Document text
COMMENTARY by Candace Owens — "Candace Owens insults Erika Kirk, feuds with Andrew Colvet as Robinson hearings begin | RISING" (published 2026-07-08).
This is third-party opinion/analysis ABOUT State of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson — NOT the court record. It is indexed for comparison against the primary transcripts/filings. Transcript is the YouTube auto-caption track (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIBWdUjW-HM) — verbatim ASR.
The preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, the man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk, is underway this week. Right-wing commentator Candace Owens still raising her questions about Kirk's death and suggesting Robinson was not the murderer. >> She also had an ongoing feud with Erica Kirk since Erica took up the role as Turning Point USA CEO. As the hearing began, Owens wrote on X, quote, "What you can expect, aside from Erica's tears, are an orbit of her payrolled influencers trying to convince you that the unvetted evidence is overwhelming and undeniable. Sit back and watch the predictable show. The real trial will come later. Charlie's army is growing. Ultimately, truth will win." >> Owens has said that one of her main motivations for investigating Charlie Kirk's death is that she and him were close friends, but some like TPUSA spokesman Andrew Kolvet have called that claim into question. Kolvet responded to Owens on X, writing, "Candace, you and Charlie were not friends. He managed you. He kept things light and polite so you wouldn't turn on the organization." Goes on to say, "This is your central foundational lie. You were not his friend. You were not his defender. You were his tormentor and now you torment his wife and the organization he built. Candace, you are a fraud." >> So, to me that's a lie. Like, they were good friends. He sent her, apparently, pictures of his children when they were born in the hospital. As a mom, I know that's a very intimate moment and no one does that that wasn't their good friend. That's not like associate situation. >> I am broadly speaking on TPUSA's side on this, but you know, let's be a little careful about overreaching here. They were very good friends at one point. Um, I I don't think they had a I don't really know, but I don't think their relationship ever really had a falling out. I think Charlie did disagree with her and you know, didn't but didn't want to have any kind of confrontation with her cuz he still did like her personally. I That's what I gather. That's really neither here nor there because what she's doing now is so uh evil and wrong and harmful to the widow of Charlie whom she doesn't like for it seems intensely personal reasons um etc. She's also just totally wrong and I I don't know and people just want to do the just asking questions thing, fine. The questions are resolved. I don't know what to tell you. >> This is an ongoing trial. Reso- resolution looks like the end of the trial. >> The resolution is that he is guilty. >> Resolution looks like the end of this trial, correct? That's the resolution. Then maybe we can have this conversation. But until we have this trial come to fruition, we can have as many influencers as she's pointing to argue all the facts. Influencers get it wrong and people online, YouTube shows, they get it way wrong and then you'll see somebody in jail for 20 years or acquitted. And I got all this evidence on YouTube that they're going to get off and then wrong because a jury has a job to do. Take only the evidence that they're allowed to take, review it and come up with a conclusion that this person is guilty. >> But she's critiquing the evidence. And so we'll see if they're also critiquing the evidence. >> She's the YouTuber who doesn't know what she's talking >> can be wrong but I'm saying like there's no reason that somebody who was a friend of somebody who's now deceased can't have concerns around a trial surrounding their death. I don't think that this woman I don't even like Candace Owens personally. Her views have disturbed me for years but I don't think that it is worthy of telling her that she needs to be silenced after her friend was killed and she want wants more answers around the death. You don't have all the answers cuz the trial's not done. >> way. But I'm saying the specific things she says are obviously wrong. >> What if she said that she they're not able to corroborate like the evidence of the text messages that were submitted, there's no uh specific information that says that these weren't altered in any way. They're just the text messages that were submitted. >> She says that, but that's incorrect. >> Okay, so >> she said that, but the text messages are obviously not altered and our text messages from that guy to his love By the way, his lover is testifying in this trial that they were text messages from Tyler Robinson and that Tyler Robinson confessed that he was the killer. So, you have someone who's going to testify to that. You have the text messages themselves. You have video surveillance footage of him going onto the roof. You have his DNA on the gun, the gun that was used to Charlie Kirk kill Charlie Kirk. She thinks it was an exploding mic. I think planted by Israel. There's no evidence of any of that. >> evidence. >> Like, what if she said aliens came down, a ghost appeared, and stabbed him through the heart. >> Stop. >> Like, I would say there's no evidence of that and you would say, "Well, she's just asking questions." Like, well, okay, but she's asking a question that there's an answer to and the answer to is no. >> Okay, I wouldn't say that she's just asking questions in that case of the alien and the stabbing through the chest, okay? I think that that's a little bit absurd. I think that when she's People are grieving and if that truly was our friend the way she describes, we can't dismiss it as not a friend. Obviously, we have the information that shows in the relationship the text messages that show that they were friends and had a some sort of relationship. And so, when people lose somebody that's significant to them in the way she describes, they go through a variety of emotions. One of those could be denial, just not accepting the way that the person died and the way it's presented to them. And so, even though I don't think she takes precedence in my mind over how Erica Kirk is grieving and I don't think she should attack her. >> She's got the widow. I don't think she should be attacking her and >> And I've also said that specifically that she should not be attacking her. But, at the same time, I don't think that even as a friend that she doesn't have the space and capacity with somebody with a YouTube show. She's not an elected official. She's not a part of this trial. Doesn't have the authority to have an opinion. That's her good friend and she obviously is going through a variety of emotions surrounding their death. >> saying she's allowed to have an opinion and I'm not saying that. I'm saying the opinion that she has is ill-founded. >> Understood. You might disagree with the opinion, but you know what's going to be the biggest >> close to saying the Epstein class took him out. >> biggest tell about this is going to be watching this trial play out, and then you will feel vindicated because the result of it might be exactly what you were saying it was. And we [clears throat] will see exactly what evidence was presented. People can watch the trial piece by piece, and hopefully that will give her some >> That's not going >> solace to know that this person is in jail. >> Do you think for 1 second that the verdict in the trial is going to change Candace Owens' mind? No, the verdict's going to come down, and she's going to say he was set up, he's been framed, the government did this, the jury's being paid off by Israel, and here's some Look at all the Look, here's some Let me put some vibes out there about how the jurors might have been tainted by Israel or the Epstein class or or whatever or TPUSA themselves is paying them. Like, she'll come up with some explanation for why this unequivocal verdict is not is not definitive, and in fact actually is only more evidence that her theory is correct that that he was that he was not the one who pulled the trigger. >> Okay, and what What about the small chance, right? The small chance that the verdict doesn't come back as you see it coming back? >> Well, I I I know the whole case. >> What? I'm sure. So, then what? So, then she has some legs to stand on about there being a different solution here. >> say she's right either way. >> But the point is you you but you could be incorrect here if the jury does not find him guilty, then what? >> I I >> That's an option because it's literally innocent until proven guilty. >> I mean I'll go over >> to comb through the reasons. >> There's no question about whether that gun fired the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk. There's surveillance video of him going to the roof. He confessed. He confessed to to I believe his parents in addition to the the written statements of his confession to that that other person who's going to testify. I mean, it can't it doesn't actually get more unequivocal than that. So, you're right I guess there's some universe where the jury doesn't find that uh uh definitive, but I find that definitive. >> So, you're going to stick by your perspective no matter what. And if it That's what I'm saying, [clears throat] you're the same in the same boat as Candace Owens then. You're not allowing this trial to play out the way that it should and let's see how justice system works. >> based on the evidence. I mean, if they presented if the defense presented evidence that caused me to change my mind, I would change my mind. If they'd have to present evidence that one of those things are not true if if they presented evidence that the government had contacted the uh the the the lover Tyler Robinson's roommate boyfriend person before and >> that's problematic, yeah. >> then sure, that would be something. Or if if they had could cast doubt on the forensics evidence, then that would be something. But they're not but I don't think they're going to be able to do that cuz it's pretty iron ironclad. Um usually in cases where confessions are later ruled invalid, it's because the you were in a police interrogation >> it under duress. >> Right. >> Yes. >> But this is not that confession wasn't done in that circumstance. He proved he confessed ahead of time. He he laid out his plan to hit to this uh a significant friend of his. So, that's that like that's pretty solid evidence. I I don't I don't know what to say. You say you're going to do something and then and then that thing is done. It had it'd be a remarkable coincidence if he said he was going to do that and somebody else did it. >> I'm not uh disagreeing with you. I actually if Tyler Robinson did kill Charlie Kirk and there's overwhelming evidence that already exists in this trial shows that he's uh liable for everything that happened then he should go to jail. It's simple. You know what I mean? But I'm also not a person that thinks that there's no world and that there government cover-ups never exist. And so, I don't think I'm leaning into conspiracy theory. I'm not leaning into conspiracy theory with uh Candace Owens, but I'm certainly not going to give the government the benefit of the doubt. So, I'm just going to see what happens here and let the trial play out. >> It's not It's not giving the government the benefit of the doubt. It's letting the evidence speak for itself, and the evidence does in fact speak for itself pretty unequivocally. Unequivocally here. >> All right. Well, this is going to be a long story that we're covering over and over again.