Document text
COMMENTARY by Candace Owens — "EXCLUSIVE: Candace Owens Discusses The Charlie Kirk Investigation On TYT" (published 2026-08-20).
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=MHCr0lkT120) — verbatim ASR.
Well, do do you know any of the charges these he's up for right now? >> Yeah, of course. But I want to make sure that we have them listed. >> Yeah, but but like that's can you name one? Because my my general perspective is that you don't actually care about this case. You're not following. That's the that's the question. You're just not following it. >> It seems pretty like if you're going to engage and you're going to say the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson is guilty. I just think that you should like Can you tell me one? >> Then let's do the answer. >> All seven since you've been following the case. >> Okay. Sure. You name you name one. >> Yeah, you named all seven. >> I'm happy to do that, but can you name one? >> Uh, I think he's I think he's been charged with murder. >> That's actually incredible. >> Okay. >> Incredible to witness Andrew Wilson, who paid Candace Owens $300,000 to engage in that debate, have absolutely no familiarity with the topic at hand, namely the Tyler Robinson case. You know, the suspect who's accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk. Now, Candace's detractors have basically brushed that moment off as like, "No big deal. No biggie." But it is a big deal because prior to that debate, Andrew Wilson declared that there was overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson is guilty. Okay, guilty of what? How can one know what Robinson is guilty of if he doesn't know what he's charged with? Because Robinson wasn't simply charged with murder. He's facing trial for a more severe charge of aggravated murder, which could translate to the death penalty if Robinson is convicted. And as you can imagine, the burden of proof required to convict someone of that charge, is rather high, rightfully so. So when Wilson says that there's overwhelming evidence to show that Robinson is guilty, well, he should be able to present that evidence. We should be able to see that evidence. And remember, there could be no reasonable doubt. Now, imagine making that claim, offering Candace Owens $300,000 to debate her with that stance and then say this at the very beginning of an hours long debate. Take a look. >> Just out of curiosity, are you between 0 to 100, what is the likelihood that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed him? Based on the evidence right now, um I don't know. I'd say 75 85%. >> Look, that that was not a great moment for Andrew Wilson. That guy is supposed to be like a amazing debate. Okay, amazing debater. Now, Candace, on the other hand, demonstrated that she's knowledgeable about every nook and cranny of the case, including what I feel is the bare minimum of what Wilson should have known. Take a look. >> Now, name all seven. He doesn't even This is like >> name all seven. >> And and and I I >> Can you name all seven? >> I I can't. >> Then do it. >> Sure. You don't have to. >> Do it. No. Do it. I'll count them. Go ahead. >> You don't have to put your fingers up. I >> name them. >> Yeah. Sure. >> Name them. >> Uh the first charge is aggravated murder because that's what carries the death sentence in the state of you. No, that's not that is literally not murder. >> Okay. >> And so just so people No, don't I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on. The second charge is the felony discharge of a weapon. Uh the next two charges are for obstruction of justice. >> Okay. >> The next two charges are for witness temp tampering. And the final >> the specific charges though. >> That is them. Obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice. Witness tampering. Witness tampering. >> Now look, regardless of what you might think about Candace Owens, she's been investigating Charlie Kirk's assassination every single day since it happened. Anyone who follows her show has seen her exclusively present materials that give any rational person the very reasonable doubt that would acquit Tyler Robinson. Remember, he stands accused of killing Charlie Kirk by firing a single shot to the neck with a 3006 rifle. And he allegedly did so from a roof 142 yards away. So, look, we're going to show you some of the material that Candace has presented on her show. And luckily, Candace joins us today to walk us through it all. Candace, welcome. >> Oh, thank you so much for having me. >> Thank you for doing this, especially on such short notice. I was planning on doing this segment totally by myself, but there's just so much and I know I'm going to miss things and you do really know this case like the back of your hand. So, I want to start off by talking about what you covered on your show yesterday because for me, that was it. At that point, I'm like, I'm going to talk about this and I'm going to give her kudos because this video footage is very suspicious and we need answers. And it it does cast some doubt on the official narrative surrounding Tyler Robinson and how this assassination allegedly took place. So, you know, you have mentioned on your show repeatedly that less than 4 minutes after Charlie Kirk was shot, Terrell Farnsworth, uh, who runs audio and visual for Turning Point USA, was seen taking down one of the cameras that was like on the set where Charlie was, right? So, there's three cameras in total, but the one camera behind him, which would capture the back of Charlie's head and the audience viewing him, that's the camera less than 4 minutes after Charlie Kirk was shot. That's the camera that Terrell Farnsworth go like goes to immediately, takes it down, and then there's video of that moment along with some of the context of, you know, what you had to say about the video. So, I wanted to show the audience that and then we'll go to the new footage that you presented yesterday. Everyone take a look. >> So, when the footage began going viral, the clip of Terl taking down those that camera in particular, people online, I think, rightfully speculated that there must have been something really important about that back footage behind Charlie's head specifically. And then people were gas lit. We were told, "No, there was nothing unique about that camera. There was nothing unique about that footage in particular." Terrell actually grabbed all of the footage and he did so because people were stealing and people are evil which we then said our common sense went that doesn't really make sense because if he was worried about people stealing like wouldn't he be concerned with the camera it was just the SD card that he took out contrary to what Andrew Kovat is saying there was some something special about that footage behind Charlie's head and Terl belinesed to it in particular and he was nervous about that footage in particular because he did not instantly grab all of the SD cards. He grabbed that one and he did it nervously. Here he is. He's taking down the camera altogether. If you're worried about theft, take the whole camera. It's pretty small. It's in your hand. He doesn't do that. He takes and he looks around. He wants to see And then he looks down at it and he walks around. And we had wondered what did Terrell do when he walked around. He hasn't addressed any other camera there, just that one. So, it's definitely strange that he didn't address any other camera except for the one directly behind Charlie Kirk. And you know, you actually reached out to him. You were you knew who he was uh because of your time with Turning Point USA. You spoke to him on September 18th to ask about it. What did he tell you? It was the first thing that made me uncomfortable in this case. Uh he basically was saying a bunch of excuses that didn't make any sense. The first thing he said was, you know, he wanted to secure the footage because he didn't want Erica to see Charlie die in 4K. And I said, Terl, we all just watched Charlie die. Like, they're not saving her from that inevitability because, you know, that's the whole thing. It was live stream. We all watched this already. It's all over the internet and it's from the front. Why would you grab the back footage if that was your concern? Uh, and then he told me that he I said, "Could you just send it to me because I'm not going to show the footage. I just want to see it so I can then defend you on my platform. Which was my intention to say, "Hey guys, like this is the reason he did this. Maybe a police officer told him to grab all the footage. You know, I hadn't put the pieces together yet." And he told me, "Well, I don't, you know, I don't know how to send a file that big." And I said, "Tarl, you run an audiovisisual company. You know how to send big files. Like, you can use Wii Transfer. You could use Google." And then he said he was worried that Google was going to hack him. I mean, these are just totally, frankly, bizarre excuses for not showing me the footage. I I would have happily gone to him. I would have jumped on a Zoom call. And I I was like, "Hey, you're acting really strange." I told him that. I said, "Oh, this is all very weird. Like, what what would Google hack you for for the purpose of then showing the footage that we've all seen? Like, we're all going to see Charlie die again. Like, what kind of a conspiracy is this?" And so you fast forward to this preliminary hearing and um the testimony of the State Bureau of Investigations and I find out that actually 8 days prior to him speaking to me actually on the day that Charlie was assassinated, he sent them Google links. So clearly he wasn't fearful about Google. Clearly he knew how to share a link as I know he did. So the natural question that I have is why did he lie to me? Why did he lie to me? Well, not only that, and this is really important. So, he took the SD card out of the camera. You just mentioned that he provided um investigators with Google links of the footage. Did he provide that? >> As well as a flash drive, which is what was testified to, which means what happened to the SD cards? Right. So, the SD cards, if you're saying that you wanted to assist the officers, you just give them the SD cards. They know how to figure out an SD card. you don't have to do anything to help them figure out how to do an SD card. And so if that excuse of I just wanted to secure all the footage was correct, that's what you would have done. Uh but clearly his focus was that back footage because he even steps over another camera which would have had a good view of people in the audience. If you thought, hey, maybe someone shot him that was in the audience or Veloi Center. I would have grabbed that camera that was behind him facing the audience and the questioners. He steps over that camera and uh abandons an opportunity to grab that SD card at the same time and he, you know, nervously looks around, grabs that back one, and then walks around to the back of the tent as you just showed. And you know, I I don't want it to be lost on our audience, so I want to reiterate, he never provided, and this is based on the testimony that you can hear for yourselves during the preliminary hearing. He never provided the SD card, the original, you know, SD card to the um, you know, investigation. He just provided the Google links and a flash drive, which would indicate that there's a possibility of evidence tampering. No, >> I I'm not saying that he did do that, but that there's a possibility for that. >> There's certainly a possibility. And what's also interesting to me is like the FBI, they they control the case, right? So that's the State Bureau of Investigations. The lead investigators on the case are the SBI. They were on the ground that day. I believe he testified. Uh it was about 1:30 by the time they started saying, "Okay, this is your job. Your job, your job, your job is to secure the surveillance. Why are you not giving them the SD cards?" And the only excuse that we have gotten about where those SD cards are came um from Andrew Kovat weeks later. He told the public that the SD cards were given to the FBI. That makes entirely no sense. This is not a federal case. This is a state case. Um the lead investigators are in the state. Why would who in the FBI has those SD cards? And when were they given those SD cards? Did Terrell take it back to Arizona and then give it to Cash Patel thereafter? We don't know. But these are questions that anybody who is looking at this case should be rationally asking. Uh because Carol had an opportunity to edit that footage. He did. He just did. He um and the story that we were told by Andrew Kulvette was that he just wanted to secure the footage for the purposes of making sure that nobody stole anything because people are evil. But actually, I don't think his priority was making sure that things weren't stolen because he left those other cameras. He left that other SD card as the one that he stepped over uh and addressed his computer. Like, that's not the first thing. And I want to be clear, this is all happening within 10 minutes of Charlie getting hit. >> Terrell runs up to a ledge, records a selfie video of himself. Uh, as Charlie's being carried to the car, he says, "Charlie's dead." which is a stunning thing to say. A stunning thing. Nobody knew that Charlie was dead. Charlie wasn't going to make it. He explains it away. I was close to him. I saw how bad it was. I just, you know, assumed he was dead or whatever. >> Okay, I'll accept that. Your next step is not to call 911, but to jump down and secure the camera behind his head. >> Is that Are we allowed to acknowledge that? That's strange. >> I mean, I'm acknowledging it. I do think that's strange. And what's even more strange is the exclusive footage that you presented on your show just yesterday. So, you asked rightfully like what happened immediately after he took the SD card out of the camera and you managed to find footage of what he did immediately after. So, that's what we're going to take a look at next. Everyone take a look at this video. Here is what Terrell did thereafter. and he puts the SD card in his pocket and he zips up. He doesn't run to the other cameras and try to grab the SD card. Instead, what he does is he whips out his phone and he begins texting with someone. And that's what he does. He's texting with someone to say what. I mean, that's a legitimate question. And think about the traumatic scene that everyone just witnessed. Less than four minutes after Charlie Kirk gets shot, he goes for the camera to take the SD card out. Like, I just feel like most people would their mind wouldn't go there. I I mean, and I could be wrong. Everyone reacts differently, I guess, but I know I wouldn't react that way. My first thought wouldn't be, I got to get the SD card out of the camera directly behind Charlie Kirk's head. It's just >> which is the least important footage when you consider the shots. It's the least important footage is going to be that footage because traditionally it always just showed kind of what was at Charlie's feet and a little bit of the audience. It's not a great shot of anything. Actually, the other two cameras would be more significant if that was your instinct to secure the footage. Why not do all three at the exact same time? Why this one being prioritized? And I also want to raise the most significant part. He violates the crime scene to do it. He pulls the chair that Charlie according to him just died in because he knew he said instantly that Charlie was dead. So he knew it was a crime scene and he drags the chair that Charlie was sitting on that has blood all over it and stands on top of it. Stands over the cam the other camera which has been knocked over to basically unfassen that camera to bring it down, take it to the side. Doesn't care about all of these expensive cameras that could be stolen. You know, Andrew story is he was worried about people stealing. Well, okay. Let's secure the cameras. And he just takes that SD card out and he he's constantly looking both ways like, you know, looking both ways as if he is doing something wrong or like he has some sort of a fear. I mean, that's what I see in his body language when I look at that. >> Yeah. And also, I I mean, I have a huge problem with the fact that he didn't provide the original SD card to the investigators. Like, that's that's a huge problem. Okay. So, let's talk about the crime scene a little bit because one of the things that I found strange was how quickly the scene was tampered with in a way that would bury potential or possible evidence in order to help indicate like and find who actually killed Charlie Kirk. So, can you go over some of what you find strange? So, there was the whole paving over of that area. Yes. >> What do you know about that? So, what we know, and this is what has been shared by the person who directly put down the paper. So, this is not like, oh, he he did an interview, he explained everything. Um, he got a call over the weekend asking him to come in for what was described to him as an emergency paper job that was being done because the FBI and the governor of Utah were requesting it. Now, what we do know about that entire area of that courtyard is it was under FBI control. That came out in the preliminary hearing. They described which zones everybody was in control of. And for whatever reason, our FBI, who should not have been involved in this case at this stage, there's no reason for the FBI to get involved in a state crime. Didn't happen across state lines. Um, they decided, you know, giddy up. We're going down immediately and we are going to be in control of the courtyard. So, it would, what he's saying would make sense. The FBI was in control. And on Saturday, they had uh a team come in and dig out and remove all of the dirt. And then on Sunday, uh, a team came in, a separate team came in and put down papers and they said it was an emergency. It had to happen. And so he basically testified. He went on a podcast, so it wasn't like a official official testimony and explained. I didn't know. I had never in my entire career heard of a PA emergency that couldn't wait until the next week. And they had him lay down pavers. And in the process, they moved uh about 12 in of soil. They wanted 12 in of dirt removed. and to have pavers put down. Well, now moving that dirt to put down pavers makes sense. You have to remove dirt to put down pavers, but what is the emergency? This is a crime scene. Why would you do this? None of that makes any sense. And so, it's another thing where you go, they literally paved over the crime scene uh began paving over the crime scene within 72 hours, which is an absolute nonsense. I remember you talking about how the authorities also provided Erica Kirk with material that should have been maintained as part of the investigation. Can you just quickly go over that? >> Absolutely. Um and and so in any traditional scenario where there is an unsolved crime, even if there is a solved crime, you're going to keep certain things into evidence until you get to the trial, right? That's just and of course everything every one of Charlie's personal belongings is going to be assumed that it needs to go into evidence. >> And you will recall that there was sort of this moment where the public really first saw Erica and she's hanging out of the window and she's holding Charlie's uh St. Michael necklace, his St. Michael pendant and it's on a chain. Now there are some people that say that that chain actually was not the original one he was wearing and it had been switched but we do know that that is his St. Michael pendant. She then featured it and discussed how he loved this pendant um and how she would get him a a new pendant fixture every year. Are you That's completely crazy. How How would you just give that immediately back to Erica and not see that as evidence? And we found it strange that so many people who were there that day had like a personal story about the pendant that made no sense. Um um namely Frank Turk, he told a story and his story has shifted somewhat and he says it's fine. Everyone has different memories, but he says that, you know, when he got to the hospital, uh, he they were securing the car. That was another thing piece of evidence that they got rid of. They towed the car and wanted it cleaned and resold within 72 hours. I mean, this is the whole thing is just so crazy that you would tow that car in 48 hours that had Charlie in it and could potentially have some evidence. But he tells a story about the pendant, Frank Turk, where he says he went out to the car and they at first the FBI wouldn't allow him to get his get his belongings. And then he said, you know, where's Charlie's pendant because I know Erica wants it. And the FBI said, no, you can't have it. And he said, no, I you know, I demand it for Erica and they just gave it to him. Like that's not really a believable story. And I'm sorry that the FBI said, "Oh, well, if Erica's emotional and looking for it, uh, here you go." Uh, none of it really makes any sense. >> Okay, I have so many questions. Okay, for our audience members, let them know who Frank Turk is because they might not be familiar. Like, what is >> So, Frank Turk is one of about 20 people who claim that they were Charlie's personal pastor. I find that to be very strange as well. Um, he he was with Charlie in the days leading up in Arizona. And for some reason, Charlie needed a rabbi, a priest, and a pastor. I kid you not, in the 48 hours leading up. Um, and they all say that it was because he just wanted to strengthen his debate skills. Something that Charlie's been doing for 10 years. He just really wanted to work on his debate skills. Anyway, Frank Turk accompanies Charlie to this event, which is obscure to me that he would be doing that. And then he's kind of filming on his phone, says that he's on FaceTime, rather is what he says, uh, with his grown adult, 35-year-old kids in the middle of a day because they just love Charlie Kirk so much and they want to hear him speak. Um, and mind you that son that he's referring to, I'm pretty sure is in the military. Um and he that you know the shot happens and Frank Turk jumps into the back of the car to accompany Charlie to the hospital and he did a media blitz thereafter and told a lot of stories about what he did in the car and told spoke about this necklace that Charlie was wearing and how it was just sitting on his backpack when he was at the car and the feds said to him, "Oh, there it is." What do you mean, oh, there it is? How did the feds know that Charlie was wearing a necklace? There it is. Why were they looking for Charlie's necklace? These are all sorts of unanswered questions that we are asking. Like, why were the feds looking for it? Why were you looking for it? Why did Erica want it? Why couldn't this have gone into evidence first and been returned to her um at a later date? And I'm told by police officers, the usual process is they take everything and then the attorney general um of the state has to sign off if you want uh anything personal back. For some reason, they violated all of that for Erica, you know, allegedly. Uh we did see her holding it uh the very same day. So, what what I also don't understand, and there might be a reasonable explanation, you would know better than me because you've done so many of these types of events alongside Charlie after Charlie is allegedly shot, why is he being transported to the hospital in an SUV as opposed to an ambulance? Like, doesn't Turning Point USA usually have like an ambulance nearby in case something happens? >> Every single event that I have done has had an ambulance homicide. This is brand new. I I mean, everything that day was brand new. I showed how I even text like Carol didn't come to the events. Ter didn't sit to the side of us. All of that started and I describe this as sort of boiling the frog. Um, ironically, the one time the the one semester, so to speak, that I did not go on tour with Charlie, everything changed. So now have him up on a platform. They have him wearing this double mic. They have this camera behind his head. We never had cameras behind our head. You can go back and find the footage. I mean, I have toured with Charlie from 2019 until spring of 2024. I really appreciate how many tour stops I've done with Charlie. And so I was able to immediately look at the situation and go, what is this? What is all of this? Why is Terrell there? My first question. Why is what is Terrell doing here? He does he does the big events. He's the CEO of the audiovisisual company. This is like a Trump change event. I've done UVU with Charlie before. Literally have done that exact school. You can go find the footage. What are what are we doing here? And there, well, and Terrell said to me on the phone, we were trying something new. >> He kept saying that we were trying something new. What What was new that you were trying? He said, we wanted immediate, you know, feedback back to the ops back home so we could cut clips the fastest. Like someone's racing to beat Turning Point at cutting these clips. And so it makes me uncomfortable that there were so many uh admitted by Terrell new fixtures immediately as as they got me out of the picture um putting pressure on Charlie uh regarding Tucker Carlson as well as me following my firing from the Daily Wire and then a year later Charlie's dead. I just that doesn't sit right with me. That just doesn't sit right with me. And again, you can look at every piece of this objectively and go there's a lot of things that don't make sense. And why do we have Turning Point unwilling to offer information that could help make it make sense? >> Yeah, that's the part of this that's so strange to me, Candace, because there and it's you it's usually the same group of people who are like, "Oh, there's nothing to see here when it comes to the Epstein files." Usually people who defend Israel's undue influence over our government and the wars that we fight on their behalf. It's always the same group of people who are not only hounding you and just trying to make you out to be crazy and while by the way totally ignoring your arguments, never engaging in the substance of what you're saying, they just try to defame you. Okay, it is what it is. But what's strange to me is don't you want these questions answered? Like don't you want to get to the bottom of what actually happened that day? Very likely that Tyler Robinson is involved in some way. Uh, is he the only person involved? >> I've been saying that he is involved. >> Yes, you haven't said that. >> Like I have never said I think he's completely innocent. I I say I do not believe he fired a shot and killed Charlie Kirk. So for for what is being brought against him, I think he is innocent of. Could he be an accessory to murder? Was he burying burying clothes um and hiding it and taking instruction from his boyfriend? I know he was around campus that day. Around I was told by a Robinson family member that he did not step foot on campus that day. Uh, and so yeah, I I feel like it's not like we're being crazy here. We're asking Turning Point to help assist us. And the most disturbing part of all of this for me is that his wife is not telling the public the truth about so many things that she could easily tell the truth about. And this is not some widow that went home and is averse to publicity. If she was like, "I don't care. I'm not getting involved. My focus is my children, and I, you know, I'm camera shy, so to You'd be like, "Okay, well, that's just who she is." >> Well, she got she's on tours. She's Shabbatan. She's Shalom. She's She's talking to everybody that she can't you can't keep her away. She went right into the office that week >> and and led a call giggling about emojis. How are you out of bed? I'm sorry. Like, are you trying to tell us that it's not reasonable for us to expect you to mourn longer than 72 hours? The world who did not know him mourned longer. people who did not like Charlie Kirk mourned longer, you know, and just because it was so traumatizing. I I think everyone felt less safe after Charlie um got hit and you watched it. I I I felt this like suddenly so insecure to go outside. She sits down with Jesse Waters and she says he's like, you know, were you scared? She's like, no, >> God's got me. He's like, have you uh lost sleep? She's like, no. Are you taking any medicine? I don't need any medicine. It's great. It's like, okay, you're superwoman, I guess, or something. I don't like it. It doesn't feel right to me and I have a right to form an opinion on Erica based on her public actions. >> Well, one of the actions that honestly made me a lot more critical of Erica Kirk uh came up in the context of your debate with Andrew Wilson because he opened the debate by reading an alleged text message that Charlie Kirk sent. And just to kind of sum it up, um, and I'm not reading it verbatim. I want the audience to know that, you know, Charlie Kirk communicated in that alleged text message uh that he wanted the security to be bolstered because he's worried about someone on the left trying to kill him, which is strange because that was allegedly a text message that Turning Point USA er It could have it could have only been one person, Erica Kirk, cuz she's the one with his phone. She provided that to Andrew Wilson. Okay, first of all, why are we hearing about this now? Okay. Right. Why are we hearing about this now? If that text message is real, if it really does exist, wouldn't she want to put that out immediately? Because she has 100% backed the theory that Tyler Robinson was the one who shot and killed Charlie Kirk and that he was motivated by Charlie Kirk's views on the transgender community, right? That this was motivated by left-wing hatred of Charlie Kirk. Okay. Wouldn't she want to release that text message immediately then? She didn't. She's your point. >> So, there's that. But also, Candace, I recall Erica Kirk saying in an interview that he sent no text messages saying that he feared for his life. Now, that was in the context of people um speculating that he was in fear of Israel coming after him. And so, she's like, "No, I have his I have his phone. He never texted anything about being in fear of getting killed." Okay, but what changed? because now all of a sudden there's this text message that alleges that he was afraid of someone on the left trying to kill him. I don't know. That inconsistency is really weird to me and shows uh a little bit of dishonesty that's going to make people question anything that you know is going to be claimed moving forward. But I want to keep going because there's so much to get to. We're not going to get to all of it, but I do think this is like the super important stuff. Now there's the 30 six. I'm not a ballistic exp ballistics expert and so I had no choice but to kind of defer to what the experts were saying. Most experts were saying you get shot in the neck with a 30 out six. There's no way that there isn't an exit wound. Okay. There's no way that you don't like blow someone's head off with that. And uh then you have like a few people who come out and they're like, "No, it could happen. Could happen. Totally. I mean, it's totally possible that the bullet wouldn't, you know, there wouldn't be an exit wound. Okay. I don't know. I'm not the expert. I don't know what to believe. Then you have Robert O'Neal. If you're unfamiliar with Robert O'Neal, he's the guy, the the Navy Seal who killed Osama bin Laden. So, uh, he's bit he's a bit of a ballistics expert, okay? He's been kind of sounding the alarm about the allegations and the official narrative. And I just want to show the audience a little piece of what he had to say on Pierce Morgan. >> So, where'd that bullet come from? You don't bleed like And I've shot guys closer than the camera was. Uh, and an exit an entry wound doesn't look like had an exit wound does. Why did his shirt move the way it did? When I've shot people, they're uh their shirts didn't move like that. And then the initial reaction was, well, he was obviously wearing body armor and it was deflection. One, no. Uh, he wasn't wearing body armor. And two, it doesn't deflect like that off of body armor. Why was his shirt moving from right to left? Why were people being interviewed saying, "Yeah, they came from my left to right, from his right to left, immediately shut down." Um, and then did they tell the crime scene down immediately? >> If you were dismantling this precise rifle, how long could would it take you to do it? >> A 306 is Well, it's going to take several minutes. I I can't even remember the I grew up my first rifle was a 306 in Montana, and I can't remember the last time I took it apart. I could take the bolt out, clean that off. But in order to break it down uh to the to the point where you can even walk with a limp, it's going to take a solid five minutes, I would guess. >> Okay. So, I I wanted you to comment on what he had to say about dismantling the weapon because I don't think people are really paying attention to the absurdity of the claim regarding the weapon used and how Tyler Robinson allegedly dismantled it. Well, so we are to believe that he sort of he stuck the weapon into his pants uh and it was a part. Okay. So, he presumably had one part in his backpack and then had the weapon in his pants, but it was disassembled. And then he gets onto the rooftop and takes out a screwdriver. And they don't have footage of this, but they want you to assume that when he uh ducks down, he then spends time reassembling the rifle. Now, I have done a minimal amount of hunting. Yes, I have shot and killed animals. When you do that, the part that he didn't even get to is the scope, which is needed to look through, you you would have to rez you'd have to zero the scope. Meaning, you'd have to fire a bullet to make the scope work again. Like, think of it like as a compass. you have to zero it to make it work again. So, he didn't fire a bullet to test to you can't if you took it apart the scope would just be completely uh messed up. A 300 6 I mean it would decapitate you. There's no other way to say even if you tried to pass the idea that there was some miracle and he had a steel neck. There's actually a YouTuber named Valhalla who was like, "Hey, um let's actually pretend he had a steel neck. Let's take it at face value." And he shot from that distance a piece of steel and it went through. Okay. So, even if Charlie had a steel neck, it would have gone through. There are people who have replicated this experiment said, "I I cannot get this to happen. I've done this 500 times." I'm not saying uh one way or the other what happened. I'm just stating that this did not happen. And even Turning Point USA when they introduced that, they say it was a miracle. Now, the only time when they first acknowledged that didn't go through, and this is why I do think that part of the reason they removed that footage was because it was never supposed to see the light of day. And we were supposed to assume that it went through because everyone would have made that assumption. And Terl showed me the footage. >> Okay. Okay. Talk tell us. >> That's how this started when I he called me after on the 18th and I was like, "You're acting really weird. Like you're just acting weird. Everything you're saying is weird, Terrell. What is going on? Like help me help you." The next day he called me on the 19th and he said, "Okay, I'll just show you the footage on FaceTime." And thank goodness someone on my team said, "Canis, just screen record the conversation. You just don't know. just screen record the conversation. And I did. And when I looked at it, I was then even more shocked at the fact that Terra wouldn't show this footage because there was no gore. It was the cleanest footage. We already saw him get hit by the front. So, I'm going, why are you not showing this footage? It didn't go through. There's no blood. Uh Charlie goes down to the side. What is What is happening here? And immediately after that, my husband gets a phone call um from the COO of Turning Point USA, and they're like, "Did Candace record the footage? Did record the footage? And I learned and I will say allegedly here that the reason that they were asking was because the feds were freaking out about the fact that I shared on my show that I had seen the footage and they were saying you need to find out if she recorded it. Okay? And I wouldn't answer cuz I'm going, why does it matter one way or the other? Why does it actually matter? And this is why it matters because it proved that it didn't go through. So the next day they like panicked and they just um on the same day they panicked and they sent out a tweet. Andrew sends out this tweet and says, "Oh, we just now kind of wanted to announce to the world this miracle happened and Charlie ate healthy." And the surgeon said it's because he's got strong bones and he eats salad and you know, I guess he's Popey the Sailor Man or something. And um >> he's so strong that the bullet doesn't even like push his body backwards. Like that is that is >> 2,000 lbs of force coming at you. Okay. Like didn't blow him backwards. Didn't even if you said it didn't go through, he'd be decapitated by the front. And I do want to say this, Anna, because I think people have forgotten this most crucial element. I did not suspect Turning Point USA at all. So on that day, I was one of the people that was on the phone talking to Andrew Covette when they were in the hospital. Andrew Kovette told me that Charlie had virtually no neck left. Okay. And strangely, that same thing was told to Tucker Carlson cuz the only people I spoke to that day were Andrew Kulv and and Tucker Carlson. And like I was like crying on the phone like what's going on all this stuff. And then my husband was told separately. So three different people communicated to us that Charlie basically had no neck left. Okay. >> Mhm. >> And when I run that back in my head, I realized that that was the intention was to say that it went through and it like ate his entire neck until I saw the footage and then until I had a source who dealt with Charlie's body and said that's simply not true. Charlie really just had a small wound. And I know it looked bad from the front, but it happened to hit his his uh corroded artery, which was completely blasted out, whatever it was that hit him. And that's why the blood looked really bad, but Charlie looks good. >> He looks good in the casket. >> That's ins. Yeah. >> So, I revisit that. Okay. I revisit that and I go, were they trying to establish a narrative that I accidentally This is their anger at me. They're so angry at me. I don't know where it's coming from. and I accidentally ruined this idea that the 306 went through. Terara was supposed to take the footage. Again, I am being a conspiracy theorist. I guess this I'm saying all this allegedly in my opinion, but also in my experience of what happened that day. What I was told and what I have since learned is completely untrue. I'm just I'm so bothered by it all. >> Yeah. Yeah. and increasingly with like the case that you're making and I want to be clear with the audience about something else as well because I think a lot of people are putting words in your mouth that and I think that's unfair to you, right? So for instance, people are accusing you of accusing Erica Kirk of killing Charlie Kirk, but you have accused Erica Kirk of being complicit in perpetuating this narrative that's kind of being forced upon us about like this is what happened. This is what Tyler Robinson was motivated by. Ignore all of the material and evidence that really does cast doubt on the official narrative. And I want to show one other thing real quick. During the preliminary hearing, this is like so shocking and the fact that it's not getting any pickup in legacy media boggles the mind. Or maybe it doesn't. During the preliminary hearing, some of the evidence that uh was so overwhelming uh as the influencers said after attending the hearing and and you know sharing their thoughts on it, one piece of evidence was the image that allegedly showed Tyler Robinson, >> but that image was manipulated. The the courtroom saw a manipulated image. So, let me show the audience what I'm talking about. All right, let's go to this graphic. Um, at the top you're going to see the unmanipulated image of who is supposed to be Tyler Robinson. The bottom image is what the court saw during the preliminary hearing, which is obviously a manipulated image. I mean, and you can tell it's manipulated based on the cars that are distorted in the background. Now, as we all know, Tyler Robinson is a very skinny guy. Okay. Uh let's take a look at the next image side by side of Tyler Robinson on the left hand side. On the right hand side is the unmanipulated image that was shown in that was not shown in court. The manipulated image was shown in court. But this is the unmanipulated image which obviously shows a guy who doesn't look like Tyler Robinson and doesn't have the body type that Tyler Robinson has. >> Right. >> So I why I all we can do is speculate why. Right. But how is that allowed? How is that okay? And why is no one talking about >> these are the questions that we have that should be answered definitively. They changed the aspect ratio now. We don't know if the courts did that. Did the sheriff's office do that? Did the FBI do that? I'm told that the courts cannot do that. I got some tips from people saying we absolutely could not be we would not be allowed to do this. We can't touch anything. this would have been given to the courts which would demonstrate that someone um policing whether it's the FBI or the sheriff's office or the fed FBI if they're the ones um that are getting their hands in this have decided to change the aspect ratio uh to also degrade the images that we are seeing. It makes no sense once they showed the footage the surveillance footage um during the preliminary hearing. You then go to yourself, okay, they started grabbing this footage according to the preliminary hearing at by 1:30 they were on the ground. They all had their roles. Cash Pat Mattel, this is a manhunt. Why didn't you release the footage, the clearer footage which you showed at court immediately to help people find Tyler Robinson or find Charlie's killer? Why didn't they release more? They had more. they had access to more, but they sort of held on to this, released something extremely blurry and now they're changing the aspect ratio and simultaneously they're taking influencers to court to tell us that the evidence is so overwhelming, but they can't show us one clear image of Tyler Robinson on campus. Does Does that make sense? This is your time. It's a preliminary hearing. You can establish you're trying to establish probable cause to move forward. Drop a clear photo of him and say, "Here you go. >> Here's Tyler Robinson." I would have immediately said, "Oh, well, there it is. There is Tyler Robinson." I can't even meaningfully say that. I think there's a Tyler Robinson. That's a standard white guy with brown hair. >> Yeah. >> Who's wearing a cap. That's That's the best I can do. >> Yeah. And um you know, one >> could be Tyler Robinson. It could not be Tyler Robinson. >> It's cra This is insane. Honestly, it's crazy. Okay, so there's more. Um, the other thing that came out during the preliminary hearing was uh Lance Twigs's testimony, which is super important. So, Lance Twigs is allegedly Tyler Robinson's furry lover, who he loves so much that he felt motivated to gun down Charlie Kirk over his views on transgenderism. Okay. >> So if you are that obsessed with and motivated to harm people based on a political view, you would discuss that political view at least once or twice. Now the question is Lance Twigs was asked during the hearing whether or not he and Tyler Robinson discuss politics. And I thought that his answer was um strange uh considering what Robinson is accused of doing and what the motive was. take a look. >> Um, did you and he ever talk about politics? >> Um, he did more than me. Uh, I I didn't really still don't really keep up with politics very much. Uh, he'd usually talk about stuff he heard on the radio on his drive to work in like their work car since it sounds like their whole crew went in the same car most of the time. But uh I wouldn't say super consistently cuz it wasn't a topic I really contributed much on. >> About Charlie Kirk. Did you ever talk about Charlie Kirk? >> I I personally had never heard him talk about Charlie Kirk before specifically. >> Okay. Um how about um political issues? So did you ever talk about gender identity issues and LGBTQ rights? Uh, no, not not really. >> No, not really. I I just think I don't know. I This is subjective obviously. I think that's strange. I think that's super strange. No, >> but it also it it should make you angry because the Republicans neocons took this immediately and said this is an openandsh shut case. It was a political assassination based on the views of Charlie Kirk and it's because, you know, people in the LGBTQ community are crazy. And they did this absent any evidence. Absent any evidence. Nothing had been confirmed. Funny that they always accuse me of going on vibes. That's fundamentally what they did, right? This narrative was set by a bunch of people who needed it to be true. And now they're being presented with evidence from the person that we are to assume is the closest to him, his boyfriend, who's saying, "Oh, no. He never talked to me about Charlie Kirk." I guess the first time he heard about it was in a text message after he had killed Charlie Kirk. He didn't speak to me about LGBTQ issues, and he didn't talk to me about politics. and then suddenly he's uh killing a political figure that he never talked about to honor me. I mean that none of that makes any sense other than they were trying to stoke the flames in a war between the left and the right as they have admitted. They keep admitting this that they just wanted to unite the Republican party which was fractured after the Epstein files and they wanted to get them refocused on fighting the left. That is disgusting. I I >> plenty of things and disagreements with the left. Left has done tons of things that we that they've actually done that we could talk about. You were going to put like the biggest assassination ever on them just to like repair the party from something that the party should be upset about like the Epstein files. >> I mean that that's definitely a good point. And look, I the thing is they were already making these declarations before any real evidence was presented, before any case played out. And I I definitely thought that even if you know individuals who perpetuated that narrative weren't in on anything nefarious, it it is kind of sick to politicize something like a political assassination as something that is politically beneficial to yourself, right? Like you're pushing a narrative in order to lead to more conflict among Americans based on political identity. I just I don't know. I I thought it was sick just like I thought it was sick that you know a few nobbodyies online might have been like celebrating that Charlie Kirk was shot and killed. That's not representative of the left. I was devastated. I disagreed with Charlie Kirk on a lot of political issues but he was a guy who was willing to sit down and have those conversations and have those debates with us. And I appreciated that. not a lot of people are willing to defend their, you know, their views and engage in debate in good faith like he did with me and Jenk both at the DNC and the RNC uh in 2024. Um, okay. The final thing that I'll bring up are the text messages because, you know, one of the things that gets cited by defenders of the official narrative is, well, the text messages exist? Uh, Lance Twig said that, you know, uh, Tyler Robinson confessed that he did the murder. What do you make of those text messages? And do you think that is enough to claim that there is overwhelming evidence that the official narrative by our government is is true? >> Absolutely not. Because the text messages have not been verified yet. And that was one of the things that if you were paying attention to the case, they were saying, "You guys are saying that these messages are real." And Kathy Netor back in I want to say it was May, actually, it might have been earlier than May, might have been April, they had a hearing and she's like, "We can't go forward because we haven't even been granted our discovery requests. I can't I haven't even accessed my client's phone. You're telling me that Lance Twigs is saying this? Well, something that your audience should know is Lance Twigs was given use immunity for that testimony. What that means, I say to Utah, is anything he says in that he on that screen as he's uh giving his video interview cannot be used against him down the line. Like why did he require use immunity to talk about something that actually happened? >> Why would he need use immunity? is what is the fear here about this particular testimony that he was given this extraordinary use immunity to provide it. And so we do not know if those text messages are real. If they are real, by the way, we don't know where they came from. Uh like I said during the Andrew Wilson debate, uh somebody could be in my Apple login right now sending text messages from my phone, but I'm here live with you. That's why they wanted their discovery request because it would allow them to see look at the geo location. Where is it coming from? Did it come from a laptop? Did it come from an actual device? Where was my client actually at that time? You're telling me that his boyfriend is saying uh that this is his this is what his Discord said and this is what the text messages said. Well, it tends to be that lovers share login, right? That's how it goes. They live together. They share loginins. Was he on his computer? Lance to me is a very suspicious character in all of this because the feds have bent over backward to attack him. And I am on the ground investigating this. I spoke to the Twigs family and they were the first ones who told me that they found it to be remarkably suspicious that the feds were not looking further into Twigs. Okay. He has a background. He's got anger issues. He's got allegedly he has drug abuse issues. I will say allegedly um he has been passed around the family because of these reasons. He's into uh weird internet stuff allegedly. Again coming from his family's direct testimony. They're going, I don't understand why they are not looking further into him. That's not a good vote of confidence to come from your family that's saying this. And on the other side of this, when I'm speaking to the Robinson family orbit, they're saying the exact opposite. This is not Tyler Robinson. This isn't what he would do. Uh he's had great grades all through school, graduated with, I think, above a 4.0, but we're supposed to believe he texted the most thorough uh confession that I've ever seen in my life. I mean, walking you through everything he did on that day down to they caught me on the surveillance cameras. I was hoping I would live this out. This is this is my motive. This is why I did this. Anybody with any sense would know don't text that ever. Anybody would know that like on your iMss. It's all just so ridiculous. And so we have no confirmation about these messages because the prosecution actually they blamed the feds would not give um uh certain discovery requests to the FBI or to the prosecution ahead of this probative hearing which you just saw. I >> I was led to believe that Tyler Robinson was turned in by his own family. Is that true >> lie? >> Absolute lie. His family took him to the police station. And actually, if you go back and look, Sheriff Brooks Bees told the truth about what had happened. Essentially, they told him, uh, you have no other option. They're going to arrest you one way or the other. We can do this peaceibly or we can do this the hard way. Uh, with people banging down the door, you know, whether it's SWAT or whatever units would be doing that, uh, and you would put your family at risk. And he agreed to go in peaceibly, which is why you see even in the little footage that they show, he he's coming in. He's still got his phone and he's in his hand. uh during the preliminary hearing, they showed him and he's got a bottle of water and he's obviously gone into a room that is essentially we're gonna, you know, we're going to speak to you. This is us doing this the nice way. And that was what was agreed to because he had no other option. So obviously you can see that his parents did not there's no statements that they mentioned that the parents made um or um you know swore an affidavit, no sign statements. They did not. That was one of the first things I was told when I started investigating this and got in touch with the orbit from the Robinson family was that the media completely lied by suggesting that Matt Robinson turned his son in. No, he went with his son and drove his son to the police department because he had to. >> It's amazing honestly. Um, and look, I don't know a lot about what happened that day, but I do know one thing. Aggravated murder carries an incredibly high burden of proof. And there is a lot of doubt in this case that isn't being addressed at all by your naysayers. And so for anyone who's calling you crazy, anyone who's going to come at me for drawing attention to what you've been presenting on your show, um how about just address the substance of the material that's being shared and the arguments that are actually being made. Not arguments that they are putting in your mouth, but arguments that are actually being made, but they're not. And I think that that is telling. But anyway, Candace, thank you for being so generous with your time and coming on on such short notice because I I think this is important for people to know about. I want people to give you a fair hearing. Um, so I know this took a little while, but I I thank you for doing it. >> No, I'm I'm really grateful and I think that's one good thing that came out of that Andrew Wilson debate is people got to hear me try to explain what was going on and they became interested and they're going, "Okay, what's actually going on with this case?" And I look forward to actually sitting down with someone who is good faith and going over what I never got to, which was every piece of evidence from the screwdriver to the uh you know the towel and explaining to them why nothing that they have presented has been even remotely convincing tying this to Tyler Robinson. Again, I want to be super clear. I do believe that Tyler Robinson was involved on that day and was around the campus. I do not believe that he is the person that killed Charlie Kirk. And um I'm happy to be wrong. I hope I'm proven wrong. I don't This is an unimaginable nightmare for me um to be thinking the thoughts that I am having and questioning why people that were supposed to be the closest to Charlie Kirk are not assisting me in this endeavor. But I do want to just thank everybody because I know the left has been a big part of my audience that has been engaged in this case, you know, for caring enough about Charlie that this story has not gone away. >> Thank you, Candace. Uh, keep it up. I I know that you already know you have a lot of supporters. Um, but we'll be watching and uh I think you're doing the right thing even though you're getting a lot of hate for it. Uh, usually there's like a saying, hurt dog, a hurt dog, don't holler or something like that. Mhm. >> Big dog, don't holler. >> Yes. So, just keep it up and I know you're strong enough to deal with the heat. So, um congratulations on that. Not a lot of people can do it. So, >> have a great night and um yeah, you too. >> Any updates, let us know. Have a good one. >> Thank you. >> Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets his wings. Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.