would be fine.
105:46They had an issue with how the questions were being asked and that they were not allowed to cross-examine him. So, that is why his video testimony would not be accepted in the main trial. And what I said to you is this entire preliminary hearing is under Utah's 1102. So, they are allowed to just use hearsay.
105:58>> No, you said most of it was hearsay actually.
106:00>> Yeah, the overwhelming majority. So again, notice how Andrew can read off the screen and then pose, you know, obscure questions to Candace about it.
106:08Candace then immediately dives into specific memories of how the case went down, what was said, details that she shares right off the top in like in context, and then Andrew dives right back into semantic argument. Um, >> well, I mean, and that's I'm I'm leaning now into my opinion that some scientific aspects which they kept asserting like the federal rule 403 or 402, some of those parts were quite >> sound like you're backtracking quite a bit.
106:29>> No, I'm not backtracking at all. Let me help Where do you feel like I'm backtracking? It wasn't.
106:31>> And then he tries to use the debate tactic on her. She's like, "No, [ __ ] you. Where was I backtracking?"
106:35>> Literally was done under.
106:36>> Yeah. Nobody disputed that. What the dispute was is whether or not most of it was overwhelmingly hearsay.
106:40>> It was. Yeah. That's a fact. I'm not backtracking. How many times did you >> And again, right in his face. This could be disputed.
106:47>> If he knew what he was talking about, if he knew the evidence, he could dispute that. And he could not necessarily like win the point, but she could he could certainly make her look less strong than she looks in this moment. because in this moment he tried to like do a debate tactic and she's like, "No, no, no. I'm not backing down on anything. What am I backing down on?" He then offers what she's backing down on. She's like, "I'm not backing down on that. That is a fact and I know it." And he could have easily come back and said, "Here's a few examples that actually you're going to have to agree or not hearsay once we
107:19flesh this out." And then it's going to turn into it's a fact, but it's not as strong as you're coming off. And he didn't know to do that. He did not know to do that. And to be clear, I'm not saying that Candace is lying or is incorrect. I'm saying that she's just a little overcooked in the way she's presenting it. Um, and I don't know if it's because she knows that Andrew isn't going to know to rebut it, or I think it's more likely that she's just I I mean, she's generally kind of right. It's not an unfair way to describe it is like a lot of that [ __ ] was hearsay and it was all done under the 1102 rule. Um, but it
107:53could be debated properly if the, you know, counter debater actually had done the research and knew anything about the case.
107:59>> Watch here. It's like they constantly I'm 112 112 112 112 112. And the reason for that is because it's allowed. I'm not saying >> and she's right. They did do that all the time. And Andrew just conceded that straight up. He just gave it away. Even though her description is not wrong, but he easily could have made a counterpoint.
108:16>> It's illegal. It's a lot at this stage, but I'm just reminding you that when you're going to sit across from someone and your claim is going to be, "Where is your hard evidence? This is what I heard and I agree with what I'm watching. You are watching the state put on a hearsay preliminary hearing and that and all of those things are not going to be allowed right when they got into witness statements and things of that nature.
108:29There's a reason why they swear you in and they say you swear or tell the truth the whole truth. Did you you know write this statement?
108:34>> So it's the overwhelming majority of what you saw was hearsay because other people were representing other people's statements. They were saying they had conversations. We don't know where it came from. Allowed at this stage. Okay.
108:41But it's hearsay. So >> even a lot of that stuff may not fall under hearsay under what we just read.
108:45Right.
108:45>> But the evidence that you're speaking about like when you're just when you say that we're going off vibes you don't know Tyler Robinson. Okay. His boyfriend is not 100% it was him. So, I'm going back to your points that you made that this was overwhelming evidence for you.
108:55That doesn't make sense to me.
108:55>> Well, overwhelming just means >> you can't consider another option that there could wear on campus.
108:59>> Do you agree with me that I said that what overwhelming means to me is that it's just very convincing to me.
109:04>> Yeah. And I find it to be completely unconvincing. I understand. looked at the blurry photo that they presented and said, >> "Your your statement on right now is that he's wearing Converses and he also that's just crazy."
109:12>> These aren't the evidences that I find the most [snorts] >> wildly underwhelming arguments on Andrew's part because like he's basically coming in and just saying to the general audience, I find it convincing because I saw the evidence that the feds put out and I have nothing new to add to it. I just think that the combination of all that evidence means that it was Tyler Robinson and that's not going to convince anyone of anything. You're convincing nobody.
109:35people that already agree with you gonna keep agreeing with you and you're not gonna convince a single person that you're right. Um there's nothing added whatsoever there.
109:43It's completely void.
109:46>> Well, you said that in your Twitter.
109:48>> That's not the only thing I've ever said on my Twitter about this case.
109:49>> But the question that was asked of >> So if you're if you're trying to win the debate that you paid $300,000 for, you better come with a better strategy than the thing that you already all saw. I pretty much agree with the thing that we already all said. And uh yeah, that's my argument.
110:02>> Bad argument, bro.
110:03>> It was pretty direct, right? What what did you have?
110:05>> This is not an exhaustive list of all the things I said in the tweet. You can tweet longer, too. It's not like we're limited now to 240.
110:10>> So, great. So, anything that I tweet and all other tweets that I've ever made are now excluded because I use the word overwhelming in this one. Even though all of this information I've said so publicly over and over and over again is what informs my position for why I'm convinced on the case. That's bizarre to me.
110:21>> I feel like this is Andrew versus Andrew. Somebody asked you a question.
110:23What are the points that you find to be, you know, the most overwhelming?
110:25>> It kind of is Andrew versus Andrew. Um, he's trying to pretend that she said something she didn't say. She's just saying that you made these points and so I'm addressing them. Are there more that you want me to address? And you answered >> you mean from that day from that particular day of the hearing that I was responding to this you have you find more overwhelming that question. What do you find more?
110:42>> Yeah. Should we do this? Do we want to get into it or do we know do we want to do a quick ad break?
110:46>> When PBD first jumped in here to do an ad break. I didn't know we were going to do ad breaks. I could have probably thought it through and known that. But it made me laugh because it was just so um it was just so Patrick Bet David for like the you know the first thing he really interjects into the debate. Well, not literally, but like just jumping in like, "Hey, what do you think about a little ad break? Make a little money, run this business really good." It's just so PBD.
111:11Um, but that's a side tangent.
111:14>> Are you guys good to keep going? Or >> I'm fine. Keep going. But we can also take a quick break. Doesn't matter to me.
111:18>> If we're going into a different topic, that may be another 30 minutes, 40 minutes. I don't want to stop.
111:21>> Let's end what you find to be more overwhelming.
111:23>> Yeah. Yeah. So, if we're for me, it's the confessions, the text messages, all of that is what I consider to be uh from my opinion, that's the most convincing for me.
111:31>> Okay. we should.
111:32>> So, the text messages and the confessions from Andrew Wilson's opinion is the most convincing. So, we'll see how well he makes that argument here.
111:39>> Discuss the text message confessions when uh we get back if you'd like to.
111:42>> Okay, I think we're back. Uh, by the way, just an FYI for those of you that are watching The Crucible. There's 30,000 concurrent watching. Support Andrew Wilson. That's your your fans of this. Click that subscribe button. It helps him grow his business. If you're watching, Candace, I think there's 225 to 250,000 concurrent, right?
111:57[snorts] >> You didn't have to stunt on Andrew like that, bro. like you didn't have to like drop it.
112:00>> We'd like to see, right? Let's go back into the text conversation you were having, right?
112:04>> The crazy thing, too, is there's all these watch parties on different people's channels, pro Candace, anti- Candace, and when you add up all those view, all that viewership and all these associated watch parties that were technically only like one view on the main channels. Uh there's a lot of live viewers of this thing.
112:18>> Let's stay and then we'll go to the cross examination stuff in about 30 minutes.
112:20>> Okay, that sounds fair. Um okay, so yeah, my I I use basically three pillars for the totality of the evidence. Okay.
112:26So, if you want to know exactly what those three pillars are, this is going to be uh the testimony with the text messages and um the confessions. This is going to be the physical evidence. And this is going to be the totality of the summary of the case. Okay? So, uh right now we're focusing on one of these pillars in my defense, which is fine. I understand that I have to defend my claims as well. So, when we're talking about the messages themselves, uh they seem totally valid. I have no idea why they wouldn't be valid. And >> that's a kind of a dense way to take it.
112:52I mean, you can argue for their validity, but to say you see no way they could be invalid is like, you're not very tech literate, bro.
113:01>> And I have not heard any good explanation for why it is that these messages should even be questioned. The defense hasn't questioned them. As far as I'm aware, nobody has actually questioned that these messages came from Robinson to date, except perhap >> the entire world questioned them. That was one of the first big moments where the whole world came together and said, "Uh, this is really sus." And Tik Tok me'd it extensively. Young people all over the world were making funny videos about it. They were making reenactments.
113:32They were dressing up as Shakespeare.
113:34They're like, "My lord, the vehicle doth expireth." It was a It was an internet sensation when they released these text messages. No one was buying them. It was hilarious. Andrew Wilson obviously wasn't on planet Earth that week because everyone questioned the text messages except for Andrew Wilson apparently.
113:56>> Abs you and and other other people who were kind of in that camp.
113:59>> Well, why should I question these exactly? I'm not sure.
114:01>> Okay. So, first let's just go over legally what the point is of appropriative hearing. The defense is not putting on they're not there to say or to argue or to defend themselves at all. They have to >> This is an incredibly important point that Candace makes pretty well um on the fly there. uh they don't really take the time to circle around it and and really flesh it out. It's so important and I've seen a lot of people misunderstanding this and then sort of like extrapolating their logic of their perspective based on not understanding this in the preliminary hearing. The defense it like it is not normal at all. It is not the
114:32standard for the defense to present any information. The defense during preliminary hearings does not bring their case. They don't make their argument. They don't give away what they know. They don't introduce evidence or facts. There's the very rare exception where like it's not that they're completely not allowed to bring any evidence or facts, but it is very much not the norm. And the reason why it's not the norm is because all that's happening in the preliminary hearing is that the prosecution is saying, "Your honor, we have enough evidence, whether it's true evidence or not, just enough evidence that is, you know, reasonable
115:05to believe that it's true that we should go to a trial to determine the guilt."
115:11But it's just the the prosecution saying, "We have enough evidence." And it's and you don't check if the evidence is real or not. You don't check if it's right or not. The judge is not allowed to weigh the facts of it. They're not.
115:21Bearing did a great show about this um the other night [snorts] and there's more to it too that that he didn't even go into that's like the bigger picture of just uh preliminary hearings are for the prosecution to get to a real hearing and the defense's only job is to say that is to uh sort of pin discrediting uh testimony uh questions um facts onto whatever the prosecution presents to try to discredit the argument they're presenting. They don't bring anything new of their own. They don't bring witnesses. They don't present their perspective, their facts, none of it.
115:56So, the defense was not making their argument and that was not their job and they do not want to um at that stage because it gives away what they know and if they have some slam dunk thing, they want to save that for later. Um so, the prosecution obviously can't get ahead of it.
116:11>> Address what is being presented by the state. Okay? So, they're not here to then say, "Let me give you an explanation for these text messages."
116:16The relevant portion of what the defense did do was actually before we got to the preliminary hearing. I I had mentioned that it was initially supposed to be scheduled for some time in May. Uh they asked for an extension that that reading through those filings of why they were requesting an extension and why I actually believe their extension should have been granted. Uh because they did not receive discovery on their text messages. That was one of the reasons for many reasons why they wanted to have an extension. But this was crucial, right? So forget just the general sense that these messages
116:36>> again Candace describing actual firsthand knowledge of the actual events that happened over this whole year. And I doubt that Andrew Wilson knows anything about what she's talking about.
116:46>> Just feel off and and yes, you are allowed to have an intuition. you are allowed to have a sense and just go this is very weird. We're being told this kid had like above a 4.0 know Tyler Robinson he wanted to get away the tech almost run headto-head with themselves like he wanted to get away with it so he thought the best thing to do would be to text a full confession of what he did uh down to what I didn't even remember saying yeah and that's also me it it felt a little too on the nose I just people have common sense you just don't text message but then we're also supposed to believe that he put a note under because
117:09and burn this and get rid of the evidence but don't worry about that as I'm about to text you a full confession that it felt off about weird off the bat the manner in which they were texting we're told >> yeah the [snorts] note um plus the text messages is pretty [ __ ] and weird. Um because the note was to remind us all the note was essentially if I die or if like if I go down like the note was a worst case scenario just in case like assuming it's true and real and really did occur. The note represents the concept of like if if I go down, this [snorts] will tell my boyfriend what happened, I guess. Um
117:45even though if Tyler goes down, the boyfriend will find out what happened.
117:48And if Tyler doesn't go down, then he doesn't want the boyfriend to find the note. So, it's it's it's all very illogical when you think about basic human motivations in terms of like let's not get caught. Um, >> he's like a gamer who's using a Dremel uh to carve expressions catch fascist, but then suddenly he's writing like a >> hell player. He did he did actually get the 500k code correct.
118:07>> Yeah, I'm not a gamer. So, I will say that we starting that you'll be way over ahead. Yes. But my point being is just that just first it's a general sense of why people had a reaction to these messages uh that seemed like they were written by Jane Austin rather than like a kid who games and writes capt intuition >> that is I am I just said that I said just put parking aside the intuition of just something feels wrong here which you should follow your intuition you should actually do that if you say running out feels like it's coming out too fast and there's too many celebrities telling me to do it I'd like
118:28to take a pause that's good that is you are allowed to do that I believe intuition hang respond a little bit here because you've been going for a minute let me at least respond to a little bit of this so the first thing is is like when people bring up the COVID vaccine not trusting the COVID vaccine in mass was the science that wasn't just intuition that was the science There was tons of competing science. Now they try to suppress it. That's true. But there was tons of competing science for why you shouldn't take a risky mRNA vaccine.
118:48Now when you're talking about intuition though, when you say trust your intuition, I'm actually giving a different message. You actually should be very wary about trusting just your intuition. It is true that intuition can be useful, but it has to be tempered with logic, reason, explanatory power, and evidence, not just intuition.
119:00>> That's why we're parking this.
119:01>> Logic, reason, and explanatory power.
119:04Met an awful lot of kids and young people, and they don't write that way.
119:07I've graded papers. I've taught English class. They don't write that way. It's not how they speak. It's not how they write. And so on balance, if you were to take a thousand young people in the 20-ish age range and ask them all to write out a message that carried this meaning using whatever words they wanted, none of them would write you those words. None of them would write you in that tone.
119:29Not very likely. Um, so just, you know, from logical reasoning, you know, rational power. Um, and yeah, that's I'm I'm asserting that. That's not an actual scientific study that I've done.
119:39Tell me I'm wrong. Uh, if you want.
119:42[snorts] >> Intuition is the first step. Something feels off, right? Okay. That was my first step with co. I don't like the way it's being pushed. It shouldn't require a celebrity campaign. By the way, another element of that is why people don't feel good about Charlie thing. Why do we have so many influencers saying things? It's over. Why are you guys all using uh the same adjective? Like you switch it up. I'm overwhelmed. I'm overwhelmed. Like chill. Like you could say, I found some compelling. I think they should go. I found some parts compelling. Maybe we should, you know, see at the trial. That would be kind of
120:02>> I think fop's a buzz word for the counter industry. Everyone on this.
120:05>> Yeah, it is. It evolved organically.
120:08which is different. The difference between everyone online seeing something funny that is effective and being like, "Ha, that's funny. I'm going to say that Paramount not so tactical," for example.
120:20That's like natural trend formation amongst cultures. It's a little different when you know a bunch of highly paid influencers all come out with a parited identical message around a specific event that's clearly organized. That's not the same. That is not an authentic organic growth of a concept within a culture.
120:38>> Same day of watching the trial which was I would say not overwhelming at all.
120:41Nobody came in medium, right? No one came in like there were some interesting aspects. This was a little suspect. I but I do think it's enough to go to trial. They all came in like they were passing away and we're going to die from being overwhelmed.
120:49>> Trusting their intuition.
120:49>> Okay. Well, actually that >> No, they were not trusting their intuition. They were organized, told to be there, given a script, came out, delivered the script. Very obvious. And it's the exact same Big Wigs. And you'll notice, here's a point. You'll notice the big boys have already abandoned Andrew. The only people that are defending Andrew at this point online still and really from the start are the little fish, the ones that are on Fed Slop team, but not because they're like officially on the team as much as because they're like they recognize that they want access. They want into the club. They want to be on that. They want
121:24that they want it. And seen this a lot in this industry goes one or the other way is you're either the kind of person that you get the invitation to Amfest as and and you start to get invited as a speaker to events and you think more of this. How can I get more of these invitations because then I get to go to the parties and like meet the cool people and the celebrities and like the hot girls and all that stuff or you start getting those invitations. You go to one of them and you're like this is kind of [ __ ] gay. I'm not really like this is not a lot of fun. I'm going to go do my own thing again. Those are two
121:51different kinds of people. And if you notice the big boys that are already in the club, the Benny Johnson's, the Jack Bobics, those guys, Nick Wentes, for example, [snorts] allegedly, all those big fed slop accounts are not defending him and they didn't come out to defend him. They're not posting about it. They're ignoring it. They're pretending it did not happen because it's not a good it's not a good look.
122:16It's not good propaganda. It's it's a loss and they're writing it off. The only people defending him are the smaller ones that don't get the me they don't have a memo because they're not actually doing it because they were told to. They're doing it because they have developed the worldview that they just expect to. Which is why a lot of Candace fans defend Candace because they believe her and they like that team and they're on that team and so they they post things to try to help that team win which is not always faithful to truth.
122:42um it's faithful to your team and it's not ideal in either side, but the feds slop side is especially funny because it's in service of the government and you're devoting your life for no pay for no no good reason other than that you want like an more access and invitations into that the government club. Um it's all very weird. But if you look online, it's really interesting that the big boys aren't out here defending him.
123:08Whereas if he had clobbered her, if he had made her look like a dumbass, imagine how many of those accounts would be clipping it up, talking about it day and night. Yeah.
123:18>> Scenario, they're looking at premier here and half reaction. It wasn't their intuition, but just getting the substance parking that aside parking just general matches. Then we looked at the filings which came from the defense and they were requesting an extension saying we have gone to the prosecution and we have requested all of this stuff in discovery. Yes, you are saying that you took Lance's phone, okay, and that you collected his phone on September 11th and that you sent it off or whatever. We took a picture of the text messages and we are being given these text messages to review. Crucially,
123:42Kathy Nester said, "I have not even been given access to my client's phone during this hearing." She said, "I haven't been access to my client's phone." She can't tell you as a part of the discovery request, it's not enough to say to me, "Uh, Candace, I just got a text message from Candace." And I say, "I didn't send that text message. Maybe that's where we're client. We don't know. We're not the trial." Right? Maybe he didn't send those messages. Could there be someone who logged into his Discord? Could there be someone who logged in to his Apple?
123:59George could be sending text messages right now. We are married. He has every login that I have. And remember, he's up for death sentence. So if I'm able to seow reasonable doubt with common sense, he may come during a trial and when they actually have to address these points, say I did not write those messages. I was here Lance my boyfriend was logged into my phone, logged into my Apple ID and my iPad was sending messages. I know that we have the ability because my husband does. He has the ability to send message from my phone. It is not convincing to the public when for whatever reason the FBI would not FBI
124:22combined with the SBI, it was not the prosecution's fault. They made that clear during that hearing would not allow them that discovery request to be able to see where did that message come from cuz you're saying >> so since September 11th nobody from the public or from Tyler Robinson's team or Tyler Robinson's defense or Tyler Robinson or Tyler Robinson's family none of them have had any access to his phone or his messages.
124:45So they wouldn't probably even know if he had sent them. They wouldn't know if they're even in there. They would have no way as in like maybe someone else sent them from his computer. They don't know if that's what happened because they haven't been able to look. But they also don't know if it even exists because they haven't been able to look.
125:01So like I don't think this is what happened. But at this point, as far as Kathy Nester knows, that's just a madeup. It's just they drew that screenshot and it's totally fabricated and it does if you were to open Tyler's messages, it wouldn't even be there as far as they know because they haven't been able to see it. They don't have his phone. I don't think that's what happened. I think someone did actually send those messages obviously. I think it's probably a genuine screenshots and all, but >> my client was here, right? I want to know that message actually was generated from his iPhone when he was waiting to
125:29retrieve his, you know, rifle, hoping that the pooch doesn't have a bad sniffer. Like, >> and they're going to have to show that during the real trial. Um, they're going to have to prove that. They're going to have to use cell phone location data to show where he was, where the like it's we have a clear time frame when the texts were sent. It should be very obvious that the phone is up in Oram, not down in his hometown. And it should be very obvious that they were sent from his iPhone, not from his computer. And we should see that it's up there right by the shooting waiting in the woods.
125:57That'll be 100% crystal clear. And if we don't see that, it's because it didn't happen that way cuz it's [snorts] Yeah, >> just weird messages. I want to make sure that yes, it was actually him. He was holding his phone and his boyfriend didn't just log in to his computer when he was home. Lance was his boyfriend.
126:13That is a that is a crucial fact here.
126:14That discovery was not met by time we got to preliminary hearing. So I remain unconvinced by these text messages just as you feel convinced by them. I feel unconvinced by them.
126:21>> Okay. So then >> we're going to get into this more in a bit when they talk about um another aspect of it. But there's this element where as we learn more, we become capable of inferring what else they must have, what else we would expect to get.
126:39Um and this been a developing, you know, like list, I guess, over time. But before the preliminary hearing, there were certain things we were and weren't expecting to see and to know. Um, for example, we were told that Tyler Robinson's parents that Tyler Robinson confessed to them and that they told the police that Tyler Robinson confessed to them.
127:00So, we were kind of expecting to see some sort of written statement from them in some form, some sort of statement from them brought by the prosecution because that is slam dunk [ __ ] evidence. If your own mom is ratting you out, you're guilty. Um, and we didn't see that. And so the the fact that we were told it ex that that existed so we were expecting to see it in some form and then we didn't that tells us something. And consequentially in the same or rather in the same way we learn things over time like in the preliminary hearing we learn that these are you know these are the text messages and this is
127:30what they're going with. And so we can rightly infer that they should be able to pinpoint where his phone was when those were sent and that they were sent from his phone. And if they don't show us that during the trial, it's got to be because they don't have it or they're really dumb because you have not proven that he sent those text messages until you show where he was, where the phone was, where all of that. And that should not be hard to do. That should be very easy to do if that's actually how it happened. And if it's not how it actually happened, it's dang down near dang near impossible to show. So we get
127:58these sort of as long as you're careful with your logical reasoning in it. As we get information, we come cap we become capable of expecting what we'll get later on down the line. And it kind of circles around like in the preliminary hearing in the main trial because that's when we're expecting to get all this information. Um, and Julian Dory's recent podcast with Baron and [snorts] uh I think Joseph Scott uh I forget his full name, the uh the [snorts] um like uh coroner medical examiner like the the death expert. Um Jose Joseph Scott Horton something. I forget his full name. Sorry, bud. Um, great
128:33podcast. Total respect to him for doing it with Julian and Baron. Um, they spoke a lot about the expectation of like they better have saved the shirt. They better have saved the mic. They better have saved all this [ __ ] that's like this is how you should be doing it. Going over what we expect of a proper criminal investigation helps us understand when we get to a part where it's not proper, where it's not being done right, where there's gaps in it all the suspicious stuff. And that's basically what Kansas's case is built on is all these gaps are just there's too many of them.
128:59And Andrew Wilson's case is to to be an ass about it is built on the fact that he doesn't know where the gaps are because he doesn't know about the case.
129:06So he doesn't even know what to ask about or what to say. He's just reading a script. Um which I'm I'm overstating it a bit. He's not just reading a script. And he does, you know, he has actually covered the case somewhat over time. He does have his own opinions.
129:21They're just not super well informed based upon his performance here.
129:24>> And the idea here is the reason that you don't think that these are valid text messages and you don't, right? I I I it has not been proven that these messages are valid and they don't sound valid to me. I don't think anyone even if someone was selling like a [snorts] I don't know pot on the corner would be smarter than to write a >> real quick let's just rewind and watch uh Patrick David's uh repositioning uh here cuz it was funny. It just >> I don't know why it just struck me as like that dude's 14 years old >> that you don't think that these are valid text messages and you don't right.
129:50I >> I I it has not been proven messaged out and they don't sound valid to me. I don't think anyone >> check out this this [laughter] pop on the corner. I don't know. It just looked funny. Obviously, no shade to Patrick >> would be smarter than to write a full-fledged confess confession. He even writes, "I thought I would get away with it." And I was hoping never to tell you until old age. And then we're being told that he wanted to commit suicide and okay, but he just said he wanted to get away with it, but he's not smart enough to um I don't know, maybe not text a like it's such a confession like we've
130:14never seen. I think this would be the first time ever somebody has start to finish written an entire here's I'm in the surveillance footage and I'm here and I'm wearing my Converse. You know, I'm being a little facicious here, but it was a little ridiculous. It didn't it didn't pass a sniff test for me.
130:23>> You have kids and you love them more than anything. If it was the case that you thought that your kid was innocent, would you be out telling everybody and their brother that you thought that they were innocent? And also, >> this is such an empty argument, [clears throat] um, this is going to be an appeal to emotion along with just a complete fallacy to try to get you to ignore the fallacy while you're being appealed to your emotions.
130:42[snorts] >> Wouldn't you say, wouldn't you maybe recant and say, "Hey, I didn't actually he didn't actually confess to me. He didn't actually none of this happened the way that the uh state is presenting it." What would have prevented the parents from testifying?
130:52>> Well, two things I can answer that and if you if you watch my show, I keep telling you it's not vibes. So, right after the shooting happened, uh, Lance Twigs, you know, the FBI put him into a house safe house they paid for. They went to the parents as well to Matt Robinson and Amber basically said, "Your life's at risk. There could be somebody who jumps up and wants to avenge Charlie Kirk and you know, we're going to watch you." And they went into a federal safe house. Uh, what happened next is that they started thinking that the feds were maybe going to like maybe not as honest as they thought. Um, and
131:14>> how do you know all any of that?
131:15>> So, you got you got to watch the show, right?
131:16>> Yeah. No. How do you know that?
131:17>> I I had a source in the Robinson family.
131:19>> You have a source.
131:20He wouldn't know that because he doesn't actually know and he doesn't he doesn't watch her he didn't do any prep. He didn't do any prep. He doesn't have to watch her show on a regular basis. But the master debater, the blood sports debater, the number one debater, you should be doing some prep, bud. You're not so good at debate that you don't need to do prep. You're so good at debate because you do good prep.
131:42Duh. And in this case, Andrew clearly did not do a lot of prep.
131:46>> An anonymous source, of course. So there's no way for us to verify that what you're saying right now is actually even true is >> trying to be reliable hearsay.
131:51>> Uh so this contention is a critical piece that the feds sloppers come out with all the time. They always try to attack this angle from different perspectives and it never goes well for them for a couple of reasons. They repeatedly try to present Candace Owens as when she has a source, she's just making stuff up and it can't be trusted and she's never brought receipts and it's it's always just made up and there's never any proof, which is patently untrue. She has over and over and over completely dicks slapped the entire uh Zio slop narrative by saying she has information and claiming it without presenting the source and ev
132:29evidence yet, letting them all pretend like she's making it up and then dropping the source like the text messages, the screenshots, etc. That's happened multiple times. Um, but furthermore, Andrew Wilson seems to not be familiar with what journalism is and with what a journalist is and not know how that works. So, let's just remind us all that in a court of law, you're dealing with evidence and such in a legal framework and a judicial framework. You're arguing the case based upon its legal merits in a legal fashion.
132:58Candace ain't one of those. She ain't there. That's not her job. She is a journalist and her job is to engage with information as a journalist does, which is completely different. And the standard for evidence is completely different. the standard for proof and all that, the way you tell the story, it's all completely different obviously.
133:15And when you are a journalist, one of the most fundamental parts of journalism is having sources. Without sources, there's basically no journalism.
133:23And the whole point of journalists is that they establish credible reputation so that when they get a source, if the source wants to remain anonymous, the journalist can can replace the credibility of the source that they're not going to give away with their own credibility by saying, "I'm a reputable journalist that has reported well in the past and I vet my sources and you know I vet my sources. So when I say I have an anonymous source that told me these things, you can trust me because of my reputation." And in the the the past, our system has grouped journalists up into mainstream news organizations that
133:58share credibility. And so in the past, the Washington Post had credibility and the the Washington Examiner had credibility, the New York Times had credibility. And when a journalist working for them has a source, they can vet that source up to the New York Times' standards and then they can all have a conversation with their editors and stuff and say, "We this story is good to go. You've done the requisite vetting. Our reputation is intact. we believe this, we are good to run it. But if they break that trust over and over and over, people start to not trust the entire New York Times. So, it's critically important for the
134:30organization's reputation to remain intact for that exact reason. And that's the story of why the mainstream news is no longer trusted and no one [ __ ] gives a [ __ ] about them anymore because they broke that trust over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Independent journalists use [snorts] the exact same system except the trust is entirely your own. And I have established my trust in the way that I do. And some people think that that's zero and my audience thinks that it's high and there's other people in between. Andrew Wilson has established his credibility and his
134:57trust over time. Candace has established hers and it is her job to have anonymous sources. That is the whole point of journalism and she does it exceptionally well. And having seen it from the inside and the outside, she's better at it than most people in this industry. [snorts] She's going to say that. Um, when Kannah says that she has a source that told her something, I trust not only that she's being honest about what she says happened and was said and all that, but I also trust that she wasn't a fool cuz she's not, and she vetted that source with the understanding that there will be fake sources sent to her to try to
135:27feed her lies. I guarantee you that her tips box is filled with that. And she is not dumb. She knows that. And she knows that if she gets tricked by any of those fake sources that are trying to come into her and, you know, send her down the wrong track, which is what a lot of people were worried Mitch Snow was, and people still have their own opinions about that. Um, she's aware of that trap and she's very careful to not fall into it. And she very carefully vets things and when she arrives at a claim that she thinks there's something there but she's unsure about, she tries to couch it in a way where she's not claiming it is
136:00definitive and trying to work through that. That's journalism. And that's how it works. And Andrew seems to either be trying to purposefully forget that that's the truth or is too dumb to know it. But that is a repeated theme among the Fed slop narrative over and over and over. Journalism is not the courts, not done in the same way. And journalism involves confidential sources. It's critical. It's very important and it's very normal as long as you approach them with integrity and you maintain your honesty and integrity and can, you know, demonstrate your credibility over time.
136:31No, I don't [snorts] find it to be reliable at all. It's just a source.
136:34What you're doing is a cool story.
136:35You're giving us Hang on. You're giving us You're giving us a cool You're saying that according to your sources that the reason that the parents haven't recanted any of this >> recanted what they have no statement from the parents.
136:44>> Wait, I just want to make sure that I if it was the case that was being reported in mainstream media that your father came to you and said, "Hey, is this you?
136:49Is what's going on here?" And then he and one of his uh buddies took you in where you turned yourself in. You wouldn't go out and be like, "No, that's not what happened."
136:55>> That isn't what happened, though. You're just wrong on this.
136:57>> Okay.
136:57>> Yeah, he is just wrong on this. And it's another example where if you're familiar with the case, you know that the words he just said indicated that he didn't actually know the details of what the documents say, which documents say what about the dad and about what they knew, what the timeline of when those documents came out was, how the media extrapolated that to be a bunch of, you know, claims that were not actually supported by the document. We know that chronology of how that evolved. And he just skimmed over it in a way that made it pretty obvious that he uh does not have a very strong read on what actually
137:26happened there. make up your phrase. So what is your Sorry, just so I'm clear.
137:29>> And again, he flips it into a question when he doesn't actually have the detailed information so that he doesn't have to answer it and he can force her to tell him what he doesn't know.
137:36>> What where is your evidence that the parents turned him in?
137:39>> Oh, no, no, I didn't say that. You said media.
137:40>> I said with um a sheriff friend, but the father did confront him.
137:44>> The father confronted what?
137:45>> Tyler Robinson.
137:46>> And where did you learn this? That the >> I mean that's part of the official documents. Our fact checkers can pull that up. Yes.
137:50>> I'm saying but when you say official documents, do you mean you saw this on CNN or you saw this play out in the hearing?
137:53>> No, this was one of the things I went through fact check pre- debate. Are you talking about >> this part's amazing? Listen to those words he just said. No, this is one of those things that I I fact checked pre-debate.
138:03As in like it's from something that I read while I was kind of sloppily getting ready for this. But he doesn't even know what the document is. He has no idea. He's just like, I just read some [ __ ] on my way in here. You're not very good at prepping for debates if you don't know what the document that you got the information. You've got to remember the source of the information, too, bud to be good at debates. Um, but then Candace because she knows everything about the case because she lives it, she identifies his document for him and then proceeds to school him on his own [ __ ] document.
138:33>> Like the charging documents.
138:34>> I think it was in the It could have been in the charging documents, but I did.
138:36But I do we can't pull them up and and Yes. Are you disputing this? We have that in the back to pull it up.
138:40>> I can already tell you what you're talking about the charging documents because this is where we had to figure out where this story came from because everyone was operating on the assumption that Matt Robinson turned him in. until we got to the preliminary hearing and we understood like I said even for that when you are charging someone you can use hearsay it's all probitative right so they didn't have statements it's not like Matt Robinson even though he was interviewed that night Amber Robinson was interviewed that night by a fed separate rooms uh Tyler Robinson was interviewed by a fed they did not
138:59produce statements saying my son did this my son I believe my son did this um but what happened >> that is factually true [clears throat] >> was they did interviews but also the crucial person here who just brought up is Mike Mitchell Mike Mitchell is the biggest unknown in this entire case everyone keeps saying they heard from Mike Mitchell this they heard from Mike Mitchell that so when the person wrote up the report that night and it was Brian Davis who wrote up the what became the charging documents after they transported uh >> down to knowing who wrote the reports which becomes extremely important here
139:22because you learn that it is hearsay because it's a different person saying what they knew about a different exchange where he was told that the parents said some stuff so it's like hearsay of hearsay um and it's doesn't seem to be accurately reported >> Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's county office uh up to I think it's Salt Lake City I think it was 4:00 a.m. in the morning that got up there. He then writes the uh charging what becomes a charging document. So he's basically saying we all spoke to a bunch of people and here's the information that we got.
139:49Right? We've not seen that. So it could come from Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell could be saying >> I don't know how this negates the point though. Why would >> because you don't have a statement from the parent you are going >> why wouldn't they just correct they negate the point. The point is that >> and that's such a dumb question dude.
140:03What a dumbass dude.
140:09you if your son is on trial for murder, for aggravated murder, death penalties on the table. Your your lawyers are telling you to shut the [ __ ] up and stay inside.
140:23Do not talk to anyone. Don't say anything at all. Duh. They've got it.
140:29Trust them. That's the number one thing that you that everyone learns about the law. Shut up and ask for a lawyer. Do not go out into public and start [ __ ] making a bunch of statements. Duh.
140:41Because [ __ ] like you and your buddies will do everything you can to clip them and twist them, manipulate them, lie about them, and flip the narrative to get your son killed.
140:54>> We now have not the preliminary hearing.
140:55If the parents were the ones who said, "I'm turning my son in because he's guilty." This I think you're talking about the over. You said it's been the narrative. Everybody's known this. The narrative. He implied it until she uh until she called it out and then it was confronted him and and yeah, >> which I think you agree with was that you know Matt Robinson knew his kid was guilty and turned him into the police station. What actually happened in terms of Sheriff Brooksby who was present there and gave a press conference. What happened was this Mike Mitchell character uh essentially peer pressure
141:18him and we can get a fact check on this.
141:19We can find Sheriff Brooks's uh press conference and he said you know they they know it's you and you're going to come in uh peaceibly or people are going to be banging down your door. He was a undercover cop which I don't like that.
141:28I don't know what he did undercover.
141:29It's very hard to find anything about me, but he worked with them for 20 plus years as police officers. Uh the reason why Tyler Robinson, >> just notice her command of the information, of which Andrew has demonstrated zero up to this point. He just keeps asking her to demonstrate command of the information when he arrives at a crossroads where he could try to pin her on something if he knew the information.
141:47>> Knew him was because he lived nearby and he was also his voice.
141:49>> I just negate that the parents could write this second. And by the way, if you if you have the evidence point, I'm just saying that your your first point which is that the parents did this. We don't know the parents.
141:55>> I never I didn't say that they did ever.
141:57Well, you're you're quoting the parents as having said you said that Matt Robinson said that his kid was involved.
142:01I don't want to misquote you confronted him about confronted him and I'm telling you that we have not seen any evidence that that is true.
142:04>> We can fact check that. We do have evidence >> and I'm saying it's the charging dock which could have been derived from a statement Mike Mel.
142:08>> Two things I have written in the back.
142:09One is the charging dock and the other one is a video of Kathy Nester saying she hasn't seen Tyler's phone.
142:13>> Okay, we can. And furthermore, if [clears throat] during the intake process when they're bringing Tyler in, the police are interacting with Tyler's parents and Tyler's parents directly say to the police that they think their child did it. That goes into a report as direct evidence with a quote that does not just get passed up. That is a official statement to law enforcement.
142:37That's why when you get arrested for a crime, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law because statements to police officers are binding. And if you say it, it's done and it's recorded. And so if Tyler Robinson's parents had said that to a police officer, that evidence would be very much presentable in the preliminary hearing and it would have been the strongest evidence they would have had.
142:58And uh they didn't present that. They didn't have it apparently. Maybe they're holding on to it for some reason.
143:05Seems unlikely based upon my research.
143:08>> Kathy go back to Yeah. Kathy first in court saying she didn't get her client's phone. Yeah. And then I think we'll go to the thing not in dispute. These are all things that I'm not even disputing.
143:17We never get to the thing that I am disputing.
143:18>> Well, you were I was just providing an answer. We were coming back in from a break because you were talking about the text something that you felt was concrete. So, it was just my rebuttal to you that it's not concrete because they haven't had a chance to actually answer that and she didn't even get to see your client's phone. So, that's effectively again the state saying these messages are real. You don't get discovery on these messages. What she's pointing out is that it's a trust me bro. Just like Andrew did a trust me bro that I've got this text message from TPS USA but you can't see it. Just like Candace says I
143:39have anonymous sources.
143:41It's the same thing. This is the prosecution saying trust me bro. These text messages are real. But we have yet to show you any reason to believe that for sure.
143:51Now if you think the federal government and the police have more credibility than Candace or than Andrew, then you can you can believe that. That's fine.
143:59And then you can give more credibility to the things that the law enforcement says. And theoretically, that would be the world we live in. We want to live in that world. That is the goal. That's the point of police. Unfortunately, we don't entirely live in that world. And a lot of us don't trust the government. And so, that doesn't hold a whole lot of weight. Kind of like the mainstream media. We wish we could trust them, but we can't. And yeah, the government that literally the FBI that just finished covering up Epstein is still in active process of covering up Epstein. Sorry, bud. We don't trust them. And if you
144:27want to trust them, Andrew, [snorts] take it away.
144:32>> Yeah, she will during trial. They will actually >> That would make their case fall apart if it was the case that they weren't able to actually pull the data off the text messages. You think the prosecution would go to court with fabricated text messages?
144:40>> It's called It's called winners and losers. They may not be fabricated. But by the way, as as what they are saying, like I said, if there was somebody logged into his phone, they may not be fabricated. That's the point. So, let's get >> JFK went to court with a [ __ ] magic bullet, dude. JFK went to court with so I mean it didn't it didn't go to court but it got like litigated in the court of um congressional investigation opinion I guess um [snorts] >> the parents fact check I believe what you're talking about was derived from the charging dock which was signed off by Brian Davis uh let's see if that's
145:10correct >> what are we looking at >> mother explained uh that over the last year or so I'm sorry Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter.
145:24>> It's interesting that the document is titled 91625 information. PDF.
145:35Is that the original title of the document or is that is that Andrew's team pulling it and just putting it by the date it was published and writing its title as information because they didn't know to title it charging document. I'm going to hope that that's just the auto download title that it was given. In >> the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the shooter used matched the rifle that was given to his son as a gift. As a result, Robinson's father contacted his son and asked him to send a photo of the rifle, which makes sense with the text
146:01messages. Robinson [clears throat] did not respond. However, Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Robinson.
146:05Robinson.
146:06>> So, this is one of the better arguments to level against Candace or me or someone like that. Um, because it it's not uncompelling. It's it's this is a difficult point to square for someone in my shoes. Um, [snorts] and it's hard to know what is true and not true and what is sort of been fudged in the space between when they actually were speaking to Tyler's parents and then when it was described and put down into the report. Um, it's hard to tell.
146:38My perspective on it personally, not trying to speak for Candace at all, my perspective on it is that the wording in this segment feels dangerously vague in the sense that I want to know exactly what the dad said to imply those things. I want to know is the person writing this report the person that the dad was speaking to or is it sort of this amalgamation of conversations the police were all having of how like for example I'm just being hypothetical here but if they are in this process of taking Tyler in and his the parents are kind of mingling with the officers and they're sort of talking about what's going on if the dad makes
147:13some sort of comment during that of like well we saw on the news that it looked like my rifle that it looked like this heirloom rifle that can very quickly get extrapolated into what's in report that the dad saw this on the thing and and thought the thing. Also, my perspective and a version of Candace's perspective is that Tyler was wrapped up in something bad. Tyler, I believe, was wrapped up in a crime and I think he was a part of a conspiracy that he did not understand, that he was lied to about.
147:39That seems the most likely to me, um, as far as I can tell. And in that scenario, this actually add adds up that Tyler would be very reticent to tell his parents what was going on and that the dad would kind of confront him about it and that he would be kind of like that I can imagine that process being very very awkward and complicated to try to come out to your parents like to deal with this fact that you're [ __ ] with your parents. Um, and I could see these statements coming out of that and getting kind of misconstrued into this narrative because they're they're under the assumption that Tyler is the guilty
148:12party at this point. So they are reconstructing these statements to basically try to evidence that even though that might not have been the context in which the father and mother might have said these things at the actual moment. Um I don't know that's cuz that's really the best defense that I come up with off the top of my head. And to me that is more than enough to keep the door open but it's not convincing to say that there's zero chance that any of this ever happened or anything like that. Um and so um I think Andrew could have pushed on this a lot better. He planned to take his own life. Robinson's parents
148:43were able to convince him to meet at their home.
148:44>> Yes. So, this is proving my point. Is this this is from the charging document, correct? Yeah. So, what I'm saying to you is that three people got interviewed on that night. Mike Mitchell got interviewed, Amber Robinson got interviewed, and Matt Robinson got interviewed. Of the three of them, only one of them actually wrote a statement, which was referred to in this preliminary trial. He came in, I believe in March, Mike Mitchell, and he wrote a statement, which I find to be very shady that they Why aren't the parents disputing that?
149:02>> Well, first off, >> that's the question. Parents are not going to ever play in court, play to the cameras in court when they have a legal team that is going to be advising them not to speak to the court because you could your son go to prison.
149:10>> They're playing to somebody else who's your source.
149:12>> I I'm I I'm not going to address that.
149:14>> Somebody else who's your >> And there's a couple times in here um where Candace kind of clams up like this. And what this is is her protecting her source. And that's the right thing to do. It's the honorable thing to do.
149:24And there's anyone criticizing Candace for like not answering this part or like clamming up on this is a hypocrite because you're not a journalist. if you don't protect your sources. And her job is to protect your sources. And there's she can't say anything about it lest she imply a thing about who that source is because it could be someone in the direct family.
149:44It could be someone in the slightly extended family. It could be like the babysitter. It could it who knows? And so she's not going to touch it at all.
149:52>> But won't go publicly tell the media this is not true.
149:54>> Well, what I I did not say to you that I just said >> and yeah, that's exactly how it should be handled. Andrew, if if I was in the family of a situation like this, if I'm in Tyler Robinson's family, no, you're not [ __ ] going to the press and putting your own statement out there publicly, you're every lawyer in the world is telling you not to do that. And they're they're right.
150:15But I I personally would be heavily considering leaking some [ __ ] through quiet back channels to someone like Candace so that that story can get out there, even though we definitely don't want it to look like it's coming from me. Yeah, that makes perfect [ __ ] sense.
150:29>> I have a source, so I want to be very clear.
150:30>> That being said, that source is probably still biased. I mean, it's in the family of Tyler Robinson, so you still have to take their bias into account as well. All that stuff, you have to vet it >> and take it from somebody who was involved and permanently sued. Uh, when I have to take my lawyer's advice, and there's so many things I want to respond to when people are speaking about that they would utilize a source, which would get the information to you, but wouldn't just go to the media be like, "Actually, that's all wrong."
150:51>> That's not weird at all. That's very logical. As I just explained, >> I I am telling you that if you would nar find a lawyer who would advise you to go to the media, >> especially when your son was up for death, >> if I thought that my kid, >> this is the appeal to emotion part that is just sorry, bro, falls on deaf ears >> was in any way, shape, or form going to be, you couldn't shut me up. Or >> I think right now in the back of Andrew's mind, he thinks he's appealing to the wine moms, so to speak. That's what they call them. Um, you know, the Candace Owens fans. What he does not realize is that he's not winning over a
151:20single woman ever in under in any context, let alone in this debate. So, not a worthwhile strategy. You're wasting your breath.
151:26>> The wife, she would be like, "That's not true. That's ridiculous. There's no possible that never happened. These people are lying to their teeth. They they'd be public whether you like it or not."
151:33>> Candace held back on so many great Rachel Wilson insults during the segment where there's just a million jokes to be made about how Yeah, we know Rachel Rachel can't keep her her [ __ ] mouth shut out of your business at all. She's always in your I mean she was trying to help you have the debate for the whole week leading into the debate. [laughter] >> Yeah. I that's for you and your wife.
151:53But when a judge issues a gag order in a case and your son is up for death and your lawyers could be advising you, but if you say anything, you could blow the case. You would have a more responsible consideration. I see. And and we're and we're speaking opinion here. You're like, well, I wouldn't care. I violated it and I violated judge's orders and >> you have a source. It seems like violating it with them.
152:06>> Well, I didn't I'm not speaking to a source, but what I'm saying to you is speaking just relevant to what this is.
152:10We have not seen any proof that that statement that is included in this charging document. I think it is highly likely on the basis of the preliminary hearing but that all came from Mike Mitchell and Mike Mitchell would be a part of the statements of >> it's him saying the parents told me >> and [snorts] again Andrew doesn't know anything about this whole timeline of which statements were taken by who when that night he doesn't know any of that so he has no capability to even drill into this claim Candace has him checkmated here because she actually knows whose statements were and and he like Andrew Wilson doesn't know [ __ ]
152:38about Mike Mitchell so she he really can't even approach this point unfortunately >> there's the parents who dispute that that's going to come down the line right they're going to be able see the parents. I I will say this, putting together context clues, if the state had it on, you know, 100% certainty that Matt Robinson and Amber Robinson said it, a 5-day preliminary hearing would be a good time to say we have enough evidence, and I can tell you why Matt Robinson uh made the statement and here is his statement that he signed. That would have been a good time to present that evidence.
152:58>> That would also be a good time for the defense to say that's totally fine.
153:00>> The wrong time. That is completely the wrong time because >> she's exactly right. Preliminary hearing is the wrong time to argue the merits of the evidence.
153:09>> What they're doing is they already said they didn't receive discovery. They literally can't. They literally can't.
153:12They can't. They did not. saying they didn't receive that information.
153:14>> No, no, they just received the text message.
153:15>> They would certainly try to lodge their um objections based upon whether it's permissible, the fact that it's hearsay, um the fact that it's unreliable. They would try to attach uh disqualifiers to it based upon itself, but they would not be trying to introduce their own narrative and and evidence and witnesses to try to discredit it. Now, that's not what they would be doing.
153:34>> Yes. But >> that's not the text messages, >> the probative information.
153:37>> Yeah, we're talking about the information that we just reviewed.
153:38That's not the text message.
153:39>> They never presented it. They never never put it on.
153:40>> Yeah, they didn't. The defense could easily still still have presented this.
153:43Yeah, they could have said there >> this is a fundamental misunderstanding.
153:46Like he is right now just completely showing us all that he doesn't know what preliminary hearings are and how they work. Um the defense does not ever present evidence in preliminary hearings. Look it up for yourself.
153:57That's not how they work. That's not what they're for. There's this very limited sliver of times when such a thing would happen. And this is not the type of evidence that you would bring in such a situation.
154:07>> No. No. In a preliminary hearing, the the defense is engaging with whatever evidence the state decides to put on.
154:12They did not put this on as evidence.
154:14Brian Davis was up there. Uh >> so they're not allowed to present anything.
154:17>> They're responding to the state.
154:17>> I'm asking, are they allowed to present anything?
154:19>> They are allowed to say there was a conspiracy that they could prove right then and there. Would they present that in one of these hearings?
154:22>> No. It wouldn't be the right time.
154:23>> I disagree. I think they not only could do it, but they would do it. In fact, >> yeah, Andrew, you're just walking down a road of exposing that you don't understand the legal process here. And all the lawyers speaking on this are telling you directly that preliminary hearings are not for the defense presenting evidence and you can look it up yourself. You can ask AI. You'll get the same answer pretty much everywhere.
154:44Um preliminary hearing the prosecution presents their arguments and the defense just addresses the evidence that they're presenting and lodges their objections.
154:52The the only exception, as far as I'm aware, comes if the defense has like an ironclad, unquestionable alibi kind of a thing where it's like this case cannot proceed because this completely objective fact clears it or shows that this is all [ __ ] or the evidence they're bringing is completely fabricated and it's this easy to show.
155:14Those sorts of things where it's because the judge can't weigh evidence against evidence. He can only weigh that evidence exists. So, we will go to trial and if the defense can prove that no evidence exists, then you won't go to trial. Um, but yeah, what Andrew is talking about is just purely his his madeup story about what's going on here.
155:31>> And I talked in depth with my attorney.
155:33They said that's exactly if you had actual evidence that there was fabrications by the feds, that's exactly when he would introduce that.
155:38>> So, he's either twisting it or he's misunderstanding his attorney because if what he's describing there is if you had evidence of a fabrication that was ultra as in like indisputable clear. Yeah, maybe. Um, maybe. But it says directly in the code um that Baron walked everybody through the other night, very directly, that the judge cannot weigh two batches of evidence that are conflicting. If the defense presents evidence that something is fabricated and the prosecution presents evidence that it's not, the judge is not there during this process to say one or the other. He's just there to say there is
156:08evidence worth disputing in a trial later. So if his if his lawyer really did say that and was not being [ __ ] I presume that the lawyer was sort of saying that truly unquestionable exculpatory alibi type evidence might be brought >> in the document that they filed yesterday or a couple of days ago. The appropriate like what you're doing at this stage of the hearing is the state is saying we have enough evidence that we think this needs to go forth to trial. Hence the reason that there's this extraordinary we allow hearsay because it doesn't really need to be perfect. It can be enough that we feel
156:36like we can move forward, right? Um, and okay, I disagree with that. In general, when somebody's running in prison, but whatever. Uh, the next phase is for them to meet in court and for the defense to essentially present an argument to the state that says, "We find this filing to be defective in of itself. We don't even have to defend ourselves because you, the state, have enough. You know what the laws are on the books and this filing is defective and you should get rid of these charges because they don't make sense based on what you can decide based on the law on the books." So, that's why they then file the dismissal,
156:59right? So, in the dismissal, what they're doing is they're engaging and this is what was widely misinterpreted.
157:02>> Oh, yeah. They're engaging as though as as it's a hypothetical. If this is hypothetically true, then they're saying all of I'm not disputing any of that.
157:07So, you're saying no. What I'm asking specifically is like who could shut parents up who are like, "No way.
157:12There's no possible this never happened.
157:14This is ridiculous." They would be shouting it on CNN. They would be shouting it from the rooftops. They would be losing their minds. And you're like, "Nope, the gag order would be enough to to keep them quiet. Not enough for them to talk to your source, but enough to keep them quiet." I think that that's quite ridiculous. But I'll even concede this whole point to you. Let's just say maybe this was misconstrued, right? There's um there's a little bit of reason to doubt it because we're still waiting for the evidence for trial. If that's the case, then why not take the same standard for the evidence
157:32that you present? You're just waiting for trial.
157:33>> Well, you didn't do that.
157:36I mean, he kind of fumbled that one.
157:38It's a strong point to be made, and if I were him, I would have made it in the f in the framing of something more like um the defense or the the prosecution is saying that the parents said this. And so to me, when I see that, I think it's, you know, over I think that's overwhelming evidence because I think it would be so stupid of them to present that as a fact that they have and then when they get to trial, they can't present it because it's not real. that would be so dumb of them that to me it seems more likely that they did say those things because otherwise that's so dumb. Um that's probably a much stronger
158:11argument than than like but how could you shut the mother up? Like is the mother a [ __ ] >> I just I just want to make sure that I got the >> to be clear according to Andrew she is.
158:20>> That's right. That's your argument to me. Right.
158:22>> My argument was >> my argument your argument to me is that hey wait a second Andrew there's not enough here that convinces me. Right.
158:28Right. Well, that's actually my rebuttal to you is that you are saying why are people engaging in what you term to be conspiracy theories. I I I term it to be thinking. They're just thinking because they're recognizing there are a lot of holes in these stories and that this is not strong evidence, right? This is the reason they're doing it. I'm explaining to you this is the reason that they're doing it. I'm addressing what you view to be overwhelming evidence. And by the way, I want to be clear >> that what Yeah. Well, but thus far doesn't every point that you've brought up, would you did you feel like this is
158:51beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, you realize what I said going to be >> it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just what I find convincing is what I find overwhelming.
158:57>> So why are you so upset when people say they don't find it?
158:59>> If that was the limitation of the claims that you made. If it was just, wait a second, there's a little bit of problems. There's some problems in this case that I have questions for that I want answers to. Nobody would have a problem. Actually, at least of all me, I would be the least likely person to have an issue.
159:10>> This is such a disingenuous and stupid point for him to try to make here >> with you, any of your fans, anybody saying. In fact, I've had tons of Discord calls about this. My position's always been clear. Of course, conspiracies exist. Some of them have way better evidence than others. But I >> That was a weird sentence that he just said. He says, "I have had a tons of Discord calls about this." What does that mean?
159:29>> The least likely person to have an issue with you, any of your fans, anybody saying, In fact, I've had tons of Discord calls about this.
159:36>> What is he implying that like he standardly uses Discord to talk to his friends and in talking with his friends about the case and what they believe about it, they've discussed this aspect of it?
159:53or are we talking about like prepping narratives and getting your talking points straight and stuff like that? My position's always been clear.
160:02Of course, conspiracies exist. Some of them have way better evidence than others, but I've seen them myself. I know conspiracies. In fact, the federal government has hundreds of thousands of laws about conspiracies. They see them everywhere. We both know this, right?
160:12That's never the what the problem is.
160:13The problem is when you make claims outside of, well, wait a second. I'm just questioning evidence here. I'm just questioning. So he doesn't know how conspiracies work and he has no what? So you're a horrible conspiracy theorist and you know jack [ __ ] about any of them. As we described earlier, pretty much any conspiracy worth talking about is perpetrated by a large powerful government, usually government based organization and it is always attempted to be kept secret, covered up. And the nature of what that leaves for us to investigate is a very difficult picture to put together. Usually conspiracy
160:50theories are such because they are a cover up and we have very limited slivers of information start usually based on this doesn't add up. This is not possible. Building 7 couldn't have collapsed like that. Not possible.
161:02Where's the plane? Why was the CIA covering for these hijackers? Why the f are these Israelis here filming it in advance? Those sorts of things that are just like literally not possible based upon the given narrative. So you go looking for other explanations and you start investigating and that's how conspiracy theories happen. Okay, so not only does Andrew pretend like conspiracy theorists are not supposed to theorize, you [ __ ] but he's also pretending like conspiracies don't come from the gaps. That's where they come from. They come from being presented an official narrative about a crime, often
161:37a large big event like a huge political assassination or, you know, a kid on a roof shooting at Trump's ear miss magically or JFK's magic bullet or 9/11 in the Twin Towers. All of those things are only identified by the holes in the story that don't make sense because it was the point was for it to be covered up to be undiscoverable. That's the nature of an intelligence agency operation. but he doesn't seem to understand any of that or pretends like it's not real because it doesn't help him. It doesn't it's not good for his narrative.
162:06>> What the state's case is here. I'm just asking questions. It's when you make claims outside of that where you claim that there's good evidence or good standards you should believe because and then it turns out that it's all nonsense or it's wackadoo stuff or or it's real sources that she shares. It's text messages that she shares. It's actual evidence that she presents.
162:25high resolution photos that no one's disputing that are real that she present like so let's just straw man again the straw man >> it it makes no sense and when we have a chance to cross-examine your evidence that you presented I'm going to show a lot of that a lot of this conjecture that's based on >> he doesn't do any of that none of that happens later >> literally nothing that leads from no inferences whatsoever like you couldn't even infer it logically that >> yeah we can you're just not smart enough to use your logic to make basic inferences that three-year-olds can make like what I was saying earlier about
162:53footprints the one on top obviously ly logically came second like as in the top most footprint is recent. The one underneath it not recent. Very easy logical inference for anyone except for Andrew Wilson to make.
163:05>> It's the problem. The problem has never been whether or not >> I I've got it. Andrew. Andrew. Andrew.
163:09I've just remembered I figured it out.
163:10Here's the analogy that you needed.
163:12Andrew. If I put out my cigarette in the ashtray and then I put out more cigarettes in the ashtray and more cigarettes in the ashtray and your ashtray sure just overflows all the time. Once your ashtray becomes this heaping pile of dead cigarettes, um probably the cigarette on top is more recent than the cigarette in the bottom of the pile.
163:35Right?
163:37Logical. That is how you deduce the fact that the most degraded prints probably aren't the most recent.
163:46There, now I'm sure it makes sense to you, Andrew.
163:48>> You just said, you know, there's not enough in this case so far until we get to the trial. I remain unconvinced. I'm sure there's tons of people who remain unconvinced yet until we get to the trial. I think that's fine. I think it's fine. There's people who are convinced, too. That's never been my problem. My problem is the claims which are external to that.
164:00>> Okay.
164:02>> Why would that be a problem? Is it a problem that I say that 911 was controlled demolition? Because when you look at building 7 collapsing, there's no other possible explanation.
164:13Is that morally reprehensible for me to say, Andrew?
164:18Was it a problem for years when myself and many others like me were saying that Jeffrey Epstein worked for Israel?
164:25Even though we didn't technically have hard proof at the time, we had a lot of little circumstantial evidence that anyone doing the research could put it together. Is that morally reprehensible to say or is that just the nature of using your brain?
164:41Right? It's morally. It's so evil that I had to pay $300,000 to come here and try to publicly debunk you to control the narrative to get this [ __ ] under control.
164:49>> Um I'm not sure I really care if you have a problem with what I think in my own spare time. I I don't understand this like lecture that you just gave. Um but beyond that, what I'm saying is that the state is allowed to use this is what my problem is. You guys are not Yeah, you guys think while it's still illegal, you actually you can you are allowed to do that. So um but anyway, going back going back to you saying I wouldn't have >> such a power move honestly. I mean, it's not exactly like good faith debate, but like we're long past Andrew presenting that way either. Um, it's pretty clear what's going on by now. It's gonna get
165:15way more clear once it flips here in a second. Um, but she's just such a power move to be like, "No, I don't have to answer that. That's a stupid [ __ ] question. We're allowed to think it's America next." Because she just then controls the debate and he just looks like there's so many times where he looks emasculated and it just gets worse and worse and worse leading into the very end.
165:34>> Have a problem. I think I just demonstrated pretty thoroughly that what you claim that you have a problem with is exactly what the state is engaged in at this stage. So it doesn't make it just doesn't make sense.
165:41>> That's not the case. In fact, >> so people can they say the gun and I see and I'm inferring this and someone else says I'm looking at the gun evidence and I'm inferring that. They're both doing the exact same thing. You're just saying I want to do it for the state.
165:50>> That's propositionally false. Explain exactly how it is the case that every proposition is going to have a true or false conclusion. Period. That's just logic, right? It's the law of excluded middle. All propositions are going to be true or they're going to be false. When we get into when we're making inferences, we're making inferences based on on propositions. We can make we >> kind of true. Propositions can be partly true and partly false.
166:12But let's not >> come to true conclusions with false uh premises inside of a proposition. In fact, what we're talking about here is not whether >> Okay, so we literally not you feel that you're convinced by this evidence, >> but you felt like you were convinced, >> right? Sure. But here's the thing. When you ask me my reason, Andrew, why are you convinced by this? I can give you my reasons why I'm convinced by it. Why it seems reasonable and rational to me to be convinced. You could even say, but Andrew, I'm just not convinced by it. If that was the limitation of your claims, we wouldn't even be having this
166:34conversation. That's why I wanted to have the conversation, in fact, was so that we could move into your actual claims that you've made, which transcend the idea of I'm just asking questions.
166:42>> Before we get into that, your team has one thing they want to show before you go into that. So, if you want to pull that up, this >> that didn't that did not make any sense.
166:47Um, I think it was just a rephrasing of the same nonsense argument >> that his morality dictates what what speculation you are and are not allowed to do. says the prosecution filing showing defense had full discovery by April 1st.
167:03>> They did not. That's not true.
167:04>> Wait a second. Yeah.
167:05>> To date, the state's prose. So Andrew, knowing nothing about the case, is like, "Wait a second. Did I just get a win?"
167:12Because he doesn't actually know what evidence is on the screen. He doesn't know if he won or not. He's just been told he won. So he's like, "Oh, goody.
167:19Something for me to read." Candace immediately is like, "That's not true. I know the case and I know the evidence and I'm about to debunk whatever you put on the screen." So watch, watch how how Andrew Wilson acquaints himself with what is apparently proving him correct, though he doesn't know anything about it.
167:33>> Have disclosed all evidence that is presently and reasonably available to them as required under rule 16 Utah or criminal to be more precise as of April 1st.
167:39>> Yeah, that was that was not that was not 100%. That's why that they're caging that by saying what's reasonable. There was I mean there was entire and we can pull.
167:45>> So there's one point what's reasonable >> this up like we should now play the Cathy Nester clip because that that's from there. So they were basically saying you don't need it at this stage.
167:52Meaning it's reason it's not reasonable that you're asking for this when we're going into So Andrew's team tried to fact check by bringing a document that if you're uninitiated into the case looks like a good fact check because they don't know the context. Andrew Wilson gets all excited because he doesn't know the context either. Reads it out as though it's a win. And then Candace explains the context to them which is obvious and you would know if you had been following all along and it falls right out from underneath them.
168:17>> A hearing that's just going to be based on hearsay and stuff things of that nature but of course by the time a trial comes you're going to get all this cause. Yes. But that's what they're saying.
168:22>> Yeah, I understand. Okay, so that's >> Yeah, I understand. Except that I just thought 5 seconds ago that that was a total win for me, but whatever. Now we'll ignore it and pretend it didn't happen.
168:29>> I'm even fine with that.
168:30>> Yeah, we all we all know. And then, by the way, just now that the hearing is over, and you can also fact check this, they now at the at the end of the preliminary hearing dropped like an insane amount of the discovery stuff they gave to them like the week after.
168:39You guys can give me the exact amount I don't want to say cuz I don't know my uh um I don't remember how much was it, but the certain amount of stuff they gave them right after the preliminary hearing that they've been asking for because that was one of the things that I kept saying on my show is as we were watching that preliminary of the preliminary, why not just give them the stuff now? So they can engage in these arguments. I feel like you it's like I want to hear what they have to say about the technology. Why can't you just give them what they're asking for so that they can actually engage you? And uh it didn't
168:56happen. So, but the judge ruled that it wasn't necessary at this stage and that was the whole point of that uh because the free.
169:01>> Yeah. Would you like to play the Kathy video?
169:03>> Uh well, he's saying he's disagreeing.
169:04So, I don't think we need >> Yeah, there's no disagreement that that she said that.
169:06>> So, the Yeah. So, I guess the disagreements now would move into the evidences that you have stated on the record which transcend elements of reason. So, I just want to point out there, for example, like right there, Andrew got totally owned and Candace didn't make a big show of it, and Andrew tried to move on from it pretty quick and pretend like he didn't, but we just saw how Andrew and his team had no idea what fact check they were presenting.
169:27And the fact check just totally bottomed out because Candace knew their fact check better than them and explained it to them so that they could realize, "Oh, [ __ ] that's not a fact check at all."
169:36And then Andrew didn't want to show the Kathy Nester clip that disproves what the point he was just trying to make because it's not really relevant because Andrew doesn't dispute it because he didn't know [ __ ] all about what they were trying to say. And so that entire point that he was trying to make just got completely pieced apart and then we just move on to the next. Not pretending like we didn't just notice that Andrew Wilson just totally owned himself. Him and his team just owned themselves.
170:00>> Why are we having a transcendental conversation now? Because I mean because your your entire thing was about looking at the evidence which never made sense to me again because all of the evidence that you felt to be overwhelming was hearsay. That was bizarre to me.
170:10>> You told me that I could take as much time as I wanted to question.
170:12>> Just asking you just to lay the groundwork of what you're saying many.
170:16And I do still want to hold you for going through because we discussed the gun. We discussed your uh you can hold me to those things but I would like to get into things. So I'll explain exactly what the ground work is. When you make claims which pass the idea of I'm just asking questions because the state's evidence is not convincing. I think you have to answer for those claims because they are in regards to this case. You're saying I have a claim. is in regards to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is what we're talking about, not just the case of Charlie Kirk, his assassination, you should have to answer
170:36the claims you've made in regards to the assassination itself. You should Yeah, agreed. So, if that's the case, then I would I would like to finally dive into some of that evor Andrew Wilson making the case for why the Fed stuff is so convincing.
170:57Try to ignore the fact that very little was actually discussed. very little evidence was actually he didn't make any comprehensive case. He just kind of vaguely alluded to like the text messages that they shared, the things the feds shared. I just generally think that they're convincing and then Candace picked at them as much as possible and Andrew defended as much as he could. But no, there was no real narrative presented. He didn't walk through any evidence. He didn't like chop things up.
171:19He didn't add anything at all. Um so I I don't know if you're convinced by his that's the basically the totality of Andrew Wilson's argument for why his case is correct. Um, we're about to move into Candace's side where he's trying to interrogate her side, which is not very successful either. But in the middle here, at this point, at this assertion that Candace has to answer for all the things that she said on her show, you know, I actually kind of I reject that. I that's not actually true. And um it's not too hard to realize that that's not true if you really think about it for a second. Candace doesn't have to answer
171:55for [ __ ] I don't have to answer for [ __ ] that I say on my show. does not matter. I am not legally bound um like aside from like defamation law and like I don't know copyright law, things like that. But like in the vast center of all the rest of the you know free speech that I've got, I can say anything I [ __ ] want on here and if I say something that's not true like like I don't know um I love Andrew Wilson.
172:18Doesn't matter. I can lie on my show if I want to. I can talk [ __ ] on my show. I can make things up on my show. I can be a comedian if I wanted to be. My whole show could be jokes. totally fine.
172:28That's my choice. Whatever.
172:30The question is, what does your audience think of it? Because your audience is coming there to watch you. And so, if you're presenting things as though it's truth on your show and you're wrong all the time, your audience is going to notice. And over time, they're going to go somewhere else. Unless they want the untruth, if you're a comedian and you actually make satire on pro on purpose, maybe they're literally coming to you for untruths. Satire. It just has to do with what your audience wants from you and what you present to them and if you're giving them what they want. And if you're not presenting your stuff as
172:59facts, then they're not coming to you for facts. They're coming to you for entertainment. But if they're coming to you for information and and facts and you're giving them that, but you're proven to be wrong all the time, then you're going to lose your audience. And if you're proven to be right all the time, you're going to keep your audience, especially if you're compelling. And Candace is that. She's compelling and she's right very often.
173:17And uh a lot of people love her [ __ ] So she's like the biggest podcast in the world. Deal with it, Andrew. and and she does not need to answer for any of that if she doesn't want to. Doesn't matter.
173:26Doesn't matter what you think. Doesn't matter what Erica Kirk thinks. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks. If Candace wants to make wild claims on her show and then just not ever debate it, that's fine. If her audience doesn't care and they stay with her, that's fine. She can do that. It's not the most journalistic in like not a lot of journalistic integrity in that. It's not the best look in the information space. And over time it would reflect poorly on her.
173:46Sure. But no, she's not she's not required to do any of that. She doesn't have to support her [ __ ] or defend it if she doesn't want to. If she wants to make a TV show that is entirely just her talking vibes with no evidence whatsoever, she's allowed to do that. It does not matter at all.
174:02Sorry.
174:03It just it is what it is. I mean, go watch Brandon Tatum. Every single night is just a giant rambling of just madeup [ __ ] that comes out of his head with zero backing for the most part. It's like lots of people run shows that have zero factual backing that don't share the sources that are just opinions and narrative and they present it as though it's news. That happens all the time with a lot of the buddies that you know are directly on Andrew Wilson's team.
174:26So, it's actually no, that's a false premise, Andrew. That's [ __ ] Um, no one no one cares about your cross examination, your interrogation, and it's not required. And Candace chose to do it because she's [ __ ] sick of this and because she [clears throat] correctly identified you as soft target to get everyone to shut the [ __ ] up and go away and because you were stupidly offering her $300,000 that she was like uh sure [ __ ] and dive into it.
174:49>> Well, just to be clear and I'm happy to have you talk about like I said publicly you want to engage in some conspiracies but I said I want to make sure that we get the substance of our debate. the substance debate is demonstrating that all of the quote unquote evidence that you feel that you have which demonstrates that Tyler Robinson I mean that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk >> you don't find convincing >> it's well it's been invalidated by the by the testimony that we saw and in your answer for when I had postgraded prince was I don't know okay well there then there lies my ability to process that
175:11>> it's just fine for you to not be convinced up to this point all of your viewers everybody watching nobody's giving nobody's giving a dispute that if all your claims ever were were just up to now the evidence that the state's given I'm just kind of not convinced that is not what's happening. What's actually been happening is that >> that is not what's been happening.
175:30I'm a patronizing piece of [ __ ] is the vibe.
175:34Um, no, [clears throat] actually it doesn't matter at all. Um, she can make as many claims as she wants. She can speculate.
175:39Does not matter. She can do any of that.
175:41Doesn't matter. It's her platform. It's her speech. Deal with it. This is America. Um, but beyond that, Candace actually is pretty careful with her words. And over time, most of the uh things that she asserts as fact are mostly about evidence that she intends to share or you know, statements that were made to her in private by sources or things like that. The theories that she's profering are almost always, not always, but almost always provided as theories as I suspect or it could be or maybe we should look into or I have questions about.
176:14You've made tons of claims uh in regards to this case and in regards to the Kirk assassination which are far above and beyond. I just doubt the state's theory.
176:22>> Okay. Yeah. I mean, sure the state's theory. I also am welcome to say what I think, you know, if you want to move into opinions, if you want to talk about Erica Kirk, if you want to talk about >> And this is the start of Candace's real control over the conversation because of this really poor framing of I am the the morality police and I get to tell you what you aren't aren't allowed to propose as alternative theories.
176:45Otherwise, you're evil. Which is just a very inconsistent thing for someone like Andrew Wilson to say >> point USA and get into it. I'm totally happy to do that. But I just want to say that like I do not feel cuz I said what's important to me is that we exhaust this topic first of our actual debate claims. I do not feel that you sufficiently have argued that the evidence is overwhelming.
177:03>> So she's pointing out that if we're about to move on from you making your case, I just want to make sure that you've made the whole case you want to make. And you can tell that Candace is not super committed to this debate in the sense that she doesn't really the the burden of of uh of proof is not really on her in the sense that her audience is so much bigger.
177:21Her level of uh implicit trust so much higher that she you can tell that she doesn't really care to prove him wrong.
177:30She just cares to get this over with and and just like what whatever. If she wanted to, she could have chosen to press him more on his beliefs right here. But instead, she's just sort of opening the door of like, "You really think you've made your case well enough to move on right now? Have you gotten $300,000 worth of making your case by now? Because it does not feel like it, and I want to make sure you got your time to make your case." And she just and he doesn't realize that at all. It doesn't seem He's just like, "No." Cuz what he really came here to do was not to make his case because he doesn't know
178:01[ __ ] about the case. What he came here to do was to play a bunch of out of context clips as though they were gotas from Candace's whole history archive of videos, which we all knew that was the point. We all knew that was his strategy going in. And uh yeah, yeah, it's no surprise.
178:15>> Question for you. I am sorry you feel that way.
178:17>> Candace, one question. What what evidence do you need to see for you to say Tyler Robinson killed Charlie?
178:21>> That's a great question. Um so I actually expect in the preliminary hearing actually the almost the inverse of what he was saying is true, right? So the this is now the time the state is putting on that's the purpose of this hearing, right? state is losing here.
178:31Say, they're also putting other evidence. So, I was expecting some sort of a slam dunk. Like, we got him on camera taking the shot.
178:35>> Yeah. I was expecting I was expecting to be proven wrong about basically everything during the pre preliminary hearing. And it if it was a clean cut case with overwhelming evidence, it would have been so [ __ ] easy to prove every conspiracy wrong. So easy. There's like, oh my gosh, it's just like any number of little details and you could easily just like cut off an entire wing of the conspiracy landscape because it's no longer possible. And we got none of that.
179:02>> We at least we have them clear on camera. You tell me this guy drove 13 hours all around. Like we can definitely show you a picture that it's going to be beyond a reasonable doubt before we even get to the trial. People are going to see and go, "Oh crap," like it was really Tyler Robinson. Um I was expecting to at least see evidence that cuz I had reported early on that uh the source was saying that Tyler did not step foot on campus that day. It is my perspective that he had something to do with something. I do believe he was putting like disposing clothes at this stage. At this phase, I do believe he
179:22was disposing clothes. He was involved somehow. Um I I find Lance to be more uh suspicious if I'm being honest with you.
179:27Uh, and also like I said, the use immunity that was given to Lance by the feds, the fact that the feds didn't ask him any questions, the fact that I spoke with Lance Twigs's family, and they were like, "It's very weird that the feds are not asking him more questions. He's exactly the person um that I would imagine to be involved in some stuff."
179:39Allegedly, I'll say allegedly. Uh, but uh when we got to the preliminary hearing, there was no there was not a single piece of evidence that I felt was slam dunk. I was waiting for that. A photo. I mean, anything would have made me go, "All right, I think this this could be the guy. Uh, if they had handed over the discovery on the text message since that was their big ta, we've got the text messages, that would be the first thing I would hand over." But actually, who was holding them up? Like I said, it wasn't the prosecution.
179:55They're right to say we we were handing things over and we heard the defense argue on behalf of the prosecution saying it's not them and it's not the FBI, it's the FBI that's holding on to things. It's the FBI took everything.
180:03The FBI took the gun. The FBI took initially the screwdriver. And then when I heard testimony about the things that they didn't that they found that were suspicious. Um example being the backpack. That's something that really bothers me. Uh that they say they traced the shooter. They traced the route that he went on and then there was an abandoned we know it looks like he's wearing some sort of backpack. We know that there was an abandoned backpack found at the bus stop in front of a library and they felt that this should be taken evidence. They took it. uh the FBI. Uh this was the testimony of Amanda
180:25Baker, I believe her last name is, but you might want to backtrack that because I think I'm blending last names. Uh she so she was the forensics for the FBI.
180:30And then she says she gets a call on the 13th and they stop testing on this backpack because they find that the backpack actually belongs to somebody on Charlie's team. But if you know the map of the layout of the campus, you're going, "Well, what the hell are they doing all the way up? This is nowhere near anywhere." And by the way, that's not an acceptable answer for why you just gave it back. That's not like why would you give it back? You're acting like no one's ever been killed by somebody on their team before, right?
180:47Right. So, I found that to be very strange that it was on the exact route that that the alleged gunman ran and that their excuse was we just gave it back because we heard that this was some this belonged to somebody on Charlie's team. So, that to me is this is why the the investigation itself feels underwhelming when you learn and this is completely crazy to me that the some of the artifacts that Charlie was wearing were immediately returned to Erica.
181:06That's absurd. That is absurd.
181:07Everything should be in evidence. When you learn that the car that they carried Charlie in to go to the hospital, they had immediately towed, cleaned, and back up for resale. That's absurd. That should be seen in evidence. And any police officer that you speak to will say or person that's been involved in a crime will say, "I didn't get my stuff."
181:19>> Notice how Andrew Wilson hasn't interrupted at all during this whole time because [clears throat] he doesn't know [ __ ] about any of this evidence and he doesn't have any good talking points on any of it. I would assume I I don't think it's because he's being polite. I think that if he thought he knew this evidence well and wanted to dispute it, which theoretically he would if he thought it was overwhelmingly in his favor, I think we would probably have some interruptions here >> back for years that had nothing to do with anything just around and I and they kept it into evidence until the trial
181:44was over and it has to be approved. I think somebody said by the attorney general has to sign off on giving me those objects back and we were told this is all fine and we see and this is just one example Erica holding the uh crucifix uh that's that should be an evidence irrespective if you feel bad for her think she should have you know hold have it and it's sweet that should be an evidence uh immediately paving over the crime scene is this like the craziest thing ever is defies you immediately and when you heard the guy who did actually go up on a podcast and explain I got the call they said it was
182:07a paper emergency I don't I've never in my entire career heard of a paper emergency they had already had someone come up and dig up the dirt so by the time he got there on Sunday, the dirt had >> So, just to be clear, Candace has been ranting for like three or three minutes now or something like that, maybe more.
182:21Um, and it's been this rapid fire of things that don't add up and it's it's been several and maybe like five or six or seven or eight points kind of strung together and any one of them is wildly suspicious and uh hugely problematic that needs an explanation if you're going to be like it's all good fed slop narrative. Um, this is the most informative segment about the case, I think, in the entire debate because Candace is speaking uninterrupted because she actually knows about the case and is kind of on a roll of describing things that she thinks are weird about the case. Um, it's pretty much the only segment where we're
182:58actually going to get a substantive uh string of things that actually add up to one of their theories. Um, but I just want to point out that any and all of those are big problems.
183:14Big problems. And when you actually slow down and pick apart the paving over the crime scene, when you actually pick apart the car not going into evidence and being immediately gotten rid of, when you pick apart the necklace and the shirt, I mean the necklace going to Erica and the phone going to Erica and the shirt being MIA. Those sorts of things. When you really pick those apart, when you then go for expert opinions, when you do your research, when you actually devote a lot of time to this case, like Candace has, like a lot of us have, every one of those points she just made becomes damn near
183:47disqualifying for the mainstream theory.
183:49There's no way to explain getting rid of this vehicle that Charlie's body was transported in without a trace with no documentation of it, with no like proper just like uh collection of that evidence and no like comprehension of why this car is in this state. What are these things in the car? Like that's a crime scene. That's where the body was when he died basically. Like that's a part of the murder because he wasn't pronounced dead until he got to the hospital. So everywhere that his body was before the hospital is crime scene and they just get rid of that car. That doesn't square that that does not square in a normal
184:23murder investigation and you need an explanation for that. And if you don't get one I ain't [ __ ] voting to convict if I'm on the jury. [snorts] So she just rapid fired through all sorts of things that Andrew Wilson should be able to dispute.
184:38[snorts] We just didn't get the dispute.
184:40>> Already been done up for him to lay down papa. That is what people are looking at and going this is weird. There needs to be answers for why this was done. And he tells us the call came from the feds and the governor's office. UVUs washed their hands a bit and what he's saying sounds true because we heard during the testimony uh one person described the regions of who was in control of everything. The feds were in control of the courtyard. So in order for anybody to have paid anything, that was federal territory, so to speak, maybe not using the best cop term, but the feds were in control of the courtyard. So these are
185:02things that I think should be answered for. Why why are we doing things differently than you would in any other criminal scenario of keeping the evidence until we know more, until we're confident? Uh you know, the various decoys. I did it. I did it. It just doesn't look right. Okay. So, go back to the question. So, what would you need to see for you to say >> something if they had I was expecting here we have him. He took a shot.
185:31Um, if you have not seen this conversation on Julian Dory's podcast between Baron Coleman and uh JSM, Joseph Scott Morton, I'm pretty sure is his name.
185:42>> [snorts] >> Um it's very informative. This guy is one of the premier uh death investigators in the world. A long career of very high level um medical examination and autopsies and stuff like that. Worked a ton of cases, including high-profile ones. And he believes the official narrative. He does not believe the conspiracy theories, but he's a genuine adult with a brain and a lot of expertise. And they have this really wonderful conversation that's just dominated by a whole bunch of like Baron asking him based on your expertise, tell us what you would expect to see. Tell us how the autopsy should be conducted.
186:16Tell us how they should collect this evidence. Tell us how this all should happen if it was a normal case. Because then when we get to trial, we're expecting to see all of that. And if you watch this whole episode, four and a half hours almost of it, you will come away with a very fleshed out understanding of what we would expect to see. And you would also you know, develop some understanding of what we did not see that we were expecting to and why it maybe be a little suspicious.
186:41But of course, uh, Joseph also presents a very compelling, well, no, in that one, he doesn't really present a whole lot of his own perspective, but you can feel you can get his perspective from it that it's not you you can't rule in one direction or the other just based upon like things being weird. Um, you really it's complicated. Cases this complicated are uh they take a lot of nuance and detail and time and effort and uh dissemination of facts and kind of teasing it all out to really get to the bottom of things.
187:13>> Here it is. And then I'd be like great a clear image of him on the staircase Tyler Robinson. He was on campus. We got nothing. We got literally nothing but hearsay of people saying >> but you're basically getting no case.
187:22>> Basically no case off planet Earth. You get the Oh, we got a picture here with the murder.
187:26>> There's a talking point. Um we've Yeah.
187:28Anyways, [clears throat] >> hear [snorts] him taking the shot. Most most of this doesn't take place on a college campus that has surveillance everywhere.
187:32>> Yeah.
187:33>> One of his understand when you're ask if you're asked the question, what would it take?
187:37>> Yeah. Really quickly to flush out that point that she was just trying to make.
187:41You're telling me that you have a [ __ ] parking garage in 2026 filled with surveillance cameras that are not high quality enough to read license plates. Fire that [ __ ] company yesterday and sue them to get all of your money back.
187:55Duh. There is no other point of having surveillance cameras in a parking garage.
188:01You have to be able to read license plates with your surveillance cameras in your parking garage. Otherwise, you're [ __ ] useless. It's 2026. Obviously, the cameras in the parking garage can read the license plates. And if they can't match the license plate on that car based upon the surveillance footage they have, why why not? Because a lot of people don't realize they did not match the license plate. They his license plate is not discussed anywhere in there. It is the make, model, and description of the car.
188:27That's what they're going off of. Just like, oh, he was wearing Converse, too.
188:33Not to mention that the whole campus is covered in security cameras. I walked it myself. I located them all myself.
188:37There's many, many angles of security cameras that are right on him. Um, not a single face shot, zero clear images of his face, including in uh the Chick-fil-A where he was allegedly eating food, which, you know, by definition sort of has your face a little bit more exposed >> to convince. [snorts] It'd be the same question to be asked to me, Andrew. Not to mention, I've made this point before, at the register, when you're ordering food at a restaurant like that at a Chick-fil-A, there is almost 100% of the time a camera directly in front of you, over top of the cashier, facing the cash register, so that no one steals from the
189:11cash register.
189:12Seems pretty likely they would have that at a location on a college campus where they're selling this food. And it seems very likely to me that it would be pretty hard for Tyler Robinson's face to not point directly at that camera at some point during that interaction. But what do I know? what it would take to convince you that the opposition is true, right? That he's a pacy or something like that. Just good, clear, concise evidence that's been presented, right, and is being presented that I could go through and link all together to see if there's actually some clear picture of there being a pathy. That's
189:39what it would take for me. Just a good heard just >> No, I what it would take for you, Andrew, is to be smart enough to even conceive of how a pathy works and what a pathy is and how cases and evidence in journalism is done. Because if you actually understood conspiracy theories and the history of these things like JFK for example, you wouldn't have made half these arguments. You wouldn't be that dumb [clears throat] >> in my opinion.
190:04>> Good [snorts] evidentary standard. And then of course >> I would change my mind.
190:06>> So so just to qualify this. So there is a possibility in the next few months that you may come out and say guys it's done. Title killed him. So you're saying yes to I think it's very important for the audience you're hearing for you. Is there anything that you could see for you to say yeah this guy was a pass?
190:17>> I'm going to always hollow evidence. So my my whole thing is just this. It's it's really important to me. I don't mind people being truth seekers and justice searchers and the internet has helped solve tons of crimes. There's no if hands or buts about that, right?
190:28However, there's also people who, you know, they they not only don't solve crimes, but they just come up with conjecture and they what's called flooding the zone. You flood Yeah. And no one's losing their mind about that. No one's out here having a moral crusade about flat-earthers. No one cares.
190:43No one cares about Q.
190:46No one cares about like like these are all just people out there on the internet. They just do their thing. And if you don't agree with them, you probably aren't don't even have them in your algorithm. And no one ever thinks about them. There's no crusade. There's no media campaign. No one's paying $300,000 to debate a flat-earther because it's so evil and dangerous to science to prove him wrong. No one cares. Doesn't matter. [snorts] Conspiracy theorists that want to go into Tartaria and Lamria and space lasers and like the Rothschilds and all these other things. And you know, true or not, whatever they are, is like no
191:16one [ __ ] cares.
191:18Do your thing. have fun does not matter.
191:22But Andrew Wilson cares if you insult Erica Kirk. Oh my god.
191:26>> Zone with tons and tons of conspiracy based ideas.
191:28>> And yeah, flooding the zone is [ __ ] annoying and it is not good. It's horrible for the information space, for our brains, for our public discourse and dialogue. Andrew Wilson is currently on the team that is flooding the zone. Um, it's [ __ ] annoying, but there's nothing to be done about it. You can't restrict flooding the zone without restricting freedom of speech. it basically it's it's just a trap of a free society with freedom of speech um and especially with the internet >> go nowhere right and in fact they actually take away from uh legitimate investigation now I'm not even saying anybody here's purposely flooding the
192:00zone that's not even the claim all I'm saying is is that the claims made absent absent oh uh this is just me not being convinced by the state's evidence those become claims and claims have to be defended just like mine have to be defended yours have to be defended and that's what we're going to get to now >> and the question is why does Andrew care so much about these claims.
192:20What what you'd think he would care more about like trad and feminist and uh like I guess maybe the perspective for him is that he's so like fight the left that he he's really dedicated to the the idea that this is leftist violence because you need combat. I could see that. Yeah, I'll give him that. [clears throat] >> You want to get into it? Would you guys like to take ad break and then we'll talk Erica Kirk and TPSC >> and and the conspiracies that have been conjectured by Candace Owens in regards to this case in >> Charlie. We'll take a three and a half minute break and we'll be back soon.
192:54>> So that is the totality of Andrew's side of the story. That's all the explanation of his position you're going to get. I hope it was uh IOU is enough to convince you that he's right because now he's going to try to take on Candace and it's not going to go very well.
193:12This is gonna be a really long video, guys. [laughter] Oh man, if this is why we're going to put out the short version later. Um, but I figured I've put all the effort in to get all my [ __ ] out and set up a little studio here in this Airbnb. Um, might as well just react to all of it because I also I didn't want to um I didn't want to cherrypick things. I didn't want to cherrypick um singular clips, though it's perfectly reasonable to do um to make a YouTube video about it. I just it just felt like there's just so much in all of it and all these little details and the amalgamation of all of it added up. Um I just wanted to make a
193:53full complete response.
193:56Um so, think of it like a live stream because basically it's a live stream.
194:00It's not live. Um, and the breaks I have to take, we're we're cutting those out.
194:06But all the like we're not going to do any editing of like my actual words during this whole thing. We're just going to basically smash it all together and put the whole thing out and then we'll edit the short version that's much much much much much much more concise for sharing and for normal people that don't want to watch like a 5 hour like semi live stream. Um, [snorts] so anyways, let's uh get through their ad break. I'm going to skip their ads and we'll just keep working through this.
194:31>> Okay, so we're officially back. Uh, Andrew, before we go into the other issues you want to talk about, is it fair to say you're good defending your position of the overwhelming evidence?
194:38>> Yeah. Okay, beautiful. You take the lead. Go for it.
194:40>> Yeah. So, I have a bunch of questions for you and I want to make it super painless, right? So, uh, no traps, no gotchas. I'm just going to ask them direct. And I think that as long as they're not loaded, >> you'll see that this is all lies.
194:52>> If they're loaded, you should not respond yes or no. But as long as they're not loaded, if I just directly ask them, I'm hoping that you'll just give me a direct answer. So here's the >> we're about to get into the clip farming >> questions that I have.
195:01>> Wait, wait, before we get into that, I would like to just reply to that. So just [clears throat] to be clear, we agreed to debate our claims and then I agreed publicly that I have no issues having a conversation with you about other things that I've discussed that were outside of the court hearing and things like other evidence that's come across our lab and things that we've been speaking about. But I just do want to make it clear to viewers that for whatever reason you think that you have a right to sort of depose me. I'm not but you literally said that I want to be able to question.
195:21>> This is a meta meta conversation.
195:23>> Okay. So now we're transcending. Like let's use a word. So, this is just my opinion looking in from the outside. I [clears throat] think what Candace is doing here is trying to carefully just sort of like lay down the reminder line of of uh a I have sources I cannot disclose and will not discuss. So, don't ask those questions. And B, um there's certain legal areas where I'm not going to go there legally speaking because I don't want to ent trap myself or get into legal trouble or dulge anything that's like relative to other. So, so basically I I think she's sort of being like trying to kind of remind him of
195:59like and I'll you can ask any question you want, but if you're trying to like legally depose me and expect me to answer anything you want, go [ __ ] yourself because I'm not an idiot. I [clears throat] I think that's kind of what she's doing here.
196:14>> But this is but this is what you're doing, right? So this this part to me feels like a >> allowed to ask the questions. She's also pointing out question, but I made it very clear to you via email and with you in conversation that we should be speaking. This is if you want to pose me, you should join defense team. This is a legitimate can answer it. Blah blah blah. It's like I don't know what you're going to ask. I know you have issues with it because I'm not just so clear.
196:35>> Usually in the debate if something's not loaded, I'm just direct.
196:37>> Because you kept saying I'm joking. They have no evidence. They have no evidence and now you're like, "Let's away from the evidence."
196:40>> We actually Yeah. Okay. Anyway, so direct question, super easy. Was Lance Twigs DNA and the rifle as far as you know?
196:45>> We can't say that for for As you know.
196:46>> I already answered that in the first part. We can't say that for certainty. I told you the context of which they spoke about those things.
196:50>> So, no, as far as you know, >> we can't say that for certainty until we know what other >> So, this is him trying to milk a gotcha that he used to have but doesn't have anymore because Candace already admitted that she got this wrong and corrected it. So, he's trying to like make it a gotcha even though Candace has already corrected it.
197:03>> I've already know as far as you know.
197:05>> We can't say that for certainty.
197:06>> You can say no as far as I know for certain.
197:08>> Uh we can't say that for >> and just like she was just saying, he's trying to get her to say the words exactly how he wants and Candace is like, "Uh, [ __ ] you. I can say the answer however I want." whoever represents my feelings.
197:19>> You can't say that for certainty. If your if your energy here is going to be like you're my dad and you can tell me how to speak what I'm supposed to say, you're you're you're just going to come up against the wall. I I'm familiar with this debate strategy. I am just telling you, we're not debating anymore. We're having a conversation. So, I already addressed that in the first half of this about why we're definitely debating.
197:32This is still saying I want to probe things that sit outside the evidence. I actually already addressed this if you asked me. You're not going to go like where you're you're sitting and I'm on trial. I'm not on trial. Great. So, if you can agree to >> Let's talk about the Foreign Legion. It was a foreign legion do you believe trying to kill you? Yes, that's why I reported it to the correct officials.
197:49>> He thought this part was going to go very differently than it goes >> in government. That's what I was told and I handed over that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office.
197:55>> What's your >> He thought, "Oh, this is such a wild claim with no evidence that I'm going to get a gotcha on you."
198:01>> Piece of evidence for that.
198:02>> Well, it was >> positive evidence.
198:05>> It was told to me by somebody [clears throat] who was high up in the French government. I passed off that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office. I also passed it off to Trump's office, Donald Trump's office. Um, and that's all I can tell you. I wouldn't be able to probe any evidence. I don't have the power to do that with the federal government. didn't think this one through very hard because um yeah, it's a wild claim and who knows if it's true or not. Who who knows if she was misled by about her source or by her source or who knows if the source was misled or who knows, right?
198:31But her defense is so [ __ ] easy the moment that she just stands by it and is like, "Hey, I had I'm a journalist. Had a source. They told me a thing. They're credible. I checked them out." And she can't talk about it anyways obviously because she can't give away the source.
198:42Gave it to the US government. It's like it just made Andrew look really bad because it's just a really easy explanation and she stood by it and I mean she nailed it.
198:50>> Whoops.
198:50>> I would also like to say that this becomes this this other piece of what you do which is when people say this I was told this and this is the evidence that I have and I'm willing to have that conversation and write the email to the correct government body that deals with this. Like I can't hack into Emanuel Mcronone's bank accounts and say whether or not the information but then you go well but well where's your evidence?
199:04It's like well my evidence is I reported it. I did the right thing that you're going to do. Somebody calls and says, "Hey, Andrew, there's a viable death threat against you." And that person definitively has the rank to be able to tell you this. And you say, "Well, what I'm going to do now is I'm going to report that to the feds." They go, "What's your evidence?" It's like, "Well, I got the information and I gave the information that I got from whom I got it to the right body of people."
199:19>> She's a journalist. [clears throat] Getting told by a source with credentials that you can verify, information that the source would know based upon their credentials, or even just getting told anything by any source, that is evidence. That is positive evidence. It might not be positive evidence that she can tell Andrew Wilson who the source is, but it's still positive evidence.
199:38And that's how a huge number of journalistic stories get published.
199:42>> The evidence is very often anonymous sources that you're not going to know who they are.
199:46>> That's what I did.
199:47>> Got it. I just I just want to make sure.
199:48I'm not trying to trap you. I just want to make sure I care.
199:50>> And that's why I say I want to know what you're doing now because this has always been the thing. It's like we actually can't win on the overwhelming claim. So, we're just going to go and bring up everything.
199:56>> I'm not trying to trap you. Okay, Andrew. Then what the [ __ ] does the French Foreign Legion have to do with anything?
200:01That question had nothing to do with the Tyler Robinson trial. Nothing to do with Charlie Kirk. Really, nothing to do with any of it. Is that very obviously a question of you just trying to trap Candace in a claim that you thought that she couldn't back up? [clears throat] >> That I think can try to embarrass her. I reported >> I'm not trying to embarrass you. I just want to make sure that I get position.
200:18>> I have not said. Yeah. Go ahead.
200:19>> Now, you have stated multiple times that you believe that Israel is involved in the death of Charlie Kirk.
200:23>> Can you give me pull up the clip?
200:25>> I'm sorry. I'm just saying.
200:26>> Did I finish the sentence?
200:26>> Go ahead.
200:27>> Can you give me the context for what are you talking about? Like when I say generally speaking my people think that Israel is involved.
200:31>> Okay. Where's your question?
200:32>> Yeah. Do you have any positive evidence whatsoever that Israel killed Charlie Kirk?
200:35>> Well, I couldn't say Israel was on the ground and shot and killed Charlie Kirk.
200:38I would say that there are various things that we're trying to establish.
200:40One being a motive. And since I don't believe that Tyler Robinson and his transfery uh is a convincing motive because he was fired up about politics, which Lance testified that he never spoke about with him, nor do I believe that he was, you know, so into LGBTQ issues. Since Lance testified, they never spoke about LGBTQ issues. That he stopped and ate at Chick-fil-A, which if you are into LGBTQ issues, wouldn't be your lunch before you go kill Charlie Kirk for LGBTQ issues. Uh because, you know, but you have positive evidence.
201:01>> I'm I'm answering the question as I feel like I want to answer it. Like I said, you don't get to for an hour and a half.
201:04The question I'm asking is about I'm telling you that in any case, establishing a motive and what and again I already explained this to >> positive evidence has nothing to do with it. It's irrelevant. [clears throat] 911, I don't have any positive evidence of who did it. The evidence I have is that what 19 Muslim terrorists that don't know their ass from their face uh can't rig three skyscrapers in New York City with explosives to control demolition them. It's not possible. And so the negative of the possibility of the mainstream narrative being true and and plausible in any sense of the word indicates by definition the rest of the
201:41conspiracy and the shape of it. You can't tell everything about it, but you don't need positive evidence to disprove the mainstream theory and to establish that this is definitely something else going on. Positive evidence not required to disprove Andrew's theory and arrive at the narrative that it must be a pathy because Patsy is the only explanation in the absence of Andrew's theory working and Andrew's theory doesn't work.
202:03>> Top of the show. But the reason why >> and the reason why he's harping on positive evidence is because state actors are extremely good at obscuring their hand in assassinations and other clandestine operations. Just look at the Jeffrey Epste blown wide open, investigated for years, the whole world looking at it. Paper trail everywhere.
202:20Just loose ends all over. Victims testifying just like a million loose ends in every [ __ ] direction. and the the amount of time it took to credibly establish in the mainstream conversation that he was he was an operative for Israel. It took forever because it's just like they they they don't just leave their [ __ ] [ __ ] around. They don't just blow the case on themselves.
202:46Their whole the whole point of clandestine state actor backed operations is to obscure the state actor at all costs.
202:54And the operations are designed that way from the very beginning and they're quite good at it usually. But that being said, the moment of action with something like this is incredibly complicated. And if anything goes wrong, as things tend to do, usually a lot of human error gets baked in. Sometimes the conspirators suck at their jobs and often things just bad luck. Things go wrong. Um, and so then stuff that happens right at the event, after the event, the immediate reactions of people, the immediate responses, the immediate reporting, all of that is usually your best slice to look at of like, is this a conspiracy? Because
203:35that's where things are the most chaotic and the narrative is the least prepared.
203:38Because if, for example, it was a shape charge and they wanted it to look like a chest shot, but then accidentally a fragment or a turning of the charge caused this wound on his neck to occur and suddenly the entire story has to pivot from chest gunshot to neck gunshot and everything becomes a scramble at that point to destroy evidence to to alter the scene to kind of steer the event because like you're [ __ ] and you got to respond to that right away. Um, so usually conspiracies are given away by sort of like little details that were missed in the chaos of trying to cover everything up effectively right when it happened and
204:17any mistakes or incompetence that accidentally [ __ ] like e things up.
204:21Um, so that being said, [snorts] when you're looking at the evidence and you start to see these kinds of inconsistencies, usually you want to trace it back towards more and more uh earlier and earlier in the timeline because that's when we get less and less sort of prepared narrative construction. The other thing that sometimes happens is that in the course of investigation, something unexpected gets uncovered that requires the entire cover up to shift.
204:57Um, this happened with JFK when this appruder film came out and suddenly everyone can see that the head moves in the wrong direction for the gunshot. Um, this happened in the Charlie Kirk investigation kind of on a number of occasions. Like for example, when the whole TP USA sphere, the whole shield crowd was all just hammering like Charlie Kirk never wavered on Israel. He was Israel's best friend. And then Candace Owens releases the text messages directly from Charlie saying he was going to leave the pro-Israel cause.
205:28Oh [ __ ] The whole cover up, their whole plan has to shift. And it's in those shifts and in those kind of disorganized times when you're most likely going to spot the evidence of a conspiracy.
205:38people find Israel to be an interesting question is because truthfully Charlie's perspectives were changing on Israel and he was starting to realize how much pressure was being put on not just our government uh to constantly fight their wars but also being put on his organization personally if people had come out and been honest about that uh rather than rabid claiming he never flinched and everybody's lying and this is not true you would probably have people that just go eh that's life people change their opinions and >> and instead we [clears throat] have the argument that just like quickly and
206:03easily Israel through their Zionist donors Zionist donors, meaning the the billionaires and multi multi-millionaires that devote their lives and funding to building Israel, paying Israel, sending money to Israel.
206:17Those are the people that built TP USA.
206:20This is the Zionist donors. There's a there's a couple of the donors that are not Zionist, but a huge portion of them were Zionists, and they contributed tens hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to build this organization. And it was a Zionist organization through and through. And it became more and more Zionist the more money they poured in and the more they grew it and the more they kind of like uh pushed Charlie into his own little corner and kept him separated from all the other business operations that were going on around there.
206:47And Charlie starts using their Zionist organization which to the public it's his but to the private it's theirs. It's not Charlie's to the money. To them it's theirs and they built it with their money and they're not [ __ ] giving up this investment. to Israel. Having the largest Republican youth outreach political organization in America under their control as a Zionist entity is one of the most valuable political tools you could ever have. Money could not buy that. That requires years and years and years of finding this miraculous man named Charlie Kirk that can actually build it. That actually has the zeal and
207:19the life and the capability and the brain and the the the cult following and the luck and just all the things that come into play to build that asset. That is an invaluable asset. That is the kind of asset that intelligence agencies dream about. They scheme about those for decades. They attempt to build those always. That's the holy grail of intelligence agencies is having a political organization that targets the youth in your target country. Holy [ __ ] That is gold. And Israel built it here in the USA called Turning Point USA. And Charlie was the face. And the public thought of it as Charlie's, but the
207:53donors did not. But there's a problem there because then when Charlie Kirk starts questioning the Israel narrative and starts asking if there was a standown order on October 7th, all these questions starts saying that they're going to try to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
208:07Starts to not like BB at all. Starts to speak out about the war in Iran big time. This man is going to be president one day and he's speaking out against your next war. And he has the entire conservative movement wrapped around his finger, especially the young people.
208:20Yeah. Then he starts taking your Zionist asset TP USA and inviting Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith to mop the floor with the Zionist perspective by just speaking the truth on that stage that you paid to build your multi-million five $300 million whatever organization. Charlie Kirk is taking that organization and turning it into a Tucker Carlson Dave Smith and Candace Owens organization. Do you [ __ ] think that Israel is going to let their most valuable intelligence agency asset, their most valuable political piece of subversion in America in probably 30 or 40 years just slide away down Charlie's personal feelings
208:55about whatever the [ __ ] he thinks he's about to do with that stage? No. Not a chance. And so when Charlie starts exiting from that, regardless of whatever money was going on, other crimes going on, Charlie discovering something he wasn't supposed to know about any of that, aside from all that, his influence, his future presidency, his strong opposition to the war on Iran and his dramatically shifting opinion on Israel and Jews.
209:24Yeah.
209:25Yeah. That's um Israel needs the war with Iran right now. And they do not need Charlie Kirk using their Zionist organization to [ __ ] that plan up. And it's from my estimation entirely likely that Turning Point would be currently filled with debates over whether the war in Iran is just and right or not. And I suspect that, you know, the Dave Smiths and Tuckers of this world would be wiping the floor with their opposition right now because there's no argument for this war in Iran. There's no argument for us winning it. We're [ __ ] It's a horrible, horrible, horrible situation for America.
210:00And TPS USA would have been the stage where that conversation was happening.
210:03But instead, Charlie's gone. It's back to Shabbat's shaloms. It's back to Zionists everywhere. Every single page shill is a Zionist. And they just push out everybody else. And the Christianity is a very very milktoast, very watered down, very Zionist.
210:19And it it's just it's it's pretty obvious if you have any any political awareness of America right now. Um yeah, side tangent, but yeah, >> there was the rabbit. I mean, not even that everything was about trying to convince the public how much he liked to.
210:33>> So then other than intuition, how you feel about things? Do you have any evidence Israel involved in killing Charlie?
210:37>> I have already said and if you're watching my show in the context of what I said, this is the general sense of why people think Israel's involved. We don't nobody has made the claim that is Israelis. They're also, you know, obviously >> Israel made the claim. Well, Joe Kent, who I I think would uh have the right to assert it, uh noted that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground that day. I think most people would like to probe that. Now, it could be maybe they were students.
210:54>> I mean, the most relevant one is that uh Harrison Smith made the claim that someone very close to Charlie Kirk directly told him that Charlie said he was worried Israel would kill him if he turned on them.
211:05That's just the first piece. Um it's not particularly strong because it's third hand, but there's evidence right there.
211:11and they were is >> although it is interesting that it was posted a month before Charlie was killed right around that critical period where all the tension was building and it was probably starting to be decided that Charlie had to go >> students in Utah that day but we'd like to probe that narrative because what we've seen after coming from the Israeli government the Israeli prime minister uh kind of denying that he did it which wasn't really necessary was quite busy uh the phone call that happened which no one wants to discuss in Hampton's the week prior uh or not the week prior I think it was around August 5th or 6th
211:37that took place and again the almost desperate lies about Charlie shipping opinion on Israel lead us to believe that there could be an Israeli angle in this. Uh but we cannot say for certainty that Israel called the shots and this is how it happens. But it is definitively I think a threat that a lot of us would like to positive evidence.
211:51>> Whatever you want to say, however, positive, negative, however you want to say it. Positive evidence, material evidence and other evidence.
211:57>> What we've said is on our show is what we've said, which is we this feels like a conspiracy building. There's no reason to lie about these things and yet people are lying. Uh BB ain't acting right. The Hampton's thing was weird. And the way >> again you don't need positive evidence to arrive at that being the most likely theory. All you need is negative evidence for Tyler Robinson. And then you realize that oh yeah we are talking about a political assassination. One of the higher profile political figures in America right now. This political assassination is literally on the level of JFK. And if you just look at history,
212:25history does not lend credibility to the belief that that would be carried out by a lone gunman. No. Never. Almost every single example in history is lone gunman that's actually just a [ __ ] psy for a CIA operation or something of that sort or you know whatever country you're in.
212:40[clears throat] For example, uh who was it? It was uh Yetac Rabbine that um that Israel murdered, but it was totally just like some really angry settler. They're totally on his own, right? [snorts] Um was it Rabbine? Was it Shamir? I I I forget which which Israeli prime minister. Um, which is kind of embarrassing. It's been a minute since I looked into that one. Um, yeah, you don't need positive evidence to get to Israel being the most likely candidate.
213:08All you need to do is realize that, oh, this is a super highprofile political assassination and they're presenting it as a lone gunman, but the evidence doesn't line up. Negative evidence for all that, that's [ __ ] [ __ ] So, what are the other possible explanations? Well, when you get a high level political assassination, it turns out Israel is by far the most prolific political assassinator in the world.
213:26They do more assassination than [ __ ] everybody else combined. Um, usually their political assassinations are in the Middle East targeting brown people that they hate, but that does not preclude them from going abroad and, you know, taking out some particularly important targets in other places, too.
213:40And there's tons of historical precedent for that. It is built into their doctrine. Like, the MSAD was basically founded on that core principle. And it was very early built into how Israel functions because they realize that they're so small and they're up against all these Arab armies that they need to develop a targeted killing program that takes out all the most important points of this network of Arab armies rather than trying to fight them with brute manpower. And that has been how the MSAD and the Israeli military structure has worked from the beginning. And they are not shy about talking about it. They're
214:08very proud about it. Um you can read the book Rise and Kill First um by Ronan Berg Bergman I think is his name if you want to know more. So actually no. The moment that you get to the fact that this does not look very credible and I doubt that this Tyler Robinson thing is checking out based on the evidence I've got, you immediately turn around and say, "So who else could it be?" And Israel's at the top of the list.
214:29Obviously, I mean, you could make an argument that elements of Trump, CIA, American deep state government are high on that list as like a, you know, little breakaway clandestine thing in our intelligence apparatus. Could be. Um, but you it'd be a lot easier to get Israelis to go along with such a plan than Americans. It it just makes it's it's a lot more I mean, Israel is the most logical choice. Sorry. It is. DPS USA was theirs. They're not giving it up. Um, but there's also positive evidence. Not a lot of it, but there is positive [clears throat] evidence.
215:02>> They tried Israel narrative down our throat immediately. I mean, the day he died posting a picture of him with an American and Israeli AI photo on the president's feed. Doesn't feel right. Do you have any evidence that Erica Kirk or TV USA participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?
215:13>> I've never said they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk. So, how could I say that I have evidence they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?
215:17>> Okay. So, then you don't believe that they did?
215:19>> I never have said that statement. So, I'm not going to get you to ask me personal questions about things that I've never said on record.
215:24>> Okay, fair. Your team is sending messages in the back saying they have a video they want to play.
215:26>> Okay, go ahead.
215:27>> I don't know what the video is.
215:31[snorts] >> If you're >> Yes. You said that there's a video you want to play that Candace said she has full confidence Israel was involved.
215:38>> Yep. Yeah, he said evidence like that they killed him. I said, this is why people think they're involvement involvement. They have the cla they're referring to a clue.
215:45>> I think this is the the super long pause that gets super awkward and drawn out.
215:48No. Okay, that's later.
215:49>> My guess is Pierre Tero. I think that there's a reason Pierre knew that Charlie was first. I think there's a reason he was a priority. How? Why? I think France and Israel are involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination. And um I'm going to put that out there with full confidence.
216:02>> I also >> I understand. Yeah. So you think you with full confidence you think that >> Yeah. So semantically it doesn't line up. [clears throat] Andrew Wilson was trying to claim that she said something that that's not what that says involved.
216:15Yeah. Sure. And she stands by that. It's kind of funny. This is we're we're getting closer and closer to where the clippers in the back are driving Andrew Wilson's brain because his brain is running out of steam.
216:26>> Yeah. I I mean the person that gave me that thing that I reported said that French foreign legion were on the ground that day again.
216:31>> And again that that clip is from like eight months ago, 6 months ago. It's like completely irrelevant. her her knowledge of the case, her perspective on the case, all the evidence in the case, it's all completely transformed by now. It's not the same world. She's not the same person. The evidence is not the same. It's so it's like it's just transparently ridiculous to try to pretend to clip farm some six-month old thing and say like, "So, you must believe that today. Defend it." Um, fortunately, she's careful about what she does and she tends to put out things that she that age well, and so she feels
217:01confident defending it.
217:02>> [clears throat] >> But it's just kind of an absurd premise that a six-month old clip is the most effective way to interrogate Candace's position today and what she believes about the case today.
217:12>> This would be this would be at a professional limitation for me to then go and probe that information that I handed over. I can't do that. I'm not >> having any positive evidence of that.
217:18>> I don't Can you just stop? It's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying positive evidence. I just ask me what I think and I just tell you yes, I think that's claim.
217:24>> No, I said here's what here's what I think.
217:26>> I have every right to ask you about your claim and if there's positive evidence for your claim.
217:29>> I literally just said I think and I am allowed to think. What you're making?
217:33>> I have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think.
217:35>> I I agree. You're allowed to think.
217:36Nobody's disputing whether or not to think. What I'm asking is what is yours is what we're disputing is whether or not Andrew Wilson does think. Um and we're still the jury is still out. We're working on it.
217:48>> Is involved. [clears throat] >> That's not what that's not just what you said. You said it's with full confidence. I think that if you had full confidence, but if you >> Whoa, what a gotcha.
217:58>> If I said for instance, I think I'm going to be late to work. This is such a sometimes when you're in the moment and you try to come up with an example, you come up with a bad example. Sometimes you just come up with an example that's just kind of like that was kind of weak.
218:11And while you're in the middle of the example, you're like, [ __ ] I'm trapped in a kind of weak ass example. And normally in conversation, not a big deal because you be like, ah, that's a bad example. And you come up with a better one because you're just talking to your friends. But when you're on camera, it can be kind of awkward to like accidentally start riffing on a really stupid example. Um, yeah. Right. Right. With full confidence, I would say my evidence for that is that I'm 20 minutes away and I need to be there in 5. Andrew, that's how you would know whether or not you have full.
218:34>> No, no, let me finish. Let me finish.
218:35Let me finish. If it was the case that I said I have full confidence I'm going to be late to work, I would say my evidence I'm going to be is that work is 20 minutes away, right? And I have to be there in 5. So, I have full confidence.
218:42That's why I would think that. So, I'm asking if you think that Israel and France were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And you say with full confidence, I'm just asking for the evidence or at least walk me.
218:50>> I don't think she says this. I wish she had.
218:54So Andrew, your evidence that you were going to be late for work is because of the fact that you're this far away and you you knew it was that far away and so you think blank. Cool. Andrew, my evidence for the fact that I think that Israel and France are involved is that an extremely highle person in the French government came and told me.
219:11It would be like saying I believe that Tucker Carlson likes hunting and my evidence for that aside from the rest of the internet is that he told me.
219:22But where's your positive evidence that Tucker Carlson likes hunting? I need positive evidence. He told me >> what like what? Walk me through the mindset of why it is that you can think that.
219:34>> I actually don't have to walk you through why I think um I can also I can give you something that I think with full confidence. I think with full confidence that you know you lost the substance of this debate and now you're moving toward things that I have said that I think which I can do. I'm not pertinent to this debate. It's not exactly pertinent to this debate. Not pertinent because our >> claim made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. That's the complet No, actually would you like to remind him of what our debate claims actually were?
219:52>> Would you like to remind that you said I could ask you about any of these things to my heart?
219:55>> Feel free, but you do not get to structure how I'm allowed to reply or ask me why are you asking how you're allowed to reply? I'm just asking you direct questions.
220:00>> My I have full confidence that you do not feel that you represented your claim well. And so now you can't present yourself like a professor of fashion. I just want to know and to say you're not allowed to say that. You can't you can say whatever you want. Well, >> nobody's disputing that. I'm asking you are asking specifically why you think that I've already explained to you to I explained at the beginning of this why I think Israel is is ultimately going to be proven to have involvement in this.
220:18Um 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 in a sentence. If you feel like a professor today, you picked the wrong day.
220:28>> Don't you think that like tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people would want to know what Candace Owens positive evidence for why it is that Israel and France were involved?
220:37I've made a lot of sort of like um not criticisms of Candace so far, but just like places where um if she'd had, you know, time to think or time to do it over or like if like that maybe I would do it a little differently or just with my time I've had to think, I've I'll add more. Um [clears throat] but this is actually a criticism of I think she missed this one and it's not a big deal, but but I think in the moment she said no. Um because she was kind of on this train of thought of like Andrew, I don't need to do [ __ ] all like like I don't care. I can think do whatever. um which is totally hilarious and a great
221:06way to be there, but I think she accidentally brought that mindset to this answer of do you do you think that all of your fans want to see your positive evidence and she just kind of said no and started rolling into it without really thinking for a second and she had a great opportunity to be like yeah that's why they watch my show where I give all the evidence and you should watch it sometime because then maybe you know more about the case because she's presented all kinds of positive evidence and that's why her fans like her and that's why they watch her show and that's why they all know about the case is because she's
221:32presented all this [ __ ] positive evidence all over her So, she unfortunately missed this one.
221:36Um, but >> in the most traumatic public assassination of Jenz's lifetime is >> that's why they watch my podcast.
221:41>> So, you're just going to drip them like >> Cool. Yeah. So, she saved it. She brought it back with the best line ever.
221:46Cool. I'm wrong. I stand corrected, Candace. Fair play. So, she said no first, but then he interrupted and gave her time to think and then she came with the banger. Bam. That's why they watch my podcast.
221:59>> Every time we come across any of these discussions, they're watching this in context and they know why I'm saying it.
222:03So for example when >> and let's just remind ourselves ultimately viewership is not everything popularity does not mean truth. No it is not but important but the fact that Candace Owens has the most watched podcast in the world right now.
222:23The fact that so many people are tuned into this case and follow her for this case is not unrelated to the fact that she's the one asking the questions, sharing the answers, and genuinely looking for the truth. That's why everyone's watching her. If she was doing what Andrew Wilson does every day, no one would follow her. If she was running a Gary a Gary Melton type of show, Paramount Tactical, and she was like trying to construct narratives and like lie and like like just whatever he does, no one would watch her. the size of her platform, the reason why Andrew feel well the reason why people someone
222:56feels the need to pay lots of money to come and try to take her down all the time. The reason why everyone's trying to attack her and there's all these propaganda campaigns to try to take Candace down. All of that is because people believe her because she's credible, because she's honest, because she's genuinely invested, because she loves Charlie and she cares and she's here for the truth. And every and we all know that. Everyone knows that. And that is why she's threatening.
223:21She doesn't have this audience because she's lying and grifting. Obviously, go look at the Liars and Grifters channel.
223:26See how many followers they have. It's not a lot.
223:29So there's there is sort of this like fact this underlying truth b baked into the cake that the reason why they're scared of Candace Owens and they want to attack her, the reason why she has such a big audience, the reason why they need to like kind of make all these like gotchas is because people watch her because she's good and because she's honest and because she's the best on the internet right now for it. And that's also why they don't watch this whole universe of shill slop. [clears throat] It really is that simple. The the internet votes with their time. We all vote with our attention. And an awful lot of people
224:05vote that Candace is on to something.
224:07And if you presented a good enough case, they would vote that you're on to something and they would watch your show. That's actually why this was never this is not a topic that's worth debating. It's not a good topic to debate because it's so important. The evidence is so complex and so vast and there's so much of it to connect together that a debate is just the wrong format. Video is the right format for this. That's why Baron Coleman does all of these episodes where he can, you know, >> someone on the other side agrees with me.
224:38>> Do a long form discussion and put evidence on the screen and walk through that evidence carefully and slowly and in in context and build a story. And if Baron gets something wrong, then his detractors, maybe Paramount Tactical, whoever, or even me, if he gets something wrong, can then take his video and make a video about his video and pick it apart and have a long form discussion. Way more effective way to do this kind of thing. And in the past, uh, I've done this to people like Nick Fuentes um, at specific times where you can just take someone's video that they put out if they act like a dumbass and
225:12you can just tear them apart. You can just take their video and clip their statements one by one and just debunk it with evidence on screen and [ __ ] them up. It's not hard to do and it's actually a lot easier to do than just debating them. And if Andrew Wilson really just wanted to prove Candace Owens wrong or really just wanted to debate me like he said he did, that would have been a way more effective way to do it because he could have, you know, carefully constructed his arguments and thought it through and fact checked himself and not, you know, missed all seven of the charges that he doesn't know what they are. But he
225:37[clears throat] wanted to debate in person. So, here we are in person and it ain't going so well. you're bringing up while Candace where's your evidence for France doing this I just told you someone who was high ranking in the French government right nameless of course of course of course >> of course so there's good reason to doubt this >> 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 in trouble for making false statements and things of that nature so and then you go well I'm going to prove that well how can you probe that this
225:56happens [laughter] 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 >> yeah and here she's got him on the back foot and it's not it's not good for me it's it gets worse >> regulate anything very sounding a bit like a professor trying to regulate and say >> you sound very defensive and like you just don't want to answer questions.
226:16>> I I I did answer your questions. I didn't say it in the way that you wanted and you run away from it but I would like for you clip that you guys have prepared because I it's pretty I I think with full confidence people recognize the strategy that you're trying to employ. So let's get to the next clip you have prepared.
226:27>> Sure.
226:29That was the moment where Andrew Wilson started to truly lose this debate because that's the moment where Candace Owens started to tell him his own strategy, which is not flattering for the audience to hear. And then to dictate his own pace and to say, "You're here to clip farm. You're a bad actor.
226:48I'm here for it. Whatever. Let's go play your next clip." And Andrew Wilson did not dispute any of that that was implied there. He just said, "Okay, yeah, sure.
226:58Sure. Let's go to the next clip." Like you say, you dictate it here. And it gets worse. It just gets worse and worse and worse. The dog walking has commenced, but it is not over by any means. Whatever it is that you guys have prepared, >> there I would still on this point, I just want to make sure that you have full confidence that France and Israel were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk and you have no evidence for >> It's worth noting that there he he tried to say, "Yeah, they can pull up whatever clips they want," trying to pretend like they weren't already prepared clips.
227:23Even though Candace just said directly like, "I think you've got a bunch of prepared clips and you're going to show them all. So just get to the next one."
227:28He's like, "Yeah, okay. Yeah, maybe."
227:31And then he tried to kind of be like, "Yeah, it's like they pull up whatever they want." But it it becomes more and more obvious as the time goes on that they are completely prepared because they start pulling up clips that have nothing to do with what Andrew was talking about. He doesn't know what they are until the clip comes on screen and then he's like, "Oh yeah, this is my talking point for this one."
227:46>> Not he doesn't literally say that, but >> at all that you'll give us >> Well, the high I already did tell you where it came from. Like I said, I can explain it to you. I can't understand >> tell you that it's going to kill that >> line will go down in infamy in the world. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
228:03[snorts] >> So good.
228:05>> Charlie Kirk or just that you were in danger.
228:06>> They said that the French Foreign Legion was involved on the ground that day.
228:09I've already said that. You just don't like hearing it.
228:10>> No. And just out of curiosity, you pass down that message to a Tulsi or Trump >> Tulsi's office.
228:15>> Here's a little portion where Patrick Bet David jumps in and starts doing a far better job of of asking questions than Andrew Wilson ever was. And then after a moment they kind of realize that oh [ __ ] whoops um here's the debate back Andrew because Andrew just like sits and lets it happen office. Are you giving them who told you that or you're just saying here's what I heard from >> and I have this in and I have this information and of course if they wanted to open a file on it which I thought was quite mysterious that Trump's office never got back to us. It was kind of weird about like from maybe they're not
228:40the correct office too. I did receive a response from uh Tulsi Gabbard's office but I I don't think there was ever any investigation into what happened. So the call was, "Hey, I've been told some the email email was I've been told >> I have information." Yeah. That that that the French Foreign Legion was on the ground during Charlie's assassination. Um uh and that I mean it was a lot of information, but >> you didn't give specifics who it was for a lot of people. They would like, you know, honing in on Andrew's 100 comfortable giving 100% who it is.
229:04>> I would absolutely give them as much information.
229:06>> Can I ask the 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 >> and 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.
229:20There's no >> And if you do say that and they contact that individual.
229:23>> So it's interesting to me in these wide shots where we see Andrew's facial expressions that he's watching this happen and he's not interjecting with anything. He's not trying to get back in control of the conversation, the flow and the timing. He's not trying to kind of take the questioning back over from PBD. He seems kind of happy to let PBD take over for him so he doesn't have to do anything because I mean he he seems like he's kind of like on autopilot and it gets worse and worse and worse from here on out. I'm obviously projecting my my perception onto it but watch it keep happening and
229:54you tell me I'm wrong.
229:55>> 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?
230:00Yes.
230:01>> Okay. I mean that's >> it seems reasonable and so why he's asking you to defend that is like >> I'm not I think those are two different things. That's mostly different. Why are they not reaching out to you?
230:07>> I've asked that many times on my podcast.
230:09>> What do you think about that, Andrew?
230:10>> What? The fact that she emailed, she gave it, and nobody reached out to contact the social >> probably didn't think she was actionable as 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.
230:21>> Is it fair to say that this is maybe a different individual because this is a person that was involved with TP had a relationship with? No, no, her relationship. Like this isn't just anybody. So if an average person sends it, yes.
230:30>> Yeah. But I mean, we don't know who the source is. We don't know anything. Well, that's if it wouldn't you.
230:34>> This is a topic of discussion that Andrew does not want to be wasting his time on at all. And he doesn't need to.
230:39He could easily be like, "Actually, I want to do a different line of questioning. This is my time. I want to reclaim it." Nope. He's just kind of floating in the water here. He's just getting he's getting baited. He's getting cocked.
230:52>> If you were in that department, wouldn't you want to even You assigned it to one of your They didn't look into it. How do we know?
230:57>> How could they? They didn't come get the information more of the information. It was a little file. Yeah, this is a separate this. This is more on on uh >> Well, I just I sent the email assuming that's saying you go and you you make a report, you think they're going to come back to you and say, "Hey, what's more information? We're investigating this."
231:10And that didn't happen, which is what I raised.
231:11>> 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, the executive office, Dan Bonino, and uh the and to office.
231:22>> Okay. So, the followup to that is the following.
231:24>> If they contact you to say, is that specifically to the French government or Israel's involvement in the killing of Trump?
231:28>> It wasn't that wasn't about Israel. Two separate things.
231:29>> 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. So I'm surprised then I find that very strange as well >> because who would want to make a report like I've never made a report with the federal government.
231:39>> Remember Andrew Wilson is still in the cuck chair right now >> and Patrick McDavid has just taken over the questioning and we've gotten way more interesting questions and way more ground covered just in the last two minutes than like the last hour.
231:53>> Question. Let me just ask you one question and I'm I'm going to bring it to you. The question is in regards to I've not seen that clip so I'm seeing it now. And then Andrew tries to get out of the cuck chair and [clears throat] PBD just puts him back in it real quick. I mean, I'm I'm kind of making fun of him and overplaying it, but it's it's kind of funny.
232:07>> The full I'm full confidence I believe that Israel French was involved.
232:10>> Is that also based on a source that somebody told you that Israel was involved in the assassin of Charlie Kirk or was that a gut feeling?
232:16>> 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 has have had is that they won't even explore um anything else that's going on Charlie 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.
232:36We've done that in our in our capacity.
232:37Like people keep saying she has no evidence. It's kind of crazy. I think we've broken more stories than any new 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. were uh my sources at the US Marshals were saying they were >> candidly so to speak um one of the
233:00reasons why I've had so much confidence in Candace from the beginning of this case is because early on [snorts] um not super early on but in some of the months after Charlie had died um I visited her at one point briefly [clears throat] and just got to talk to her for like I don't know like 30 minutes to catch up. I I think I was passing through. I kind of forget the circumstances and it [clears throat] was really just a friendly visit. I wasn't like doing any work. There was no really reason for me to be I just like wanted to check in and say hi and see how her and her team and family were doing. And we did inevitably
233:29discuss a fair bit of just like what was going on right then. And [clears throat] because we were not on camera um and we're friends, I got to hear her just kind of like rapid fire unload on what she knew and what was going on and who she was talking to and what her sources were and sort of where her brain was at that day on that investigation. And it made it so [ __ ] clear just how deep into this investigation she is and how many sources she's surrounded by and just like how how much there is when you try to walk into her her knowledge base on this case and talk about what's going on is like the number of law enforcement
234:02people that are talking to her, the number of people in turning point that are talking to her, the number of uh incoming um and I'm not talking about a tip box. I'm talking about like actual established sources that she has vetted.
234:12And hearing her, getting to hear her walk through that thought process and kind of divulge a little bit more candidly than she can on camera usually.
234:20Um, [snorts] it just I was kind of blown away. I was like, uh, damn. Um, and it was kind of I think it was probably around the time where I was kind of like, you know what, Candace, you've got this. Um, I don't want to like make my whole channel Charlie Kirk. I don't want to do Charlie Kirk every day all day.
234:36Um, you've got this. I'm gonna kind of branch out a little bit and keep tabs from a distance. I'm gonna go do my thing because it was just so apparent how much she got this. Um, as you know, is made plain by all these different >> basically in a wild goose chase that day.
234:51>> But you see how you say my sources details she's running through sources.
234:55>> I have sources if I said I have sources that claim none of that's true. In fact, my sources this is the most [ __ ] like debate tactic argument ever claimed that her sources are lying. My sources claim that there is none of them believe that there's a conspiracy. My sources claim all of them really think that Tyler Robinson was a lone gunman. If I just said that as hypothetical, wouldn't you say what?
235:11>> Yeah, I think what >> R explain this. You can do that, Andrew.
235:15You can lie. You can say that you have sources that you don't have. That's fine. You'll get caught someday. Your credibility will tank more than it already has. And then no one gives a [ __ ] what your sources are because they don't trust you. That's the thing.
235:26Sources are just about trust. And you ain't got a whole lot of it right now.
235:28So maybe you just don't really understand how it works. Um or maybe it's cuz you're not a journalist. you're a blood sport debater. So, let the journalist tell you how sources work and uh just just take a word for it because you look like an idiot. [clears throat] >> Probably adds weight is like then when I drop photos of the car that no one's supposed to see, people go, "Okay, okay, her sources are legit." So, um and then when what I say is then proven in court and nobody knew those things, uh people are recognizing that my sources are legit. When I say Charlie uh was scared in the last days and then I drop the
235:52text message, which you've just learned about a couple of weeks ago, of him saying he was leaving the pro-Israel cause when everyone was lying about that, >> which is a crazy claim to make before the evidence started to come out. If you weren't carefully paying attention to Charlie Kirk speaking and like putting together all these like disperate little comments he was saying on different podcasts and stuff, no one would have come out into the public square and been like, "Yeah, Charlie Kirk was turning on Israel hard." That would be an extremely uh risky claim to make to pretend like I feel confident about that without having
236:21any like new evidence. So Candace coming out and making that claim was pretty pretty strong at the time, but it was because she had evidence >> and everybody tried to pretend like she didn't >> and they say I think cancer sources are legit. So I think what's happened is I've actually built up a rapport with my audience that it's not vibes and dreams and that's why they keep watching my content because I like for example when I just the other day released the content of the shooter on the roof doing a lateral crawl then they're going I don't think these are [clears throat] just vibes. It seems like cancer are
236:47legit. So I've proven myself in the market.
236:48>> Yeah. Yeah, I'm not sure that that would legitimize your sources as being legitimate when it comes to the idea that oh, >> Andrew, it doesn't matter what you think. You don't understand it. You're not a journalist. That's why everyone watches her and the the number of followers on her account is the evidence that you're wrong and you don't know what she talked about.
237:04>> All believe that there's a conspiracy going on, which is actually what your claim is now. How would that actually hang on, hang on, I'm almost done. How would that How would that legitimize Well, it's not his debate. How would how would it legitimize these sources that even if it's the case that you get some court footage or some things like this?
237:15Why would it legitimize that your sources are telling you all the marshals believe it's a conspiracy? All the police believe it's a conspiracy.
237:20Everybody believes it. How would that legitimize >> 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 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.
237:41Whether you would then go, "Well, I'm going to believe her when she says they don't believe. They think that there's a conspiracy." That's up to you. You cannot watch my content. I'm I'm not here to tell you that you have to watch my content or believe everything I'm saying.
237:48>> Well, don't you think question should get questioned as well?
237:52>> By who? I'm not committing a crime, am I just like >> such a non a sentence that doesn't Okay, cool. Nice buzz word. My nice buzz word, bro.
238:03I mean, realistically, it doesn't really matter. No. Like, no. No. Candace is under no obligation to answer your questions. Doesn't matter. The only obligation she has to that is to her fans. If they want her to answer the questions, she has to answer them or lose the fans. If the fans don't care or they don't want her to answer the questions, she actually has no obligation to whatsoever.
238:21>> Sorry, Andrew. Well, I mean, aren't most of the people ask questions of not actually committing crimes?
238:25>> What do you mean they should answer questions where like at a police station?
238:27>> 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.
238:34Doesn't it seem totally fair that >> Yeah. Most of them don't answer. Almost all of them. shut up and run. Almost all of them pretend that they didn't hear her ask the question because it's pretty awkward. We're still waiting on those videos, Erica. We're still waiting on that Doge style audit. We're still waiting on all kinds of stuff that she's asked for that they don't respond to, but she still puts the question out. And you're in the same boat. You can ask her all the questions in the world that you want. She has no obligation to respond whatsoever. But when your dumb ass comes out here with $300,000 ready to serve
239:04yourself up on a silver platter for her, she is, you know, business savvy enough to accept um and and offer the beatdown.
239:12>> You answer back the questions people have for you.
239:14>> They're not answering our questions. So, it's also fair that they don't answer them.
239:16>> So, you're should be in the chair. He's not.
239:18>> But isn't that a double if it isn't that a double standard?
239:19>> No, it's not because he's not doing it.
239:20>> 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.
239:25>> Oh, imprintes are allowed again.
239:26>> 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? Well, I feel like I'm answering your questions and his questions about I mean I'm >> honestly she doesn't exactly No, I don't think Andis feels like she she's owed answers. Um maybe a little bit because like we're talking about a dead man and they represent his company and they're acting weird. [clears throat] So maybe in some regards, but it's more just that she she and she says this often when she asks these questions. It's more that it would just be smart for them to tell
239:54her. It would be a good PR move. If they're not lying, if there's nothing to hide, they're doing horrible PR right now. And it would be so much better if they just came out with everything and tried to help.
240:04That that's [snorts] the main thrust of the argument is you're just you're dumb for not answering these questions.
240:10Just like Andrew Wilson was dumb for coming here without having read any of the court filings or studied any of the actual evidence to have any informed opinions >> about Andrew Colbeat. He is his position. 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, and forget answering my questions because I doesn't need to be me.
240:31>> Aren't you swinging a lot of those seeds of trust?
240:32>> Well, I I think they're doing a pretty good job themselves if I'm being honest.
240:34Uh you can blame it on Candace all you want.
240:35>> Well, you know, the thing is funny, you act like I'm ground zero. I think ground zero people not trusting Turning Point USA.
240:40>> I think there I think there was some PR there. Sure, they could have.
240:43>> Let's remember too, Candace avoided any any going at T USA and Erica for months and a lot of her fans hated her for it.
240:50A lot of us were like, "What's going on, Candace?" A lot of people were way more in on on TPS USA and Erica Kirk for months and Candace did not touch it for a long time.
241:02Done 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 TP USA or Erica Kirk or Erica actually participated, had for knowledge of or I'm not going to get myself into a legal pickle here. Everything I've said is on my >> all of the uh shills uh tried to pretend that this was some gotcha. That's not a gotcha.
241:26To avoid getting sued by this, you know, front organization for the Zionist lobby that has threatened to sue already that has already sent out legal letters, cease and desists. That's duh. this question was clocked from like like two weeks ago that this was actually his goal was that TPS USA was actually just sending people in to try to get people prominent podcasters especially Candace um to you know say something legally not not good in the heat of a debate. I don't know if that's actually Andrew's goal right now, [clears throat] but it kind of looks like it. And certainly this question was clocked for
242:05quite some time as being kind of the main thrust of what's probably coming at her >> podcast. I I think I think firmly that >> if I was the investigating officers, I would I would see them all.
242:14>> So she quickly thinks of a >> legally safe way to say that you do.
242:19>> We all know what that means, Andrew.
242:21You're just not smart enough and you didn't get the answer you wanted. You want to try to, you know, get her to say it the right way.
242:26>> Good luck.
242:27>> Think so. I I think it was not a sufficient investigation into 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, like I said earlier, the backpack was returned.
242:38>> How do you know that was never considered?
242:40>> 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.
242:46>> Well, I mean it shows that the police trusted everybody and didn't just hold things up for a second.
242:49>> They ruled them out as suspects >> that quickly. I >> you can see it in his face, his [clears throat] tone of voice.
242:56It's starting to get a little less poised.
243:01>> Not comfortable with that investigation.
243:02It's a pretty big organization. There's $100 million incentive people. This is >> $100 million incentive.
243:05>> What I'm saying is his organization like that it had grown to I think it was 100 plus per year.
243:08>> Yeah. Per year. If that's you wants to play video >> that number doesn't count cut it [clears throat] 100 million plus per year of revenue from TP USA. That is not even approaching the value to the Zionist cause. It is incalculable.
243:23If [clears throat] you think about the Epstein network being Israel's asset, you know, loosely speaking, um there's no amount of money that you could pay to set that back up. That is one moment in time with one specific, you know, central central person that was capable of building it. That is like you can't rebuild that. You cannot replace it. These things are singular and they are they are I mean I already went in on this for a long time. these intelligence agency operations that build these organizations and companies and networks and criminal rings and stuff. Those are just there's no dollar
243:57value on that. It is irreplaceable.
244:00Um way more than $100 million of value to Israel and their cause to be clear.
244:05[snorts] >> There's a there's a video they want to play of uh Candace said it's impossible to not believe. He wants to play video.
244:11>> And here's where his team starts interrupting him with videos. if you don't mind. There's there's a video they want to play of uh Candace.
244:17>> He's always very happy to listen what you're talking about and just watching.
244:21>> And so right now their guys are going out and they're going to look for evidence and then by May, which is fortunately around the corner, then she'll see what they found.
244:28>> And this is the face of a man who is finding out what he's going to be talking about next, I think, my opinion.
244:35And this is the look of a woman that is starting to get bored.
244:39>> 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 Erikica Kirk is not complicit somehow. Cuz what >> that those [snorts] 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 with every fiber of her being, believed all the evidence, because she did. She just actually did. Would it then follow that somehow she's complicit in his
245:06>> she be complicit in being the dumbest [ __ ] wife on planet Earth?
245:11she'd be complicit in like, "Oh my god, I wish I hadn't married her. If I if my wife someday if I get if I get offed in some weird way like this, if I get off in any way, if I die of natural causes, and my future wife is not at in any way suspicious, not looking into anything, if my wife is just like, I believe whatever the police say happened, I am I am crawling out of my grave and walking back up to her front door to serve her divorce papers." Dumb.
245:40dumb. Dumb. Okay. [snorts] Um, Charlie deserved a wife that was a little more aware of how the world works than those actions portray.
245:51But again, they tried to do the gotcha on Candace and she just said it's hard not to it's impossible not to believe that Erica is involved. And it's true.
245:59Straight up to the text message that he like tried to share at the beginning that directly contradicted what Erica said very definitively about Charlie's text messages in the days before he was murdered. directly flipping his stance on all sorts of things in TP USA.
246:12Undoing the Doge audit. No more audits.
246:14No need. Flipping back to Zionism all the way. Shabbat shalom. Daddy's home.
246:21>> I didn't say implicit in death. You added those two words.
246:24>> Okay. So, what she complicit in?
246:25>> 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.
246:30We are showing a clip of her on Weiss, which I >> And there's another element that she doesn't quite like say out loud. I don't think she keeps saying sort of complicit in in trying to sew this narrative of Tyler Robinson's guilt.
246:43But implicit in that is if you're trying to sew the narrative of Tyler Robinson's guilt without being certain of it, especially when you're the wife who should be the most motivated to be certain of it, you are actively participating in the cover up. And if you have any evidence to suggest that you should be questioning it and you still try to sew that narrative of his guilt, then you are very much complicit in the cover up. And being complicit in the cover up is not all that different than being complicit in the crime because you're helping out the same people to achieve the same ends. And then we have to start to wonder why. Is
247:17it really because you're just dumb and naive and have no idea how the world works and are just getting led along and you're innocent of all of it? you have no idea what's going on or is there more going on and when you look at Erica's life and lies people start to feel certain ways about it >> can't remember the date that she did that interview and Erica when she is asked are you one you know do you do you feel with 100% certainty that Kylie Robinson did did this and she says I do then again context matters I sit down with Erica for 4 hours under the assumption that she had some evidence right like I'm like I actually this is
247:49why I did not engage in any like Erica >> this part's amazing because this is it really exposes I mean So much of this exposes the fact that the the central planning behind this Andrew operation which if you trace it back traces back to the con think tanky kind of space that you know TP USA, Daily Wire, uh the Louder with Crowder crew, these sorts of like studios that are totally independent Republican outlets that are not in any way controlled by the deep state in Israel. totally [snorts] not just Zionist mouthpieces with a, you know, paint of America on top. Um, people that live in that environment,
248:29that do shows in that environment, I don't think that they can genuinely comprehend of someone doing a show the way Candace does her show where it's actually just organic authentic thoughts produced by just her for the mo like pretty much entirely just her. Um, she does tend to use a teleprompter for any specific details, but she just riffs the entire time. Her her teleprompter scripts are basically empty. Um, I've seen them myself. Um, and so her whole show, all of her body of work is truly hers and she's an expert at it and she knows it very well. Whereas like Brandon Tatum, I don't think he remembers his
249:02shows the way that Candace remembers her shows. So, it's just kind of interesting how like they thought they could gotcha her with her own clips, but she does the research, does the factecking, she doesn't just spit random [ __ ] out. So, like she stands by what she said and she remembers what she said and she just can immediately contextualize it and make Andrew look like a [ __ ] cuz he has no idea where that clip is from. He didn't pick it. He didn't pull it. It's not relative to what relevant to what he was saying. It's literally just a pre-armed clip that they already had prepared in the background and they noticed that
249:28Andrew was slowing down and wasn't saying anything intelligent. So, they just dropped a new clip in is what it looked like.
249:33>> Everyone's questioning what she's wearing and all of a sudden. I was like, I'm going to wait here. But it actually just gives Candace another opportunity to demonstrate her subject matter expertise and her lived experience in the case doing real journalism >> 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 come on weird mannerisms. And then when I sat down with her and I was expecting for her to say, well, you know, I'm obviously the victim on the case and we got to see the shot, you
249:58know, taken or this or that, whatever it is. Great. You know, that's why she's being that's why she has that much confidence two months ago. 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? It's >> complicit. And again, you said complicit in the death of Carly. Well, if you let me finish my sentence, I could tell that. But my point being is that then you take a look at this and you go, "Okay, well, this is weird. Why Why would you have this confidence?" And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, "Okay, great. I want to go
250:20out there and defend you now. I want people to know that you can't say this stuff publicly, but you know more things." And she just blanks. And then she says, "Well, I'm going to call the lawyer." And she called the lawyer.
250:26Again, all of this is on my show. So, out of context clip, it's not going to work because I know what I say on my show. So, we call her lawyer and her lawyer says to us, "Uh, he calls him on the phone, pardon me, and uh it's me, her, and Justin Strife." And he I'm like, "Okay, great. What do you guys have?" He goes, "Well, we don't have anything yet. That's not We're not at that phase yet." And I'm like, "What do you mean you don't have anything?" He says, "Well, don't you know how it works? It's a probable cause hearing."
250:41So, 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 Robbins is guilty. And so, I asked her directly, her lawyer directly, the phones in between us. I'm like, "Wait, so just so I'm clear, you haven't seen anything that the public hasn't seen?"
250:55And he says, "No." So, I'm going back to Amanda. I'm going, "Okay, so why is Erica saying with such a degree of certain like she sent out to convince the public?" And and people bit, by the 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 >> I did, too. I thought that she was quietly working behind the scenes to to collect evidence. Any woman deserving of Charlie Kirk, they should have been [ __ ] trying to solve the case just like Candace from day one. And I remember back at that exact time before we knew who Erica was
251:26and what was going on here, we had very little info to point to Tyler Robinson.
251:31very very very blurry images, trash ass video, and uh a lot of holes in the story. A lot of weird coincidences. Um by definitely way way way more than enough that I would expect my wife to have some [ __ ] questions.
251:47Um yeah. Yeah. Fminus wife material based on her whole handling of the situation.
251:56>> Why express that confidence to the public as opposed to just being like, "We don't know yet. I feel not probably involved if they make a >> I don't understand how would any of this make her complicit in what >> I've already told you. She was she's complicit in in trying to fool the public into thinking this is some open and shut.
252:07>> Yeah, good point, Candace. She could have at least been neutral. I'm just saying that I hope that my future wife is like, "F this [ __ ] It's a conspiracy. Let's go and then burns it all to the ground and solves the case.
252:18That's what's going to happen when I get assassinated."
252:21I'm kidding. Obviously, I'm fine.
252:22>> She trying to fool the public into this if she believes that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk. If she working on it, how would that be complicit in anything?
252:30>> I I do.
252:31>> Are you saying that you think she doesn't believe it?
252:32>> I I don't believe that at that stage she sat down with their advice.
252:34>> Now there's weird ticks coming out.
252:36Notice his head twitches.
252:39>> She was she's complicit in in trying to fool the public into the open and shut.
252:42>> How is she trying to fool the public into this? If she believes that she believes that that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk, if she believes that, how would that be complicit in anything?
252:50>> I do.
252:51>> Are you saying that you think she doesn't believe it?
252:52>> I I don't believe it. At that stage, she sat down with very wife that that's what she believes. No, but >> make it more frequent. So when you just say complicit, you just mean she believes that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk. That's it.
253:00>> That's what we were talking about.
253:01That's why I said if your strategy was to dice up clips and take it out of context and make it.
253:05>> Yeah. But then why not just play the full thing? Like why?
253:07>> Because we don't have like infinite amounts of time. I'm guessing you probably don't want to watch.
253:10>> I'm going to go back to my theory. Like >> because we don't have like infinite amounts of time, I'm guessing. And like do you see how pathetic that vibe is?
253:18Let me try to get it one more time because it's like it's easy to miss it in that context because he's been kind of like building closer and closer and closer to it over time. But when it's juxtaposed against like a normal calm delivery to camera >> like why have like infinite amounts of time I'm guessing and you probably don't want to watch >> I'm going to go back >> because we don't like have infinite amounts of time I'm guessing and you like don't want to watch.
253:44You see how like defensive that is? How like like the poised way to do that, Andrew would just be like, "Well, we just don't have all the time in the world." So, we clipped them, but we didn't intend to do anything, you know, nefarious about it. So, I'm sorry if it feels that way. Plenty of not defensive ways to, [snorts] you know, respond to that one.
254:07>> 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 Dr. Clips and getting >> Well, there's no doctor in anything. I'm just making sure that we got this right.
254:14that what you're actually saying is that Erica when I reexamined her actions backward because I did not have this perspective of her at the beginning which is why it's so funny to me that you guys make it seem like I'm ground zero. People thought Erica was sus from day I forgive him and I was not a part of that. I did not lean into that. I did not contribute to that. I was getting actually >> I was flabbergasted when I found out that Candace was not suspicious of Erica yet. I was like bro what? I mean it's one I understand that you're not talking about it but like you're not suspicious of it's like what? And I [snorts]
254:42remember at the time I was looking to Candace for how I should feel about Erica because I knew that Candace would have way more of an inside scoop, some sort of ins I I assumed from day one that Candace and Erica were in comms because that would be the logical thing for Charlie's wife to do. That would be the bo by far most logical thing for Charlie's wife to do is get in touch with the extremely powerful media figure that is basically built their career on sort of like investigating conspiracies and figuring out what's going on who cares about Charlie who wants to make sure we have this right and just make
255:14sure we have it right.
255:16That would have been an extremely powerful ally for Erica to have had she truly been just like some floundering lonely widow with no idea what had just happened. [snorts] And then we found out that Candace had not spoken to her. She she had Charlie's phone and she uh >> yeah anyways you know the rest.
255:38>> 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.
255:43Things changed for me when I saw that Zoom call. I would tell you that um for sure. And the fact that she lied to me.
255:48So I sat across from her and you know got to I wanted to have that conversation publicly but they were probably grateful they didn't do it publicly. Uh, she told me >> they're wishing this conversation wasn't public right now.
255:56>> 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.
256:02>> Have you addressed what that lie was?
256:04>> Yeah, I've talked about we have a list of lies that we've told you. We can find out with her.
256:07>> Well, no. I I didn't want her to cage up. I I didn't want to do this and because I didn't know what to expect.
256:11Like 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 the organ.
256:15>> And her fans gave her [ __ ] for not going hard on her then and and you know, going soft. Um, even though I think Candace's strategy was rightation and I I don't know what I'm I didn't know. I didn't want to just out of >> curio before anything happened with Charlie. How close were you and Erica?
256:28>> Not very close.
256:29>> So there's not a relationship.
256:30>> No, I mean there 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 in my life. I get married and I get pregnant. I've been pregnant. I haven't stopped being pregnant. And what you want out of life changes. You don't want to be running around. and um she's currently like 8 months pregnant or something. Let's just remember that >> week and traveling on a plane non-stop.
256:53You suddenly want to start building at home and live. I was desiring that suburban life.
256:56>> Did you guys ever do double dates? You, George, her and Charlie. Was there ever double dates between?
256:59>> Oh, I I was uh you know engaged to George quickly 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 we 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
257:19were dating. So it wasn't like I would have was conscious I really need to get to know this person and so it was just kind of normal that by that time because of where I was in my life and I wasn't spending any time getting to know Erica.
257:27>> So the complicit part about Erica to you is that a gut feeling do you think >> it >> again Andrew's on the cut couch right now just chilling just waiting buying his time counting the minutes until he can get the [ __ ] out of here >> formed when she lied. You can take the lead. I'm just asking questions. Well, I don't I actually don't I still don't understand what she's you think she's complicit in.
257:45>> Yeah. So, when I say >> and goes right back to the say like how do you not understand yet?
257:50>> Erica's listen. That's my opinion. When you tweeted Erica's too [ __ ] to kill her husband, would you like to expl?
257:59>> It's not really an ad hom it is kind of relevant, right? Like it's kind of relevant. It's not really an ad homonym.
258:04He tweeted that and it's it's relevant to talking about Erica Kirk. It's kind of, you know, it is, it's not good faith debate, but it's kind of a banger move.
258:14>> 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.
258:22Who knew?
258:22>> And he just did it. He just said it. You guys should You guys should see the the clip of Sneo's stream. Sne was watching live. Um, and live while this was happening. before Andrew said that, right before Candace says that and Sneo just comes up to Mike and says, he's going to say all women are [ __ ] And then he leans back and Andrew Wilson says, "I really just think all women are retarded." And Sneo was just like, "Yeah, it was pretty funny."
258:49Predictable, man. Very predictable. And uh you walked right into that one and it was a bad move because if you didn't realize, a huge majority of the people that you're trying to convince of your position here are women.
259:03So, and bonus points, none of them are [ __ ] enough to pay someone $300,000 to get publicly flogged.
259:13>> By the way, what dramatically transformed your opinion of Erica after uh going to the headquarters? Because you were pretty hostile about >> I wasn't hostile towards him.
259:20>> You don't think calling somebody too [ __ ] No. Come on. That's like normal tongue and cheek stuff for me online.
259:24>> Oh, you're being tongue tongue and cheek.
259:25>> Yeah, usually when I call someone [ __ ] the head switches, >> like for instance, boom, you got supporters. I mean, if you were if you want to use the same exact just feels like a nervous like Owen Benjamin, he called you bad names and and called your husband bad names. Are you you're just like, well, that's no big >> Owen Benjamin called everyone bad names.
259:40If Owen Benjamin hasn't called you bad names, it's cuz he doesn't know who you are or he actually does not like you.
259:44Um, yeah, he >> 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? Do you think still think she's too [ __ ] >> No, no, no, no. I didn't know Erica Kirk. I'd never met her before.
259:56>> Okay. But you had an issue with Turning Point being led uh by a bunch of femots saying talking about the feminist [clears throat] angle. Then suddenly you go to the headquarters. You go into the headquarters. Now a sudden you got text messages that you're sharing with them.
260:06You say that you're you and your wife are getting involved with management.
260:08>> No. No. I'm not involved in any management attorney.
260:10>> Well, I'm pretty.
260:11>> And he's trying to present it as though he's like, "No, I still think women are [ __ ] I don't like that. [ __ ] those femb bots." But like he's also out on his own platform and on Twitter and stuff trying to like come after Candace by like white knighting as though it's like it's immoral to say anything bad about Erica Kirk the widow. She's been through so much and I have such a big heart for her that like, yeah, that's real. You can go find his his videos like that that are like trying to paint himself as the high moral ground here.
260:34Um, but then in the moment he just he thinks that all women are [ __ ] >> Sure. There was 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 road >> No, no, hang on. I'll explain what happened just that you understand. Yeah.
260:46So, 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've ever met anybody at TUSA.
260:53>> Okay. Then you said you sat down with I wonder who gave that recommendation. And I wonder how um how much cred they just burned with the people that they recommended him to.
261:06>> Erica.
261:06>> Well, I didn't sit down. I talked to her in the hallway.
261:09>> So, you didn't sit down and speak with Erica?
261:10>> No, I didn't have like some sit down long conversation. We We talked in the hallway.
261:13>> Okay. You gave her the hug?
261:14>> Yeah. Gave her the hug right there. My My wife did, did too. We were both very sorry for what happened.
261:17>> Okay. So, at what point did you start receiving text messages from that you cited in your opening statement?
261:22>> Well, I just reached out to TP USA and said, "I'm prepping for a debate. Is there anything that's pertinent that I can use here?
261:25>> Do you find it interesting that people have been asking for, you know, basic answers to questions and you're saying that you walked into their headquarters and reached out and they >> It's amazing, isn't it? If you reach out in good faith and you're not demonizing them and saying that they're complicit in the murder of people's deaths that that perhaps they're actually willing to release things to you that are certain.
261:39>> That's what Candace was doing for the first like two or three months.
261:43[sighs] >> Are you believe Let me just audience.
261:47Do you believe him? Do you think that he just reached out to Te USA and said, "I'm having a debate with Candace Owens.
261:52um nothing to do with you and um I was just wondering if you had any new evidence that no one's ever seen before.
261:58And then they were just like, "Oh yeah, Erica's got this text message that she used to say it didn't exist, but now it does exist and she's just going to give it to you." Have fun with that.
262:08>> Other than thinking that, you know, perhaps >> diabolical was going to release that information. I didn't I didn't demand it be released to me. Um I >> This is the part where he starts hiding more and more into his hand. So just watch it over the next like 30 minutes to an hour. It'll come and go, but it'll get it'll get like right up in there for a little bit of it like this and it's [clears throat] pretty funny.
262:26>> Actually, never demanded that be released. I just simply said that this is what was going on in the last 48 hours. Maybe to the media they could release it. They could release it to PB too [ __ ] in June. So what?
262:35>> Yeah. I just think it kind of shows that Turning Point is sending you as their horse.
262:38>> They just don't have they don't have the courage to have the conversation. If they were just releasing something and going it's not evidence sharing your opinion that she's too [ __ ] I can't share my opinion, but I think it's going to register. It's 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 >> a year later they decided to give it to him to come to her house as a sort of surprise to try to get her? Gotcha.
263:03Even though if Charlie Kirk is sending a text message the day before he dies that he's worried that the left is going to kill him, you don't think they would release that before now?
263:14You don't think that that would, you know, be relevant to the murder that happened the next day?
263:23No. Instead, Erica Kirk is going to go on the record on video and say he was not sending anyone messages in the days before he died about anyone killing him.
263:30He was not sending those. They don't exist.
263:33Stop it.
263:35>> The public's not smart enough to do that. Do you think that if you term 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. It really was actually amazing to me how if you approach people in good faith and just
263:56say, "Hey, I'd actually like to know what the facts and details are on this."
263:58They actually do talk to you. It's amazing >> that whole little bit there. All that I'm hearing is like, you know what's amazing to me is if you like never say anything bad about the administration, they'll like invite you to their parties and like give you wine and like um like uh boys um whatever you're into, you know, and maybe drugs and you'll like keep getting invited to the parties and they'll love you and you'll get to keep on coming back to the White House and there you'll you'll you'll move up in the world if you just don't say anything bad about the administration ever. It's great. It's called journalism,
264:26right? A Benny, that is called access journalism. [clears throat] And um yeah, I just wonder how much access uh our boy Andrew actually has behind this smile.
264:42Very trustworthy smile. I accidentally paused on.
264:45>> 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 good faith. It demonstrates that you walked into Point USA headquarters and came out a different man because you were critical of your organization. You were critical of Erica and now you're sitting here going to interrogate you for critical of somebody that you hadn't met and then you meet them and you're less critical of them. Uh, and the inverse happened, too. I was critical about Erica and now I'm more critical about >> I'm asking you, isn't it the
265:05>> That was a clever comeback right there.
265:06>> That there's people you've been critical of. You've met him, you're le critical after you meet them.
265:09>> Uh, too [ __ ] 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 feminate against the the feminist and red pillars and >> against only fan thoughts.
265:23>> A lot of the actual So, I'm a Christian ethicist.
265:25>> You go on to Joe Rogan and you're like like soft explaining away Eric had to take over Charlie's company when they don't have a parent at So now you're a feminist icon. Like you just go into the headquarters and you just shift all your perspectives.
265:33>> That's a bizarre criticism. Like nobody's >> That's a very logical criticism >> in the bigger girl boss position than you.
265:40>> I'm actually >> Candace. Um I I'm pretty sure she wisely decides not to try to hash that point out because it would be silly for her to try to defend herself there. So I'll defend her there. Candace is like, yes, Candace is a girl boss. She makes lots of money. She has a successful show. Um, yeah, that defines as girl boss, but in the actual lifestyle that her and her family run, um, it doesn't really come across that way very much, honestly. Um, she is very much in her feminine energy, in her like she's got her house and her space and her kids. Um, and she's constantly pregnant and she is like,
266:19this is basically a gossip column. This is a very feminine show. This is just like Candace coming on and gossiping about all the news that she's got and all the sources that she got. And she just happens to be particularly good at making her like journalism feel like how women feel when they're doing gossip.
266:33Um, and there's usually these bigger stories and all this stuff going on.
266:36She's very good at it, but it's she's really not that girl bossy. She doesn't run her business at all. She has no idea how much money she makes. She has no idea how the finances work. She has no idea how any of that happens because George manages it all because there's this whole other apparatus around her.
266:48And she is much more like like the little princess in her castle that does all the like mom stuff [clears throat] and uh has this fun show that she goes and just like, you know, talks on a lot.
267:00It It's really not um she's not she's not as girl bossy as he tries to make her out to be. Honestly, Rachel Wilson comes across as much more of a girl boss. Holy [ __ ] As in, if you imagine spending the day with Candace Owens or with Rachel Wilson based on their personalities, [clears throat] who do you think is going to give you more peace and calm and and relaxation versus nails on chalkboard?
267:30But anyways, >> 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? Again, to the point being that Erica is abandoning her children to be the CEO of this gigantic [ __ ] company, that's vastly different than the woman that intentionally builds the studio in her own basement so that she can spend her whole day with her kids every day.
267:55That's the uh con. That's the um whatever Andrew says he is dream is to not have to go to work, stay home with the kids and the woman gets to raise the kids and the dad can do all the money stuff and take care of everything.
268:09Pretty traditional.
268:12>> 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.
268:19>> Why should we take the organization?
268:19>> No, that makes sense why you home your kids. Just so you know.
268:21>> Wait a second. That that's bizarre.
268:22>> They don't have a parent. They don't have a parent and they just suffered a trauma. You don't go into the office.
268:25You want to protect your husband's >> This is how you know that this man does not understand women.
268:32It's It's And it's a distinctly different vibe [clears throat] when like a 40 or 50-year-old something I don't I have no idea how old Andrew is because he just looks really old. Um it's a distinctly different vibe when a man that old does not understand women at all, especially when he's married to one. Um cuz it's like you you would think if you'd been paying attention to women instead of just calling them [ __ ] the whole time, you might have picked up on some aspects of their nature and of how they feel about the world and what they think and what they're like and what they care about.
269:13And uh you should probably not try to um argue this one, Andrew. You should probably move on.
269:18>> Legacy, right? You're trying to find some legacy is his children, not the organization.
269:21>> It's both. No, it >> Yes, it is both. It's totally rational and reasonable to believe that it would be both Turning Point USA. That is part of Charlie Kirk's leg. He worked this whole life and his children. Now, for you though to say that anybody's a girl boss, right? That's like >> So, to Andrew's credit, [clears throat] in Charlie's mind, Andrew is probably right. I'd bet that if you would ask Charlie, as if you were to ask most men that have children, they would probably say both. And they if they're a good dad, they would probably lean they would probably say their kids are their most important legacy [ __ ] better.
269:53[clears throat] Or they'd be like, "My kids, but like my, you know, my my career matters, too." And that's how I would feel if I had kids right now, too.
270:00My kids would obviously be my my full legacy. My family would be 100% the legacy, and I would give this whole career up in a minute if it if if I had to. Um, and then secondary to that, this career is my legacy, and it's [ __ ] cool, and I'm very proud of it, and it will, you know, grow and change with me my whole life.
270:16But no, my care I would never [laughter] even with a really cool meaningful career like this, Lord almighty, it would not be more important than your children. [snorts] But um that's the male perspective.
270:31That's what maybe Charlie might have thought, but we're talking about what Erica would think, what the female would think. And if you think the female is going to prioritize the business over her children, do you think Andrew calls it a snizz because he's like not like does and like what what are you doing?
270:54You really don't understand it very well, do you?
270:59I just kind of curious like never mind. I don't want to think about it. I definitely don't want to talk about it.
271:04>> That came out of your mouth.
271:05>> No, that was you. You brought up girl boss.
271:07>> Girl boss came out of your mouth.
271:08>> Yeah. I'm just saying I'm telling you that you brought up this idea that I'm defending some feminist nonsense. I'm not. I'm pointing out that there, by the way, not qualified to take over his company.
271:16>> There's always objective outliers to each situation.
271:18>> This is such a back foot for him to be on.
271:22>> She's just gotten Andrew to sit in this cuck chair and and unfortunately be forced to try to defend the perspective that Erica Kirk was qualified to take over as CEO of that company. from his manosphere, all women are [ __ ] perspective. That is now his job is to defend that. And he walked right into it.
271:40>> 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 TP USA as I've always been. And I'm just as critical of any pro-Zionist position as I've ever been.
271:52>> Andrew Wilson is critical of the proionist positions just like he's always been, right? [clears throat] 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 sense?
272:08>> I would like to say for the record that I think Erica is underqualified from uh to run the organization and on on the more emotional aspects. I agree with the what seems to be a majority opinion cuz I 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.
272:24>> Okay. Well, I understand that you can have those criticisms, >> but I'm not understanding still how that would make her compl.
272:29>> Um, I don't understand how you don't have those criticisms. Andrew, you look like a hypocrite.
272:34>> I I don't have to keep answering the same questions, but understanding still how that would make I don't have to keep >> Look at Look at that. Oh, man.
272:42>> I understand that you can have those criticisms. Look at this.
272:45>> But I'm not understanding still how that would make her complicit.
272:49>> I don't have to keep answering the same question. Your team is asking your team is asking to play clip. So if we want to play, >> this is her team rescuing him.
272:59>> This clip to just finish the 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.
273:05>> And causing that 36 diameter as would happen with a pet explosive as we 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 Carolyn had to scramble to get the cameras down because they were never supposed to see it. 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.
273:33They panicked. That was what then that's why Teresa was on the phone with me.
273:36Again, this is my theory and I am now very much sticking to it. Okay, they panicked. It's the reason Erica had to step out once. That's why she would have got gotten on the phone with Terrell so quickly because I was going, "Why is Terl saying, "Oh, I don't want Eric to relive. That's why I did it. He didn't have an answer." He was nervous. It was crazy. And he acknowledged he spoke to Erica immediately. Why just speak to Erica immediately?
273:51>> Again, this is a really old clip. If uh Andrew had a competent, you know, command of the facts and the information in the case, he could have just asked her about the the exploding microphone theory himself and much more effectively fared out what she does believe and doesn't and had her much more on the spot to make claims and assertions and have to talk through the evidence. way more effective strategy for Andrew to actually tease these points out himself and then maybe play the clip as the gotcha once she accidentally, you know, stumbles.
274:24But then again, that would require you to know anything about the exploding microphone theory and to be able to compet competently hold your own against Candace about it. So instead, it's a clip.
274:35>> Do you believe that there was a shape charge that killed Charlie?
274:38>> Hey, can I ask you why you keep starting clips mid-sentence?
274:40>> Probably to get to where the clip is.
274:41No, it doesn't seem that way because you can always start a clip at the beginning of a sentence like you're just sort of like it's completely out of context.
274:46>> Um I think it was who was it that pointed this out? I think it was Destiny. I was watching Destiny respond to this because it was just an interesting neutral perspective.
274:56I think it was because he was talking about it as a debater. Um and Destiny is very much a debater. [clears throat] pointing out that Candace is doing a really good job of this debate tactic where when you get the upper hand, as long as you have the upper hand like this, and your opponent starts to uh use non-information-based approaches like semantics and like, oh, and like trying to get lost in the weeds of fallacies and like debate how debates work and philosophy and all this [ __ ] Um, to just point out what they're doing. Just point out their their bro. So you are just totally distracting, changing the
275:35topic. You're presenting all these clips that seem to start in the middle of a sentence. It's very effective. The audience immediately resonates with it and it makes him look like an idiot.
275:43>> Wait, I didn't [clears throat] I didn't prepare.
275:46>> And the fact that he just said that he didn't prepare the clips, bro. Um, problem.
275:57[snorts and gasps] When I prepare a TV, when I prepare a show, a TV show, when I prepare one of my shows, [clears throat] I prepare the clips. You know what happens when I don't prepare the clips? I don't know what they are. And so when they come on the screen, my brain is disorganized and I have to have the same expression as Andrew of trying to figure out what the clip is so I can respond to it. And it's not it doesn't work. That's why I do all my own shows. I do all my own prep. I do all my own research because if someone else is going to prepare it all for me, I can't speak off the top about it. I don't I
276:29don't have the the thesis we're putting together. I don't know what what I'm doing. And so I'm going to look like an idiot. I'm going to look like Brandon Tatum. Um, and there's no nothing wrong with your buddies preparing your clips, but if you were the master debater you claim yourself to be, and you were coming in here with full knowledge of what's going on and you had command of the subject matter, you'd think that you would have known the clips you wanted and you would have picked them. That's just my thought. Maybe I just, you know, am more diligent than you in the way I prepare for things, but that's what I would have
276:56done.
276:57>> To like I said, this this 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 cuz 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
277:22shattered 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 said at the beginning of the episode. I just it was just not my expertise and I was concerning myself with timelines and stories and statements 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.
277:37So, I'm walking them through uh John Bray's theory if we started to insert.
277:43>> And the problem is with this strategy of Andrew and his team is that Andrew, they prepare these gotcha clips to try to get her. But the problem is that Andrew does not have a command of the vast amount of information that you got to have in order to be able to debate this woman on her own turf about her own [ __ ] show.
278:02And so inherently they play the clip and Candace only has to say like a sentence and a half to have walked far enough away from the substance of the clip that Andrew no longer knows where they are and that they are now in uncharted territory where Andrew has no context and it's her show and her life and her lived experiences. And so he's [ __ ] He can't say a damn thing because he has no idea what the like where she's at by now. She he doesn't know the context of what she's talking about and it's her life. So good luck being writer than her. So, so it's kind of funny to watch the the whole strategy just backfire so
278:37dramatically with the clips.
278:38>> 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.
278:45>> If that's if that's the case, if you're just hypothetical exploring, that's why I'm just asking directly.
278:48>> Yes. But if you But that's obvious.
278:50>> No, because if you had picked the clip yourself, you would never have picked the clip and you wouldn't then give up on it right away because, oh, if it's just hypothetical, then I don't even care about it. It's not even relevant.
278:57It's I'm just asking question. Then why did you prepare the clip, Andrew? Oh, wait. who didn't prepare the clip because this is not your debate. This is oh something else, a whole other thing >> when [snorts] 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 like what's this? What's this? You watch the episode. Do you think that your alternative theory >> I think John's theory should be explored. Yes.
279:18>> Okay. Do you do you think that Charlie Kirk was killed with an explosive?
279:20>> I think I think that that is a possibility. Yes. Okay. And it should be explored. He's done a lot of work on John Bry 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 Bible.
279:31>> So this was the big thing I want to get into with you on the explosives too.
279:34What 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. this then [laughter] I'm not sure you looked into shape charges.
279:54>> There's literally no videos when the shot rings out um that kills Charlie. At least it sounds like a shot to me.
280:00People are actually like looking up towards where the uh the gun is being fired. They're looking away. So, one of the first things that actually got people started talking about the exploding mic theory is the apparent gas that releases out of his shirt um in like the first few frames of the video.
280:18And that got a lot of people going on it. And it took a lot of time before people like I was not down with the exploding microphone theory until I had John Bray explaining how shape charges work. And then I started to do more research and then I was like, "Oh, that makes sense." But we're going to He's gonna sorry [clears throat] he's going to circle back to the shirt movement and air displacement and stuff and we'll we'll do more of a detail >> for where the sound is like where's the actual explosion.
280:44>> Well, for every person that you say looks away, there's going to be a person that was looking forward. Uh we have former Marines that have gotten on and said it looks to me like there's an explosion under his shirt, right? You obviously saw um uh Rob O'Neal go on to I'm forgetting which platform it was where he said that's the first thing I thought was >> Rob is the man that killed Osama.
281:00>> 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 and his experience.
281:06>> So I'm going to take that and also there were people who tested like immediately spoke to the media that day who said the same thing that they thought that something happened on your 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 like somebody shot from underneath? Why is his shirt moving first? It doesn't make sense to me. And >> very important piece of context that not enough people are still keyed into and saying clearly and directly and we're not allowed to show the video anymore.
281:27So it's kind of getting lost.
281:33Don't know for sure if the video is 60 frames per second or 30 frames per second because those are the two standard video formats that iPhones will shoot in. But the video the clearer video the one of the clearest videos of the shot that happens where you see the shirt do this. Sorry. I guess in my camera it's um this side to this is what we see the movement of his shirt from here down by his microphone up to this position where it very literally it's like you took a pinch and you grabbed that pinch and you pulled it up by his neck all the way up to here. That happens in two frames of the video before
282:14all this like before the blood in the hole appear over here. Before any of that, the first thing that happens in that video is like one frame this is going like this and then like second frame it's like and then third frame this is this is like already up here.
282:33Sorry, second frame this gets up here and then third frame you start to get like the and you get the gas coming out and yeah um two frames. So what that means a that the shirt moved from down here up towards the wound which we'll talk about in a minute and secondly two frames is 130th of a second. If that is at 1/60th and if it's filmed in 1/30th or sorry 30 frames per second then it's 115th of a second. That is the longest that it could have taken 115th of a second for the shirt to get from here to all the way up here moving towards the wound not away from it. [sighs] And it happened before the
283:12wound appeared and before anything else happened. So just to remind us all what the shirt did >> because of air dispersal from the bullet. So when >> he's about to describe it as being that's because of air dispersal from the bullet.
283:27Um yeah whatever bud. Um throwing giant rocks into water.
283:36Let's do a basic physics lesson. Andrew.
283:40Yeah.
283:41>> Two. Swing.
283:43>> Swing.
283:44>> Okay. One, >> two, three.
283:51>> Holy [ __ ] [laughter] >> All right. So, this is the ripple, the force ripple moving out through the water. I want you to find the ripple that is moving from the outside inwards towards the center point where the rock hit the water.
284:11Where's the ripples coming from the outside inwards, Andrew?
284:17Okay, pretty basic physics that if we're talking air dispersal, which doesn't happen when a bullet flies by, but certainly on impact, there is a force shock wave. And the way that all shock waves work are just like the way that a shock wave in water works when you drop a rock into it. Sometimes the medium is air, sometimes the medium is water, sometimes it's mixed medium of the body and the rest of it all. But shock waves obviously always move outwards from the center point. So if a shirt if there's a impact up here and there's a shock wave moving out from that, please explain to me how the shirt did this up to the
284:59actual like from down here to the wound in 1/5th of a second at the fastest before the wound even appeared. That's not how shock waves work. That's not how air dispersement from the bullet works.
285:12If you send a bunch of air at my chest, we all know that my shirt will go outwards away from the point of impact.
285:20Duh. And this is an easy claim that a lot of people like, a lot of the Andrews of this world, the shills, like to make because they know that we can't play the video on YouTube anymore. X is the only place where you can play that video. And so inherently I wind up having to describe it like I just did rather than showing you the actual video of that shirt just running up there in the exact wrong direction.
285:44So sorry, but physics says no.
285:47>> 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.
285:56>> Okay. So, >> it don't um it doesn't I I'm pretty sure it was Baron that shared a video. I I don't know where the video is. There was a great video of um people testing kind of Mythbuster style of shooting bullets past lots of little things like balloons and like like paper standing up and stuff. Stuff that would be easy to knock over and like there is basically zero wind along the path of a bullet on impact. Certainly, there's a [snorts] >> question for you. Does that box go sideways off the table?
286:27>> It can.
286:28>> It can.
286:28>> Yeah, it can. It depends on the dispersal.
286:30>> You 3,000 pounds of energy or 2,000 pounds of energy coming at you? That's how much it carries.
286:33>> 2,000 pounds of energy.
286:34>> Well, we can fact check that.
286:35>> Yeah, it's about 2,000 foot pounds of energy. Yes. Um, that's what all the AIS calculate. They're probably capable of it. Um, it's a lot.
286:46>> How many how many how many pounds of energy is it? A 306.
286:50Um, one of the more interesting questions to ask the AIS, um, we'll just ask Brave AI is, um, how many footbs of energy are required to break human skin? As in the rest of his neck that's containing all of this force that's dumping. Because if the bullet's traveling at, you know, this entry speed, hits his neck, and then stops in his neck, then by definition, all of the force that the bullet carried is now inside of his neck, spreading outwards like a shock wave. So his skin out here is old and you know, the tissues and flesh and bones, it's going to have to absorb all of it.
287:39This is a thing that has been studied Um, it takes about 1 to two footpounds of energy to break through human skin.
287:49[gasps] That 306 bullet was traveling pro probably carrying about 2,000 foot-lbs of energy. That all would have been dumped into his neck.
288:02So yeah, comparison to skull penetration. This is significantly less than the 33 ft-lbs generate generally required to penetrate a human skull, highlighting the difference in tissue density and structural resistance. And it's obviously not a one to one. It's not like if you like I mean I guess maybe it is. Maybe if you fire a bullet at 33 foot-pounds of energy, which is like impossibly slow.
288:28You can't fire a bullet that slow. Um maybe it would penetrate the skull.
288:33I don't know.
288:35But just, you know, let me zoom in on it for you in case you needed some help there.
288:42>> Uh, being shot 150 yards away. That's a great question for Grock. I'm going to say when we looked at it, it was between 1,500 and 2,000. I'm pretty sure pounds of energy coming at you and you just go >> sometimes it sometimes calculations go as high as 2200 >> upward and to the side. I don't really buy that. I'm going to just say I just think that that's not possible.
288:57>> There's actually this is an interesting completely kind of irrelevant debunk um from Mythbusters of all places. Uh, I love Mythbusters. I want to do I want to do like a whole episode about Mythbusters someday. Um, [snorts] they're just funny. But Mythbusters actually tested that idea that if you get shot by a bullet, you like fall backwards or fly backwards. It's not there's it doesn't actually happen. Um, the foot the energy that enters into a body when it gets hit by a bullet disperses into the body, but it does not like send you flying unless like it's a 50 cal or something like that. Um they
289:30shot all sort they shot their dummies and all sorts of different things with bullets that and like clearly demonstrated that like none of these things are like moving backwards. Um they also shot cowboy hats off of cowboy heads and the same thing when you like perch a cowboy hat on top of a cowboy head and you shoot through the top of the hat with no head involved. So it just goes through the hat. It just goes through and through. It doesn't like it doesn't like throw the hat anywhere.
289:55That's not how That's not actually how the internal ballistics of bullets hitting things works. Dude, check out that hair though, dude. [ __ ] Maybe we should just do the rest of the show like this. So, yeah, it was like I don't know. It was like an hour ago when I did my last um break that um I realized that we had made the mistake of committing to basically deciding to make like a 10-hour YouTube video about this whole thing. And that was when I decided that we're just going to make it like it's a live stream that I'm just doing alone right now. And then I'll put it out for all of you as a live stream.
290:30That's kind of the vibe we're on. We're just in we're just hanging out and chatting. And I know you guys missed the live streams and I missed the live streams and I'm sorry we can't do them right now. Um but this is a good substitute for now for today.
290:43>> Through on top of that. So there's another miracle you didn't get blown backward. You didn't. 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.
290:50And well, because he's actually shot and killed people.
290:52>> Why would that have anything to do with anything?
290:54>> Well, because he slowed down all the videos of the people he shot to see if their clothes moved.
290:57>> Well, why are you able to start your business at >> Andrew doesn't seem to slow down the videos to see how the clothes moved either? Because then he would understand that that's not how physics work. And that's a really dumb argument.
291:05>> Because I'm gonna I'm going to tell you how projectiles work. He's not even gonna I guarantee this guy is not going to disprove what I'm about to say. If it is, >> that is a bold thing to say about Rob O'Neal, but go ahead.
291:17>> 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.
291:23>> I think you're like totally psing right now, man. [laughter] >> Oh, it was such a good call out because it's exactly what's happening. It's like, no, Rob, you would agree with me on this one. I'm going to just like say some random [ __ ] about physics. Hey Andrew, here's some random [ __ ] about physics. Skin takes one to two foot pounds of energy to break. And he just explicitly made the point with that physics garbleygook that he said. We'll play it again. He was making the point that when a bullet flies through the air with a bunch of energy, that energy all has to go somewhere and it goes into
291:59whatever it impacts. Namely, the neck surrounded by the skin that ain't super strong.
292:07Not only am I not asking, I'm telling you, it doesn't have a choice. And you have mass 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.
292:20>> Oh, sorry. He was making a different point. The air has to go somewhere.
292:23>> Yeah. No [ __ ] bro.
292:26[snorts] >> Doesn't have a choice.
292:28>> I think you're like totally bsing right now, man.
292:31>> 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.
292:36Maybe not at the bottom of me asking.
292:37I'm telling you the truth. If a bullet is moving air, air has to move out of the way. Bullet, >> but maybe not at the bottom of a shirt here. I don't know. I just I disagree with that. I'd like to say for the record, I've watched some of you do these sort of things where you assert something with a lot of confidence and it's bullet displace.
292:51>> Yeah, Andrew, I fact checked it. Bullets displace air the same way that bullets displace water. Rocks displace water.
292:58Shock waves move outwards from the point of impact, obviously. And so if the point of impact is here, sorry, here, then there's zero reason in the whole physical world why the shirt would do this, right? Like that's not how that works. It would hit here and the shock wave would move out from that point.
293:19It's uh not complicated. You look like an idiot.
293:22>> Where is [clears throat] the air?
293:23Underneath his shirt here.
293:24>> It's not underneath the shirt.
293:25>> Well, it's this big. And you're telling me it's going to hit his neck and then shirt the shirt off.
293:28>> And yes, it is underneath the shirt.
293:30What she's referring to is the gas that you can see come up out from the top of his shirt >> stuck here and the collar is moving and then you see the wave here as he's moving backwards. Yeah, >> that's not true. And we obviously show that clip. I disagree with you.
293:42>> I understand you can't show for purposes.
293:43>> Exactly. Uh I disagree with people can go watch and make up your 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? They didn't make sense to me. It it almost looks just like this. It goes across. His necklace breaks first before Charlie even reacts.
293:53If you watch it in slow, his necklace breaks first, which I thought was very odd. And then you see a puff here and then the next thing you know there's a there's the entry move on his neck. I I would not confidently assert.
294:01>> Yeah, you kind of do. It's not a lot.
294:03It's definitely not what you would expect from an explosion, but again, we we pretend like governments and intelligence agencies and organized crime like syndicates aren't capable of like inventing complex explosive devices, smokeless explosives. You know, that bullets used to all smoke like [ __ ] crazy back in the day before they invented um like the smokeless powder technology they use in them today. So they don't like like black powder does. It's like people do innovate, believe it or not.
294:33[clears throat] Especially, you know, those one people that like to blow people up.
294:36>> I see smoke. I've never said on my platform explosion generally have smoke.
294:39>> I don't think that there's any >> totally misleading angle. Explosion.
294:43He's trying to imply like what the layman thinks of an explosion and a shape charge is vastly different.
294:48>> A quality version of video that would get us to be able to answer that question other than Ter's 4K footage that he has from the front. Yeah, >> there's a lot of um if you look at the Israeli pagers, it's assumed that they had a similar if not the same type of explosive that was used inside the pagers that would have been used inside of this road bike.
295:00>> I think >> that's totally made up. Why? Who assumed that? You not my theory.
295:08Um so it's a funny talking point because no no one assumed that and no one's claiming that they were the same. um the explosions from the pages were vastly different, much larger and much more just blow everything up. This would be a completely differenti device with a entirely different mechanism of action and different goal and payload and uh who knows PETN or maybe some other modified situation that doesn't make as much smoke. I have no idea. Not my area of expertise. Um, but I'm not dumb enough to speculate that the Israeli military has run out of creative ways to kill people. That's a losing proposition
295:46>> that you should, since you love debating, you should debate someone like John Bray, who's worked on that theory for 11 months, and ask those sorts of questions of how a shape charge would work. Uh, I presented the evidence of what was in the car and I also at that episode that you're clipping said John Bray has done an unbelievable amount of work on this, and I think he has debated a ton of people actually regarding this topic. So, that's the route that I would send you on. For purpose of 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 theory
296:08that should be thoroughly explored.
296:09>> There's two clips uh your team wants to show. One of them is the rival Neil clip since we're on it. So if you guys are ready in the back before we go to adbreak, if you want to pull it up, this is a good time to do so.
296:19>> And good to see you, General Hall. A lot of things bother um bothers me about this. Um nothing >> so he's [snorts] the guy that killed Osama bin Laden and we'll you know leave the controversy about that claim at the door. [sighs and gasps] >> Particular. It's not like I'm out there saying big lie or conspiracy or someone shooting that killed more than a hand.
296:35Let's make it less controversial. He was on the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden at least. Okay, can we agree on that?
296:41>> Full of people and this thing looked shady off the bat. I mean, just I tell people closer than I saw the camera and I've never seen a shirt move like that.
296:47That looks like an explosion to me. The just the fact that no one started doing first aid to Charlie Kirk. They were more concerned about getting Tims out of cameras and removing cameras and then getting him off the X somehow there didn't seem a lot concerned for for his life. It seemed like just clean it up and then I mean I've been told they paved it over a couple days later. And then you get Erica Kirk uh behind all the razledazzle and she's really quick to forgive the alleged shooter which technically says that was him because I forgive him but that you can't forgive Kenneth Owens for having an opinion
297:08asking questions and then mock people by saying oh I'm just asking questions.
297:10Yeah I'm I'm a C team six sniper I'm asking a lot of questions no one wants to answer him and you're able to >> he's actually said very little about the explosive there. So he says >> he observed he said he shot people up close and he's never seen a shirt move like that and it looked at him like an explosive notice you but when I play that video at full speed >> I can't see a shirt moving. I can only see a >> You're [ __ ] blind, Andrew. Yeah. At full speed, you can definitely see the shirt moving. You just can't analyze every single movement about it. But it's just so cute how he tries to like like
297:39come at Rob O'Neal here.
297:40>> Shirt moving when we slow it way down.
297:42So if I'm in real time, I'm just assuming this, right? I mean, if I was in real time and I was in like a close quarters combat, you kill somebody situation and I shot them, would you even see the shirt move? Well, I just feel like >> Well, Andrew, you don't know because you've not been in those situations.
297:56Neither have I. So, the best we can go with is Rob O'Neal's experience in this in this matter. [laughter] Would you even >> Five minutes ago, you were arguing that it was because the bullet carried air.
298:06Now, you're saying you don't see the short move at all.
298:08>> 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.
298:14>> That's not what I saw. And clearly, it's not what he saw. And he thinks there could be explosives. So, I'm just saying to you, people disagree with you. Your opinion your opinion is not on a fact.
298:19That's all. I understand. That's a good place for us to if we have another a break and then we can keep answer answering >> this little part right here. Dude, she dog walks him so hard. Oh my god. Let me just rewind and just watch the watch the what little masculinity is left um on the right side of the room just like, "Yeah, sure. Yeah, sure. We can do that."
298:42>> Yeah. And that's not what I saw. And clearly it's not what he saw and he thinks that there could be explosive. So I'm just saying to you your opinion on fact.
298:49I think that's a good place for us to if we have another a break and then we can keep answer answering your questions.
298:53>> Yeah, I mean I think um yeah, sounds good. Perfect. We'll do a quick three and a half.
298:57>> She's like, "Yeah, you're [ __ ] That's a horrible point." Um but whatever. You know, your opinion is not a fact. Um if you want, we can take a break now and then we can come back and keep answering your stupid questions.
299:07How's that sound? He's like, he's like, "Yeah, I guess so. I guess I I guess so."
299:16>> Ad break. We'll be back for the last segment.
299:17>> Cool. All right. Okay, we're going to skip the ad break and keep moving.
299:22>> Capital 1k or IRA and suddenly got hit with the tax they didn't expectation.com.
299:28>> All right, fantastic. So, Andrew, if you want to go with your last couple thoughts.
299:30>> Yeah. So, I just have two two more clips to play.
299:32>> Okay.
299:36>> Okay.
299:37>> Right. And then I uh we can do final thoughts, I'm guessing. Um >> through this last section, pay attention to Andrew's desire to leave the room. It becomes more and more and more obvious that Andrew is ready to end this [ __ ] debate and get out of there as soon as possible as this goes on. He's already not far. He's already thinking about that closing statement right now. He's like, "Oh my god, just get through that closing statement and get out of here and I'm done with this." Um, but it's still a long ways off.
300:06>> I Yeah, I feel like uh we got >> There's a lot of humiliation between here and there. Let's say that.
300:10>> Um, the two other clips I do want to play the Twigs clip. That one is important to me. The Twigs DNA clip and they're going to pull it up just to have you respond. 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 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
300:30speaking 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 while 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 but if you're if you want >> No, this is correctly saying you're saying it is on the gun.
300:46>> Twig 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 >> and he's still trying to like drag out like no but I wanted to play a gotcha clip. I prepared this gotcha clip. And she's like yeah I've already corrected the record on that one. I was wrong next. And he's like, "But but but my gotcha clip, >> we don't know yet." And so if the purpose of you showing this is to demonstrate that Candace makes mistakes sometimes uh when she's taking a lot of information and she's reading through
301:15legal documents and she's trying to remember this demonstrate something else. It is in fact the case we're all going to make mistakes and I've already made in the case. But in this case, you were very adamant that his DNA was on the gun itself.
301:26>> Yeah. So I'm just saying that it's not ruled out. We know there's five plus prints. I've said this so many times. I had to rewatch the testimony. It's like 9 hours a day. It got very scientific when they were speaking about this and I think I wrongly extrapolated that they meant all three of them were on the prince when the only person they officially named was Matt Robinson. So we don't know yet if um Lance Twig >> and basically everybody that's reported on that preliminary hearing got at least one or two facts objectively wrong from within one or the other portions of especially the DNA and the fingerprints
301:53complex stuff in there. all of the Fed slop shills either naively or possibly intentionally totally got things wrong that were very clearly stated in the testimony in there. I got stuff wrong. Candace got stuff wrong. It was very complicated.
302:10Extremely lengthy.
302:12>> It's the way it goes.
302:13>> 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.
302:20>> Sure. This like the Erica Kirk looking like.
302:22>> All right. You sit down with me this way. goes back to a previous claim that you made it up.
302:27>> I don't think that I I think Candace will point it out in a minute, but it's like five out of the six clips they wind up playing are basically trying to defend Erica. She points this out more later and then on X, she pointed it out.
302:36>> Straight to jail. Straight to jail.
302:38We're questioning at least Erica. I don't care who's Matt. I really do not care who wants to be upset after this episode. Really, you'll be wasting your breath. You can spend a billion dollars on influencers because this is all becoming increasingly inexplicable. You are asking me to be an idiot actually and I cannot do that for you. Someone once commented beneath this show that if the situations were reversed and there were this many verifiable lies >> the straight straight to jail.
303:00>> Yeah. So that's the show intro and straight to jail straight to jail monopoly.
303:03>> That was the weirdest clip ever. Did a human review this? Was this all clipped by AI with no human review? It ended and I thought that it was like they accidentally ended it early.
303:16Straight to jail? Really? You're going to say straight to jail?
303:22Are you [ __ ] >> Term.
303:23>> Okay. So, do not pass go. Yeah.
303:25>> Do not collect $200. It's >> Yeah. You know, part of the idiom that you can finish the sentence for her because we all know the idiom >> tongue and cheek. And then I 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 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.
303:43>> Do you know that she hasn't been?
303:44>> Um, no. Actually, that would be a great thing for the spokesperson to turn USA to say that she's already my guess would be she hasn't because they returned everything to her. But I they owe you that though. Why?
303:51>> They don't owe me anything. That's my show you're watching because you know the clips that you're pulling from my show. So if I want to say something on my show, I can say that. I didn't say they owe me something. I don't think that's ever say like you need to be sat down for questioning. You don't even know if they haven't been.
304:01>> That's strange, right?
304:02>> Oh my gosh. The audacity.
304:05[screaming] Andrew, you should take whatever giant stick is inside of your a-hole and pull it out and then like, you know, go deal with it, get cleaned up. Um, but I But how do you know she has a dirty bin? Ian, how do you how do you know that Andrew has a giant stick up his ass? Here's the secret. I don't, but I'm allowed to make fun of him for it anyways, cuz who cares?
304:35Oh, the audacity. The audacity that you would say that Erica Kirk should be sat down and questioned.
304:41>> Do you know if they have been?
304:42>> No, I have no idea.
304:43>> So, you're just saying what if they haven't been?
304:44>> Yeah, if you're if your entire if your entire thing is if No, it's not.
304:48>> Just filling the air with junk. Yes. Um, yeah. Candace calling out the junk for what it is is pretty funny.
304:53>> Junk. If if the query is why is it that Eric Ker'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.
305:08>> I just think that my opinion is that you should >> we got a lot of knowledge that something's wrong.
305:12>> Something's very wrong with Erica and we all got the knowledge and if you want to live outside of knowledge over in um uh paytoplay politics, wherever you're at, you can do that. That's up to you.
305:26>> Be sat down and questioned.
305:27>> But you're not sure if she hasn't been.
305:28>> Yeah. And you're not sure if she has been either. So, like I said, I feel like now you're just kind of filling the air turning points like we want you defend Erica and I have to say I don't think you've done an extraordinary job with that.
305:37>> But I'm not here to defend Erica. The thing is though is like >> 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.
305:50>> There's not a pickle jar in sight. Not even olives, though there very well could have been.
305:58There's nothing not there's only the one little tiny little tiny little tiny little piece about his wife. There's there is a lot of untrodden ground um that Candace did not touch.
306:07>> 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 we did not take out of context clips of Andrewly said we did not. No, when you said you were going to bring claims that you want me to speak to. You didn't say I intend on sitting you down with out of contexted clips to which we said to you before in an email. Any clips you want to share with us? Send it over. to start a debate claim so that we can both be ready to respond to it. This just that's not really what happened.
306:29>> Well, what's happen?
306:30>> Yeah, this this the way that you're framing the exchange, that's not that's not actually what happened. We were negotiated. 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.
306:45>> 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 the trial in this hearing. And I I do think that he fell I think he failed.
306:52>> There's nothing out of Hang on. There's nothing here.
306:55or no. Well, we were supposed to be debating the case whether or not there was overwhelming evidence.
307:00>> These are your claims about the case.
307:01>> No, you then admitted that now you're getting into another sphere and you want to talk about the transcendentals and things that I've said and like four out of five of your clips are about Erica Kirk. So, the general is your turning points horse. Quite a few of them were three. So, you're just making stuff.
307:13>> We get a count of how many were about Erica. I feel like three. Okay. I said four. But those are extraordinary claims which why you're asking. Okay. Well, okay. But the point being is now you're veering into trying to get >> if you can't tell.
307:26I'm very empathic, [laughter] which is a great a great thing to to be sometimes. Right now, it's making me feel very awkward for this poor man.
307:38That's just like, oh, don't say that, bro. Do not say that. Oh my god, that's the dumbest. Do not walk into that trap.
307:45>> Need to defend my opinions. And then you completely shook responsibility when I point out yours. No, they're not claims.
307:48When your claim is too [ __ ] you go, that's just whatever. And then you move on.
307:51>> Claim and I'm responsible for the claim.
307:53Well, earlier when I brought it up, you said that it was tongue and cheek.
307:56>> Yes, sure. I That's me responding to your criticism of the claim. That's all I'm doing here.
308:00>> I was interested and um >> and I'm happy to get into also the PY stuff now if you'd like to. One more clip.
308:06>> That is such a random like his brain is breaking and so he just like murdered the exit. I'm happy to get into the psy stuff is the whole hour and a half that you're supposed to be grilling her on right now. We're like most of the way through the psy stuff and it's your job to grill her on it.
308:27What are you talking about, bro? And then his team saves him with another clip and they get Patrick Bet David to interrupt him to be like, "Shut the [ __ ] up, Andrew.
308:37>> We're going to get up and you stopped it and I was explaining to you." Okay, one more clip. Okay, let's go.
308:41>> They want to get the >> Oh my god, this part. This is the part.
308:43Oh my god. the part amidst all of this awkwardness, this magical moment of cinema, we'll never get another one like this. Just I'm not going to say anything during it. We're just going to enjoy it in all of its glory.
308:57>> Four clips you were saying with Erica, so 100%.
309:00>> This is absurd.
309:02>> Okay. And this is the one you were saying from seven days ago.
309:12>> Okay. While they're looking for that, do you want to continue?
309:14>> Yeah. I mean, can I ask a question? I know it's been or like, can I ask a question? Are we I'm just going to we're going to hold to the actual contract itself.
309:20>> The contract is does not say that you are allowed to just question me without me being able to respond to you.
309:25>> I've never said you can have a conversation.
309:27>> You've been able to respond to every question I've asked you. And by the way, the the other thing is is like >> 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.
309:35>> Totally fair with me.
309:36>> So, are you good with asking a question or said no?
309:38>> Waiting for the clip. Okay. So, you want to wait for the clip first?
309:40>> Okay. You guys have it in the back.
309:42>> We're just waiting for >> Okay, beautiful.
309:47[laughter] >> Dude, oh my god, the um I'm so glad Candace didn't break the silence here because it's just so good, dude. Oh my god. I'm like literally crying and I've already seen this clip like three times.
310:05[laughter] They literally go. So they go through the craziest awkward silence in like debate history. [snorts] Clearly spurred on by Andrew's flummixing discom discombobulation. Then his team is trying to save him, but they don't actually have a clip ready even though they're trying to save him with a clip that they should have ready. So they [snorts] go silent to bring in the clip and that gets really awkward. And so then Candace is like, "May I'll save it. I'll ask a question." And then and then they kind of go back and forth for a second. Andrew's like, "No, you can't ask a question. we're going to do this
310:35with by the contract and we're going to wait for the clip.
310:39And then they just go right back into the awkward silence because what?
310:47So, having been in this experience before kind of, [snorts] I'll tell you what's going on here.
310:57When you're in a podcast environment and one of these awkward moments where like media that's supposed to be ready isn't ready yet, a good podcaster jumps in and starts talking to fill the space while we're waiting. Because a good podcaster has knowledge in their brain relevant to the exact topic we're on right now that can help bridge the gap between the moment of silence and the clip. And they know where the clip is coming in. And so they they can just jump in and improvise a little bit and make it, you know, not so awkward. And this is a moment where we're on Andrew's questioning time and we're in his right wheelhouse and this
311:34this floor is his. His team has just interrupted to share the clip and now we're just hanging.
311:40And Andrew has nothing in his brain to fill the space. He just freezes like a dead deer. Sorry, like a baby deer or like a [ __ ] deer or something. Like a female deer, you know, Andrew. and he just freezes and has nothing to give.
311:55And then they have this weird little awkward exchange fight about, can I ask a question? And he's like, no, we're going to do this by the book. And he still has nothing in his brain to fill the space with.
312:09>> He told me they had it. So that's what I heard.
312:11>> Okay. Come on, guys.
312:12>> Did this crime? Okay. Because Lance Twig, Lance Twigs has his >> So what Candace just said to Patrick about David is that her earpiece is a little [ __ ] up. Um they're they they're quite quiet and sometimes they get brokeny. So she just assided to Patrick Bat David and said, "I can't hear any of the audio. My thing is messing up, but I know what the clip says, so just tell me when it's tell me when it's over."
312:38>> I'm pretty sure that's what she just said.
312:39>> DNA [snorts] on the rifle. And to be clear, Lance Twig's DNA was not as degraded as Tyler Robinson's DNA was on Tyler's rifle. It's Tyler's rifle. It's not as degraded on the rifle.
312:50>> Yeah, I thought it was one of the things, but I've already got like that's what I mean when I say >> So, one one more time, let's watch Andrew's response to the end of this clip as he thinks through the great point he's going to make and then he makes it >> rifle.
313:04>> Oh, he also said, "Yeah, it's not SD degraded on the rifle."
313:06>> Yeah, cuz I thought it was one of the things, but I've already that's what I mean when I say like it just seems like you're not actually here trying to engage because I even before you got to this and I knew that you had some secret clip plans. I said to you when I rewatched the testimony I realized they didn't explicitly say lance twigs. They said five.
313:18>> So that whole moment of silence for Andrew's career that just happened that was all for a clip that was not relevant in any way and didn't add anything to the conversation. And once Andrew watched the whole clip he immediately realized that he had nowhere to go with it because Candace had already clearly addressed it. And that's pretty awkward.
313:39Not just because of how awkward that is, but because of what it says about his team strategy and thought process going into this, which Candace is pointing out right now.
313:48>> Other profiles were on it and that his was the most degraded. So, I hope your team feels fulfilled in playing that.
313:53Uh, is there any more? I'm happy to play every clip.
313:56>> And let's just remember that they told PBD they had a clip when they didn't have one yet. And then that's what they wound up producing like 45 seconds later. So you tell me if to you that feels like they were trying to save Andrew from himself or not. Who knows?
314:14Who knows? Um and whatever you do while you're thinking, do not speculate because that is very evil. We've learned >> that he has on the Redbody.
314:20>> 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.
314:26>> I'll do it on my show. I'll share the uh the >> So you're going to read it on my show but not show it.
314:30>> Correct. I'll show it on my show, but that's that's what I'll do. I'll show it on my show.
314:33>> So, you can see how he thinks he's being so clever. He's like, I'm doing what you do, Candace. Haha.
314:40But it actually just comes across as like really, bro. Like, okay, that's not the W you think it is, but I'm also not sure he's actually shared on a show yet.
314:53>> 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.
315:00>> I'm just saying like um 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.
315:07>> I also see he's really ready to do closings. Can we do closings? Cuz Candace is about to tear his [ __ ] Sorry, that's a little that Sorry, let's just forget that sentence.
315:19Don't Derek, don't cut it out, but we'll just leave it in and then collectively all of us will just pretend it never happened.
315:26Candace is about to um let's say uh create an internet memory for all of us. [laughter] Yeah, Candace is about to create an internet memory for all of us to keep and cherish for a long time. For good long time.
315:42>> Just if if I may ask a question, is is that permitted? Go ahead. Um just so I also have clarity since your basis has been evidentiary, you keep saying that you have evidence or like you are following evidence, which one of the charges against or or all of them do you think Tyler Robinson is guilty of? Um, so I'm sure you've seen this before.
315:58I've I posted a a cl a clipped down version that was just tightened up with all the extra stuff taken out on X and it's like at five or six million views or something. It's going everywhere.
316:07This clip is super super viral right now for good reason. I'm sure you've seen a version of it. If you haven't seen the full version yet or if you're watching it again, which is, you know, worth your time, pay attention to just the the body language throughout, especially from Andrew, especially his face.
316:25Yeah.
316:26>> The specific charge.
316:27>> Yeah.
316:28>> Yeah. So, I think what I think >> and the subtleties of like the tactics that are happening here because Andrew is not dumb and he can pick up what's coming. So, she asks him for which charges do you think he's guilty of?
316:44Sorry.
316:46And he goes around in his head and thinks, "Huh, look. Um, if we're going to start getting into this, I don't I don't know what charges there are, so I'm going to defere here's my out think is that um Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.
317:00>> Yeah. But of the >> And I'm just speculating here, but the way that looked and sounded to me, it sounded like an attempt to Please don't notice that I'm not you saying a charge. I'm saying an action, an event. Please don't notice. I don't want to go any further into this.
317:23>> I'm in charges that he's he's in charge.
317:24>> Yeah. Can we list them real quick? I'll tell you exactly which ones. We'll pull them up.
317:27>> And then he'll pull him up. And he ends that sentence by saying, "We'll pull them up." And it's almost like he like leans. He's like, "We'll pull him up." And I'm already over here, so we're don't even ask any questions because we're going to pull them up. And I'm like already I'm already out here ready to pull it up, bro. We're like pulling it up cuz I don't [ __ ] know what they are. That's kind of how it comes across.
317:49>> Well, do do you know any of the charges he's these up for right now?
317:52>> Yeah, of course. But I want to make sure that we have them listed.
317:54>> 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.
317:58That's the That's the question. He's just not following it enough.
318:02>> That is a terrified smile and laugh and trying to cover up all the emotions going on in there because he knows he is trapped now. He knows >> what's pretty like if you're going to engage and you're going to say the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson is guilty. I just think that you should Can you tell me one? You can really Yeah, this is a great You just got to ask.
318:20>> And notice how he said this is a great gotcha because he recognized what's going on. And you know, kind of a gotcha on Candace's part, but also you're going to pay $300,000 to debate Candace Owens, the world's foremost expert journalist in this field. And you're not going to prepare for your debate at all. You're not even going to read the most basic documentation and court filings to do with it. You're not going to know the charges or basically anything else in detail. That's dumb.
318:52That is so dumb. That That's so dumb that aside from it showing that you don't know much about the case, it shows that you are just dumb. And so whatever you know things about I now have questions about because you're that's really dumb of you to do and you're about to pay the price for it in 4K.
319:09>> Me playing out of contact in the hot seat.
319:12And this is him realizing that he can't escape now.
319:14>> Please just answer the question. This is fair.
319:16>> And he even speaks. He literally talks to himself. This is fair. Yes, this is fair. We're going to go through with this since you've been following the case.
319:24>> Okay, sure.
319:25>> And he Oh my god. He digs the hole deeper cuz he can't even he he doesn't think Candace knows anything. He can't even imagine Candace actually just everything that she just came out of her mouth was literally just because she knows it all.
319:40So he asked her to do all seven.
319:44And that was a huge mistake. Andrew, you did not need to dig your hole deeper because it's embarrassing enough that he can't name one. But he has now asked her to name all seven.
319:54>> You You name one.
319:55>> Yeah, you named all seven.
319:55>> I'm happy to do that, but can you name one?
319:56>> Uh I think he's I think he's been charged with murder.
319:58>> That's actually >> Okay, great. Now name all seven.
320:00>> He doesn't even >> And look at how fast he abandoned that because he had he had no idea. If he had had any idea when he gave his answer and she said, "That's not right." He would have at least, you know, been like, "What do you mean? No, it is. Yes, it is." No, I believe that it is. He obviously did not believe it because he immediately conceded it to a woman, no less, who, by the way, he thinks is [ __ ] So, he immediately, he's already ready. Okay, fine. Yeah, I don't know. You name all seven. Name all seven. Name all seven. Name all seven.
320:31Name all seven.
320:33>> This is like, >> name all seven. And And I All seven. I can't do it.
320:36>> Sure. You don't have to.
320:37>> Do it. No. Do it. I'll count them. Go ahead.
320:38>> You don't put your fingers up.
320:40>> And here she does exactly what she did throughout her entire uh this whole series, this whole time where she baited him in by presenting it as though, you know, yeah, I'll do all seven, but he's not sure she has he has it in her.
320:58Yeah. Charlie Kirk was changing his opinion on Israel, and I and I stand by that, but hasn't released any evidence yet. and she sits on it waiting for them to all lie about it so she can then drop the real evidence, right? And once they've all lied on it and made themselves look like idiot, bam, receipts. She's about to do that to Andrew Wilson, although he's already dug his own grave seven [ __ ] you know, answers deep here. She kind of has no problem slow rolling him in, acting like she's not super confident, just to show off how much of an [ __ ] he's being.
321:30And he you can tell he thinks that he's got her >> for a minute.
321:34>> Name him.
321:34>> Yeah, sure. Uh the first charge is aggravated murder because that's what car death sentence of. No, that's not that is literally not murder. Okay. So, just people No, don't I don't have to do it in the time limit. There's nothing going on. And just 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.
321:48Anytime he carries a death sentence, I'm not I'm going to answer the question.
321:50You're just going to recognize that your strategy.
321:51>> No, she's just thoroughly thoroughly ending your career.
321:57>> That's why people are intimated when you try to put a time constraint doesn't work. And you'll be better next time you do it. I got it. Give me give me the other ones.
322:01>> The more you cut me off me off the longer I'll take. Do you want to just wait for me to finish it? Why? That's a big difference. So the long list the charges.
322:06>> Yeah, I'm going to do that. You just don't get to pretend. There's a time constraint for me to do that.
322:08>> Well, how how long does it take to list seven charges?
322:09>> I'm speaking. You just got >> It sounds like you're just delaying it cuz you don't know.
322:12>> I I know all seven of them and I'm going to say again cuz you're going to get >> He's looking all smug over there in his chair. He thinks that he's successfully got you the gotcha.
322:22No, you're actually just making yourself look like more and more of a dumbass, rude, kind of sad little man.
322:34>> Harris, I you don't have to rush this.
322:35I'm also showing an example of a very flawed debate strategy. I actually under no time constraint.
322:39>> I got one.
322:40>> Great. The second charge is the felony discharge of a weapon. Uh the next two charges are for obstruction of justice.
322:46>> The next two charges are for witness tampering. And the >> Those are specific charges though.
322:49>> That is them. Obstruction of justice.
322:51Obstruction of justice. witness tampering. Witness.
322:53>> And the fact that he didn't know that not only indicates that he doesn't have them memorized, but it also indicates that he never even really read them in a way that even began to remotely stick them into his brain because you know when you're like familiar with a fact but it kind of fades like you know you were doing all the research but there's just so much to remember that you don't really like remember the name of the road that Tyler Robinson lived on. But then someone says it or you see it written out and you're like, "Oh yeah, that was the name of the road that Tyler Robinson lived on. I remember now."
323:25But when presented with, you know, two of the titles of the charges that are the actual exact verbatim charges that are in the reports, he did not recognize them and thought, "Oh, maybe there's like more there." Like, "What what are the specific charges?
323:42You're just you're just generalizing. I think I've got you." No, you just don't even recognize the charges at all, even when she's already said them for you.
323:52Like, it's so much worse than him not knowing one, not having them memorized.
323:57It's even worse than that.
324:00He does not know the difference between murder and aggravated murder. And he also apparently has never really been even at all familiar with at least those four charges that she just listed.
324:12>> Okay. And there's no other specifics to him.
324:14>> Well, we can tell you why he's being >> No, no, just the the charges and then seven.
324:16>> Yeah, >> I could hold your hand if you want.
324:18>> Yeah. The bad thing is when you try to be an a-hole and it doesn't work. The last charge is uh violence in front of a minor.
324:23>> Okay, got it. So then he's being charged with murder. You just say aggravated murder. That's the distinction. You just want to >> It's a massive >> Oh my god. How many different examples could we come up with that are just kind of similar? Like, dude, it's like my car is all-wheel drive. Oh, cool. So, it's four-wheel drive. Well, no, not really.
324:47It's all-wheel drive. Yeah. So, four-wheel drive, right? Four-wheel drive. Uh, no, not really. That's not how it works. And it's not the same, right?
324:58Oh, man.
325:00Man, >> can't even you can't say murder versus aggra. just 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 >> Candace made a great point on Twitter just like an hour or two ago.
325:21The fact that he doesn't know the difference between murder and aggravated murder and doesn't know this whole piece of it. Um as well as some of the other little details that kind of come out of this uh report that the defense just released like two days ago. It was their motion of why they should dismiss the case. right now. [snorts] It looks like Andrew didn't even read it. Um, [snorts] and full disclosure, I didn't read it cuz I didn't want to cuz I'm this this case is not my like life. I'm not trying to report on it all the time.
325:48I'm not trying to follow every single [ __ ] detail right now. Um, I [snorts] do follow quite a bit and I do try to keep track of the big pieces. And I did watch several of the analysis of it, but I didn't read the whole report myself because I didn't want to. Um, and I'm not trying to make content on that topic right now. And I'm also not paying $300,000 for a debate that I'm getting my ass kicked in. But based on Andrew's lack of knowledge of these very central topics to that document, it would seem to indicate that he did not even read the most recent most important file like the defense's most recent filing that
326:17they literally just put out two days ago that was all about those topics and um he doesn't seem to be familiar with them.
326:26So it's like did you actually read any of it?
326:28>> I agree. action 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 you think it's a blood sport. It's not. It's about being right and being principled when you're engaging. And you can make mistakes. I make mistakes all the time, but at least be genuine in pretending that you care about this case enough to know one of the seven charges that are
326:49Ty 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.
326:59>> And then the fact that she then just just totally alphas him like she alphas him so many times throughout this where she just like takes over the schedule and is like, "Yeah, you're [ __ ] and let me just finish this whole part because it's dumb and we're not getting anywhere. If you want, we can move on to the next section now, Andy."
327:16But then her team and so this was misunderstood by some. It might have been Baron that misheard this and kind of misinterpreted this if I remember correctly. Um, no shade at all. Just that if you listen carefully here, Patrick Bet David says can to Candace that your team has pulled this up. So it is Candace's team that wanted to pull this up. It was not Andrew Wilson's team that wanted to pull this up thinking that they were going to fact check her. It was Candace's team that was like, "Dude, she nailed all seven. Pull that up. We want to show that she got it right."
327:47>> 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.
327:56>> Can you guys zoom in a little bit for >> aggravated murder felony discharge of a firearm uh obstruction obstruction obstruction of justice which is counts three and four five and six tampering with a witness and count violent.
328:06>> Yeah. So five >> so seven for seven >> six tampering witness third degree felony. Now I didn't.
328:11>> And he briefly starts to read into it like and then quickly realizes that a he can't read that fast and doesn't know anything about what's in front of him and she is way he's like [ __ ] let's pivot.
328:22>> Noticed something. I just was curious.
328:23>> And then he digs his hole deeper about if I'm just wondering when he pulled out your phone just before you asked that question. Does somebody chance text you that question?
328:31>> You can check my phone.
328:31>> I'm just curious.
328:32>> No, you can absolutely not. I didn't I have not had one communication with a single person, not even my producers who were in there the whole time we were here. Do you want to check my phone?
328:37It's really not that complicated to memorize seven charges. It's not like she even It's not like she memorizes things. Like she just works the case and has it all in her bones because she's so in the material. That's why it's in there. Andrew Wilson apparently cannot imagine that, you know, a woman would remember seven things.
328:56>> How do you do it? Because you're just going to get double embarrassed. Where's my phone? You want to see it? I'm just curious. You can literally do that. Here you go. PBD, you're the moderator. Take it. See if anyone was texted.
329:09This a public castration.
329:12>> This is the most emasculating thing I've ever >> I'm looking through this. You give me permission.
329:18>> It's so dumb, dude.
329:19>> Last one has nothing to do with it. It's just a compliment.
329:22>> Completely avoidable. It's a compliment.
329:23>> He's reading them.
329:24>> You're [laughter] okay. You're giving me per I'm just going to read 11:32 because after that, I don't need to read it.
329:28>> And also point out that this this is the behavior of a woman that has nothing to hide because she doesn't. She's right with God. She loves her life. She believes in herself.
329:41Do you think Andrew would hand his phone someone and be like, "Look through everything in there. I don't mind."
329:46>> Any other text?
329:47>> Convin.
329:49And then he digs the hole deeper. He was not content with inventing some crazy conspiracy theory about her text messages and how she must have gotten a tip. Maybe it's a telegram message. Who you How do you know? Yeah, Andrew. who is cooking up wild conspiracy theories with no evidence. Now >> I have a signal. You can check that too.
330:08I only have signal telegram I used in Russia. That was I'll take your word for it.
330:11>> Yeah, I don't need to like I deeply care about this case. I don't need to pretend about this case. I just you know I have my other question is about >> I have if you know my bail let me change the [ __ ] subject right now. Don't worry Andrew we all notice >> steak house receipt.
330:26>> You just said that you were done asking all your questions nothing.
330:28>> Yeah. Do you have the steak house receipt is my Um, I have said several times that I have I have never said >> they're really interested in the steakhouse receipt. Maybe because it makes the entire timeline impossible. It basically debunks the entire narrative if it's true. And it seems like it might be. And it's definitely uh dangerously provable if there is a receipt with Tyler's name on it. Not sure there is one with Tyler's name on it. There might be.
330:49>> I have a receipt for the steakhouse. I have said the person who was working on that story forthcoming with a 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 store.
330:57>> That's Diligent Tennyson. He's a great guy. I have met him in person. I don't know him extensively, but in all my experience, he's a great dude. Um, very neutral, cares.
331:05[clears throat] Um, I am curious how the receipt how that whole story plays out.
331:11>> Okay. So, he's having actually confirmed that Robinson was at that steakhouse.
331:14>> All I did, as I said earlier in this conversation, was I spoke to the owner when I broke that story. I think it was back in January. I spoke to the owner, understood what had happened, um, and that there was a receipt. That's it.
331:22That's the extent of what I shared is what happened.
331:23>> Okay. So, to be clear, there's no receipt. You >> I just did the opposite. I said there >> to be clear, I'm [ __ ] and I should really stop asking questions and get out of here. But instead, I'm going to just misinterpret her words in front of all of us for, you know, few minutes real quick for good. You don't have a copy of the receipt.
331:41>> I The receipt was published online.
331:43>> Yeah. Right. With blurred out.
331:44>> The person working on this story that blurred that out is what I was referring to when I said stay tuned and keep following his stuff because he went to go do what I hadn't done, which was he interviewed the actual server. So, there's no evidence that Tyler was at that steakhouse. I >> I would say the receipt with his debit card number. It would be some hard evidence if that agree with that. So that's it. But you're questioning me.
332:01>> And 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.
332:04>> No. No. Is there proof that that was actually his debit card that he paid with?
332:07>> I think you should follow the person that um is behind that story.
332:10>> Well, the reason I'm asking you is because you always include it in your timeline that he traveled to the state.
332:13>> Yeah, we've been building a timeline with things that we feel are approved. I think speaking to the owner, knowing that there's a receipt, seeing the receipt, uh >> this guy's obviously has no idea how journalism works at all.
332:27You realize that most of the news stories you read, Andrew, are based on journalists speaking to sources.
332:34And then if the owner of a business tells you a thing that happened at his business, that's a fact from that owner and he's your source. And as a journalist, you can publish that.
332:45It wouldn't hurt to corroborate it with a few others like she did with servers and even a physical receipt.
332:52But so there's no evidence that Tyler Robinson and No, actually the evidence is that the owner told me that he was and then they looked and pulled the receipt >> is [snorts] going on our timeline.
333:05>> But the receipt itself, the question I always had about it is couldn't you just call the merchant? Like if I've ever had a merchant account, I just called the merchant account processor and say, "What's the name on this?"
333:11>> Yeah, I would I would stay tuned. I I feel that the having spoken to the owner that the evidence is compelling enough to put onto my personal timeline of what took place on that day. 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 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 >> hearsay. Well, yeah. Beyond that, cuz they didn't have rece. They were like, "Bob told me."
333:34>> Question. But the question is >> actually depending on what you think of this court, it's not exactly hearsay because she heard it directly from the person that witnessed it and then she got saw physical evidence in the receipt. So, it's a little different. Actually, the receipt itself, it has not been verified to happen.
333:52>> I just want to say you're holding to a higher standard than you are.
333:54>> I'm not even holding I'm asking specifically.
333:56>> Yeah, I I've been very forthcoming. I told exactly what happened. I spoke to the owner. I got the tip and I should be added in an official timeline.
334:01>> It's in my timeline.
334:05>> This is really like he's like, "But but should you put it on like the calendar?
334:11[clears throat] Is it is it morally okay to put it on the calendar?" So, like I I understand that it's your diary, but like is it morally right to say something mean about Erica Kirk inside of your diary?
334:23Like really? Is that right? Like, let me talk more.
334:29>> It's my show and we can add and subtract what we want. And we do what you want.
334:32Sure. But should you include a thing that you know hasn't actually been verified to be Tyler?
334:35>> Yes, you should. If we're trying to build a timeline, >> it's been verified more than a huge proportion of the journalism that's published on mainstream news. A huge proportion of the things that have come out of Andrew Wilson's mouth today have less confirmation of what she's talking about.
334:51>> You should Yeah.
334:52>> You don't think that that >> should remove it if you if someone somehow debunks it? But I think that the there is very strong evidence that that is where he was and that >> strong evidence just the two people who said that they saw >> you know I'm actually >> Yeah. Just the multiply witnesses with the credit card receipt. The [snorts] that's more evidence than that Tyler Robinson was on the roof of the Losi center where there are no eyewitnesses, no clear video, and no receipt.
335:19>> All good with being I feel like I've sufficiently answered your question about how I got the information, what happens next. Uh with the next stage of this investigation being somebody accessing his knowing what his debit card wasn't, confirming it. Yes. And I do believe that that will happen. If it doesn't happen and it gets debunked, I'll remove it from my personal timeline that I share on my show.
335:31>> That officer, the first officer that was up on the roof, do you remember his name?
335:34>> Officer Bagley.
335:35>> Yeah. What was his first name?
335:35>> Christopher.
335:38>> Like, stop asking her questions. You're just giving her the opportunity to own you to to just show us that she knows the whole case inside and out.
335:44Christopher, I didn't know Bagley is the first name off the top of my head. Would not have known that. I knew Bagley, though. Could have easily answered that one. Christopher. Um, when Christopher got up on the roof, you talk a lot about how his camera died.
335:56>> Well, he talked a lot about that camera died.
335:59>> Do you think that he planted that screwdriver up there?
336:00>> No.
336:01>> No. Who do you think planted it? I if we're just going on my my opinion of course >> at this stage I would say that I I don't buy his um assertion on the stand that he didn't check to see if anybody went onto the rooftop before um he got up there. I I do think that it's possible it's at least plausible that the the uh screwdriver was planted. I don't believe him. What I can say strongly is that his uh cam died at just the right time. His body cam died just the right time. I think that as you were just grilling me about whether or not I had got the merchant receipt for a debit card. that kind of makes it difficult that we just
336:29have to sort of trust that a screwdriver was found and we don't have any should be evidence of a police body cam. But like I said, you accept that stuff and then are like, did you call the merchant and get like it just seems like >> Yeah, good point. Um I thought it was interesting that Candace didn't go into talking about the uh the plain clothes police officer with what was it like the red shirt and hat the hat guy that was the one that went up there that she did she talked about him on the show and she named him and everything. Um, I'm kind of surprised that she didn't like name him again and go deeper into it there or
336:56at least just, you know, skim it right now. Um, curious if she's updating that theory or information about him or if it just wasn't worth to go into the details there.
337:03>> No, I'm not adding to a a higher standard than adding unconfirmed evidence to an official timeline that I'm putting out either.
337:10>> What do you mean official timeline?
337:13>> What What is this word salad, dude?
337:15>> This is my I made it at home.
337:16>> So then it would be official to your show.
337:18>> Sure.
337:19>> Yeah.
337:21>> Okay, great. So then your your official timeline, Candace Own's official timeline includes a steakhouse stop that has not actually been confirmed at all.
337:26>> Well, yeah, it hasn't even been discussed by the prosec.
337:29>> It's been confirmed more than the vast majority of the official timeline of what Tyler Robinson did.
337:36We have no eyewitnesses to him being anywhere the whole time. No one saw him anywhere.
337:44And in fact, some people saw bald dudes with three other homies driving his car around, apparently.
337:54So, it's um yeah, this is a it's a weird closing angle and it almost feels like he's out of time. It's all over. He just absolutely flamed himself in the most embarrassing way possible. And he's very aware of how bad that felt and looked.
338:10He felt it all over. And so he decides he's gonna like crash out the last minutes of this debate by just spamming nonsense objections to the Penguish receipt, which is very suspicious. And Diligent was right to point this out and to be like, "Huh, maybe we should dig into this receipt more."
338:28>> So [clears throat] it's it's not like you're debunking that it happened.
338:30>> Well, there's no there's no evidence for it. There's no good evidence for it at all. There's no camera there. And the steakhouse receipt itself has never been confirmed to be.
338:37>> Why is he so defensive about this receipt that has multiple eyewitnesses and an actual physical paper receipt?
338:46That's like a really weird hill to die on in this weird defensive.
338:52I mean, look at his face. Look at his face. It's really weird. There's so many more so many more relevant things that we could be talking about right now.
339:01Tyler Robinson.
339:01>> I'm assuming this is just like a talking point they gave you and you got to like keep pushing this or like >> I've been following it very closely on edge.
339:05>> The receipt you wouldn't you weren't even following the charges of Tyler Robinson but you really wanted to know it very own having a conversation. You're following >> I literally follow Yes, she just pointed that out and she is right. She is doing the leg work being a journalist. Same as Diligent Dennis actually like diligent is driving across the country and like doing boots on the ground and [ __ ] Not Andrew. No, no, not not Andrew. He scrolls X sometimes though.
339:32>> The entire trial or preliminary live. I was live with an attorney. We covered all of it. You think because I have a momentary or lapse where I'm like, "Oh, it's murder." No, it's aggravated murder. Come on.
339:40>> He like tripled down on murder and aggravated murder being the same thing.
339:44He didn't even recognize the other charges and decided to question them when she had already told them to him by name. [snorts] He He has no idea what he's talking about.
339:52>> He didn't know any of the charges. It means you didn't follow the hearing at all. No, it doesn't mean that any of the charges are against him when this is like the this is like getting literally to the crossur murder. It's ridiculous.
340:02And not only that, let's point this out.
340:04Uh, one of the major things here is that this is your official timeline.
340:06>> Mine.
340:07>> Yes. Who else could it be? Who else?
340:10>> This is not as strong of an argument as he thinks it is.
340:14Like like Oh man, I'm I just want you guys to know I love you all and I know that you most of you have already left the video. I have been desperately fighting the urge to just skip to the end ever since we got through the really bad part and a lot of it before uh because we don't need to watch all this. I honestly the only reason why we made this video full length why responding to all of it is just so we can hang out and talk [ __ ] and because I didn't want to take the time to like pick clips cuz I don't know. Um they're all they're all crazy. Well, at this point I really am with you that it's like we don't really
340:52need the rest of this video, right? But I'm we've come this far and I'm like okay, we'll just we'll react to the whole thing. We're almost there. It's not going to be a full 15 more minutes.
341:00It would be my >> What's your issue with that?
341:04>> Well, so the issue is is that the entirety of the evidence revolves around two people who claimed that he was there and supposedly a receipt. There's supposedly a receipt where Tyler Robinson paid for his steak and his soft drink. No alcohol, right?
341:19No alcohol, right? Know nothing about the case. But um anyway, this particular receipt, they could have called the merchant account, confirmed it, this type of thing. To date, this receipt has only the blurred information on it that would actually give you the information to confirm whose receipt it is. We have to date nobody has confirmed that this was actually So, you know what you do with evidence like that, Andrew?
341:39You just chill.
341:42You just hang out and you read about it and you learn the context of that evidence and who got it and where it came from and what it means and what it all is. And then you put it in the little pile in your brain that says things that might or might not be true that I can decide about later.
342:03And then you go about your merry little day. And you don't need to get offended about it. And you don't need to change your tampon over it. You don't need to take Tylenol. You're going to be fine because it's no big deal. There's a lot of evidence in a lot of cases where we're not really 10,000% sure that it's true. And a lot of that evidence is in the case that you are defending with zero critical thought.
342:33And you know what we all do, us normal people, when we encounter evidence that is not yet 100% confirmed, we just let it be exactly as confirmed as it is. And then you wait. And if it gets confirmed, cool. And if it gets debunked, cool.
342:51But I guess if you wanted to have a uh breakdown of morality and raise $300,000 that you don't have to pay a [ __ ] woman, you know, to debate you um on live TV so that you can really drive this point home about how immoral it is to put a freaking barbecue stop on a timeline that's like officially your show.
343:15and you only have two witnesses and a receipt. It is unthinkable. It is genuinely makes me so angry when people do things so audaciously evil.
343:31Right. Right. Am I right, guys? Am I right? Am I right? Oh my god. the audacity to do such a thing. It's really grinds my >> Tyler Robinson's receipt and yet inside of Candace Owen's timeline which he states over and over again when she says this is the longest 13 hours. This is 13 and 1/2 hours. The requirement for about what roughly 5 and a half or 6 hours of that is that he went to the steakhouse >> and so and that's not been confirmed at all. Not even a little bit.
343:56>> I feel like saying that I spoke to the owner of the steakhouse is me like not just being on ex looking at opinions but actually doing the leg work. Um and that's why I like I said if you think this builds up a rapport with your audience and makes you seem like a serious person we don't have to keep belaboring the point here. And I feel like I've demonstrated that. I did as much as I could to confirm this. When it came in, I spoke to the owner of the restaurant. Um, you know, obviously >> when you've won the debate so handily that you can just be at the end and say, "Hey, if you feel like you this is
344:17making you look like a serious person, you can keep going, but I'm happy to end it now if that if you want to save yourself."
344:24>> Yeah.
344:24>> They took down everything he said, noted that there was in fact a receipt that he pulled. Um, that receipt that was published is real. Uh, a debit card and a credit card was used. If for some reason somebody misidentified something down the line or we find out it's a different Tyler Robinson, uh, I'm happy to remove from my timeline. But for right now, I think that there's enough under the Utah 112 rule for me to keep it there. I don't really think we need to keep going into circles about this receipt. It's just it's my timeline.
344:42>> I don't I don't know why the 1102 rule would apply here for a year >> because you were constantly site things that are said in that courtroom that have less evidentiary support than me contacting and speaking with the um the owner of the restaurant. It's not like I dreamed it as your expression. So, it's in my timeline and I'm going to keep it there.
344:56>> Sure, you can keep whatever you want there. I'm just saying that there's no evidence he was ever there.
344:59>> Okay. Thank you.
344:59>> No hard evidence anyway. Yeah, we're finally closing.
345:01>> Okay, so the last thing we're going to do before we go to adb break right after this will be final files. I'll be asking both of you if anything if if anything on your opinion, thoughts changed on the case, uh, and then we'll finish it up from there. So, with that being said, a three and a half minute break and we'll come back for final files. Um, cool.
345:14We're going to skip the ad break. We're going to [ __ ] blast through these final thoughts. Um, holy [ __ ] I'm so ready to be done.
345:22I love you guys. I love hanging out.
345:23I'm, you know, but like look, it's literally getting dark outside right now.
345:30Okay. Okay. Okay. The following on if you're a Andis message on one of our accounts. He said, "Can I talk to Patrick?" We got on the call. He said, "Preacher, can you moderate this?" And then I said, "Great.
345:41Let's do this." And so before we wrap up, final thoughts. I'll come to you first.
345:44>> Yeah. She had nothing. Just nothing any.
345:47So, this is probably, thank for fortunately for Andrew, probably the smartest move he made in the entire debate, which was to get to his closing statement and to pretend that nothing had happened in the whole to pretend that to forget all of what had just happened and to just pretend that he had won outright and that there had been no Candace hadn't said anything. It was a zero. It was a full sweep. He won 10 out of 10, 11 out of 10. He is the victor without a question. He just steamrolled that right in there with zero connection to reality. And it's probably the smartest thing that he did in the entire
346:21debate because at least then he's leaving with a clip that he can share that can make, you know, stupid people think that he won the debate. Smart move, man. Um cuz it's basically all he had left at this point. Uh yeah, her all of her claims of paci nothing. She didn't have a single claim. She didn't have a single solid piece of evidence.
346:41She had no positive evidence Israel's involved in anything. No positive evidence that um Brance is involved in anything. No positive evidence TPUSA is involved in anything. No positive evidence that Erica Kirk is involved in anything. When I ask her about her claims about Erica Kirk, yeah, it's just fun and it's just fun and you know or yeah, I do think that she needs to sit down and ask some questions, but or answer some questions, but you know what? [snorts] Um I don't even know if she has like maybe she has. I have no idea. Yes, I'm going to have an official timeline with unconfirmed evidence.
347:05That's just fine. Hey, it's it's hearsay. That's good enough for the state. It's good enough for me. But my biggest problem with the state is that they're ad admitting all this hearsay.
347:11It's like she's a contradiction machine.
347:13On top of all this, the thing that I wanted to get out of this more than anything else was so just to clarify, basically every statement that he just said is not true and is not connected to reality and is not what Candace thinks or says or does or did or any of it. Um, basically that entire rant was just made up and it was a smart move. Um, it was all he had left, but it was made up.
347:36>> Just demonstrate one thing. Yes, it's true. I'm not perfect on the case. I'm not going to ever pretend that I am and never did. But what has been very made very clear to me is that there's nobody with an alternative theory that has any evidence for it at all.
347:48>> That's a very strong statement, bud.
347:50You're not very smart.
347:51>> None. Zero. And the continuous uh kind of expression we're running an investigation. What kind of investigation builds a timeline out on on a receipt that they don't even confirm? What kind of investigation uh tries to make these bold claims that Israel is involved and France is involved and all these different players are involved and never shows any evidence. just asking questions. It's my It's again, like I said, in my opening, it's always intuition, my feelings, how I feel about things, how I think about things. You Andrew, how many times did you hear this today? Andrew, you can't tell me how I'm supposed to think. Yeah,
348:18nobody's trying to tell you how to think, but you should rationally come to your conclusions based on. [laughter] Yeah. No one's trying to tell you how to think, but you should think rationally.
348:32>> Hey, Andrew, listen. No one's trying to tell you how to talk, but you should probably stop. evidence and facts. And the truth is is that 90% of what you're saying is simply intuition based. It's it did it came to me in a dream. It's intuition. Almost none of it has any evidence at all. Just I'm skeptical because these people over here said things and that makes me skeptical. It's like but no evidence. Note this to the audience to everybody watching. You might hate my guts. That's fair enough.
348:53I get that. I'm not the most likable man. I understand that too. But there was nothing I mean no evidence at all that Tyler Robinson was a psy forward by Candace this entire debate.
349:03Now, maybe you could say that we stalemated when it came to whether or not Robinson did it. She says, "I found the evidence convincing." unconvincing.
349:10Andrew says he found the evidence convincing. Okay, fair enough. Maybe >> Andrew said, "Wait, what's the evidence?
349:15Can you read it to me? Can we put up on the screen?"
349:17>> Can't do too much about that. But there was nothing. She had nothing for Robinson being Apache. Nothing for any of her conspiracies. Not a zero zilch.
349:23And she backed away on a bunch of them.
349:24This is the first time I think she's ever really backed away from the twigs thing. First time I've ever heard her back away from the Erica thing. Back away from TPUSA being very cautious about making any of those claims now.
349:32followers on her show much more likely to be making those claims just the entire debate. Zero >> Candace.
349:38>> Uh well, I think that is quite a conclusion admitting somewhere. Maybe we stalemate it. It probably signifies what I've been saying from the beginning that you didn't feel that you were strong on the actual facts and the evidence which I was willing to engage with you. I wanted to go over the screwdriver. I wanted to go over to the Tal and things that you have mentioned and you wanted to then move the conversation into a defense of Erica Kirk and her character um and what I said about Erica, which is my opinion and I have not edited that opinion after discussing with you. Um, I would like to extend a compliment to you
350:01for being willing to sit down and to have the conversation. I still walk away feeling that the people who are jumping on the bandwagon about this case don't care about this case. They don't care about Erikica Kirk. It tends to be follow that they take a meeting with Turning Point USA and they come out and suddenly have a lot of junk to say about Candace Owens. And I do want to also stress that Turning Point USA tried to pepper him with something as a surprise.
350:21He showed clips that were meant to be a surprise. I did no such thing. I stressed to PBD from the beginning that I was grateful he was taking me this on and I wanted this to be a clean debate because I believe I can win this on the merits and I believe that I did win this fully on the merits by engaging the evidence of what has happened. Um I do still believe that there is more evidence which supports that there are more people involved and that Tyler Robinson has been set up. Uh and that none of the evidence that was presented was in any way overwhelming which is why I think you wanted to move to end that
350:43discussion quickly and to speak to me about France and to talk about this penguish receipt and my timeline. I I want to remind people that a lot of the at home investigators which you were open to as you called them internet sleuths. I think it was on a show that you did right after Charlie was sassing me that internet sleuths would solve this. Uh this is the reason why Charlie a year on is still a conversation every single day trending on Twitter. I knew Charlie. I cared about Charlie. I care about um finding out what the truth is here. My heart is in the right place. I think anybody who watches my show or
351:07even just watched this debate knows that if I get something wrong, I'll instantly correct it and own it. I don't I'm not arrogant. I don't need to sit here and pretend that I didn't misspeak on the Lance thing. It hasn't been ruled out.
351:13Uh but you saw that he just really wanted to hammer that point. You know, part of being a well-meaning person is to concede when you are wrong, to take something off the timeline when you know it's not right. And I would like to think that that is why I have earned the audience that continues to follow me because they know my heart's in the right place and I deeply care about Charlie. I deeply care about the answers. Um, I want to thank Andrew's team who are providing the fact checks.
351:29It's a very small room that they're in.
351:30Um, I want to as always thank my team who worked really hard to make this happen and put this and for to you uh PBD just for being a great moderator. I think very fair, letting us both speak and making sure that Andrew got out of this what he wanted, which is a little more than what I wanted. But, um, I'm very content with how I dealt with this.
351:43And I I won't let I trust anyone to convince the audience of the magic of what they need to think about this debate. They can watch it and draw their own conclusions.
351:48>> Beautiful. Fair from both of you. I think the audience won. And again, >> okay, that was a smart line, PBD. The audience won. [laughter] [gasps and sighs] Whatever. Um, [clears throat] pretty smart conclusion on Candace's part. She doesn't give a [ __ ] Um, and she's right. No one No, no one cares about this debate. Honestly, we we've gotten all this way. And let's be real, everyone that was on Candace's side, they would just wanted to watch it to watch Andrew Wilson burn. And oh boy, have we not been disappointed. Everyone on Andrew Wilson's side didn't matter what was going to happen in the debate.
352:17They're just going to pretend that he won it. Um although it is interesting to watch on Twitter today and tomorrow. I'm excited for tomorrow to see um just how quickly the uh the support here just evaporates because there's nothing to support. [snorts] Um yeah. Anyways, like Candace said, you can watch it for yourself and make up your own mind.
352:42Um, and that's why I wanted to go through the whole thing. That's why I didn't want to just selectively pick out clips. Um, or at least not only do that.
352:51I I wanted to also produce just like a full [ __ ] the whole thing. So, that's what we did.
352:59It is now, as you can see, dark and I need to have dinner and go to bed. So, thanks for being here. Um, I've missed you all a lot. Um, I'm still things life is still pretty pretty wild over here.
353:12Um, health is still not at all where it needs to be and I am still moving around like a crazy person trying to it's yeah, whatever. Um, we don't need to get into it, but [clears throat] I am around and I am uh I'm I was going to say I'm healthy and h I'm I'm not really that healthy, but um [clears throat] I'm alive. I'm perfectly well and safe. I'm happy. Don't you don't need to worry about like me being okay. I'm perfectly fine. Um, and I have great people that love me around me. And uh, and I also have a kind of an end time when my uh, my housing life is going to get much simpler after a little bit
353:47here. And I cannot wait to be chilling and uh, have my studio set up. Um, so thanks for being here. Thanks for tuning in. Thanks for always supporting. Um, liking, subscribing, sharing the video.
353:58It means [clears throat] a lot. Um, especially [snorts] when I'm so in and out of YouTube. Um, and uh, yeah. Um, I don't really know what else to say about that whole thing that just happened. Um, but I'm glad it's over.
354:13Conspiracy theories are [music] entering a dangerous >> information is the oxygen of the deformation.
354:18>> There's so much evidence out there that even if less than [music] 1% is true, will that be enough to collapse the current paradigm and change the whole planet?
Read the essay version →