Document text
COMMENTARY by Candace Owens — "CANDACE Owens Brings out more evidence on the Charlie Kirk Tyler Robinson's Case" (published 2026-08-25).
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=gePghp5gJzw) — verbatim ASR.
I think what she has done to the organization has been abysmal. I think it betrays Charlie's legacy. Um, she's partnering with his enemies. I think she is uh certainly complicit. I also want to say this, >> public lies, or let's assume they aren't lies. Actually, let's say they are just honest mistakes with no ill intent. They still need to be addressed publicly. They deserve to be treated with the same public attention, the same public accountability. uh especially from an organization that exists as a charity, right? They they rely upon our goodwill. As an example, when Erica publicly stated with confidence on Glenbeck's show that Charlie was not sending text messages the night before signaling that he was worried he was going to be killed, it then becomes incumbent upon Erica herself to correct the record publicly. When we learn that that isn't true, that's how you build goodwill with the public. take accountability. Like when we make honest mistakes on the show, we always own them. We always correct them as immediately as we have more information as publicly as when we first asserted them. When it comes to Turning Point USA, it's just amazing. It's it's feels like we're just being perpetually gaslit by them. We're offered a biblical proverb like how how dare you even ask us to explain why what we told you before is completely inconsistent with what we're saying now. uh they're just suggesting that we're evil for noticing these various inconsistencies and illogical points that are being presented by them. Why? I don't know if it needs reminding but uh in this country it is innocent until proven guilty. >> Yes, ma'am. So, why does it seem that Turning Point USA and their representatives and their affiliates are so hellbent on sending a 22year-old young man to his death? He's up for the death sentence. Why are they bringing influencers into the courtroom? Why are they, as Blake Nef has done repeatedly, completely misrepresenting court filings to the public in order to do just that? >> You know, my thought is they have been lying since the beginning, right? Or maybe the beginning, let's say the beginning, they were going with the with what the people were saying. The people, you know who the people are, right? They were going with what they told them, right? Cuz the Okay, let's say the government told them that, okay, this guy did it, right? The FBI is saying this guy did it. Now, they started accepting what came from the FBI, right? Because the FBI is the FBI. You get what I'm saying? The FBI is the FBI. Now they started going with that but down the road they start to open their eyes maybe okay I'm not saying that's that's what happened maybe they started opening their eyes and and and realizing that okay this may this is not it right but they've already told everybody they've already accepted they've already done this and that that that that that right so they cannot just come out and say I mean they could come out and say okay maybe we've made a mistake maybe it is they rather be on the side of the government than being on the side of the people. If it ain't so said and so, man, who do you think they would choose? They are doing businesses with the government, businesses with Israel, business with everybody that's over there. So, if they choose the people, they lose. She just said she's doing business with Charlie's enemies, people So, she has to stay in that lane. She already chose her and the people she works with and TPUSA. They can't. It has to be uniform to the eyes of the people. They have to keep it that way >> to assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty. This is a tweet, by the way, from just this morning from Blakey. He's already been community noted on it for its intentional misrepresentation. He just lies and misrepresents and we're the bad guys for noticing that he's doing it. This is what the tweet read. He wrote, "U prosecutors have responded to Tyler Robinson's defense filing ahead of the final preliminary hearing and confirms what observers pointed out about that filing. The defense is very conspicuously not contesting any of the core evidence showing Tyler Robinson committed the murder. They don't contest the camera footage, the DNA, the rifle, the cause of death, or Tyler's phone data. All they have is a complaint about reliable hearsay, which won't apply at the full which won't apply at the full trial anyway, and then attacks on the aggravating factors. if there was any merit at all to any of the theories that Candace and them have pushed the last 11 months, why didn't the defense bring them up? And he has community noted before I can even reply because it's it's it's stunning to me that he thinks he can get away with this. It says preliminary hearings decide only probable cause under the Utah 1102 standard. Um uh reliable hearsay is allowed. Defense council often skip alternative theories to avoid previewing their strategy before the trial. Silence does not prove that those theories lack merit. Okay, that is correct. And I'm going to explain this to you actually thoroughly because maybe you're a person who isn't involved in lawsuits. And that's what Blake Nef is banking on when he lies. That's what they're banking on when they take stuff from these filings and they present it to the public. They go this I hope these folks know anything about how legal filings work. Okay. Yes, preliminary hearings are not about discovering guilt or innocence. It is about arguing whether or not the filing itself is defective. Okay? Like, is there something wrong with this filing that makes it so I don't even have to argue? So, the prosecution is coming in and they are going to state, look what I say he did, right? In Tyler Robinson case, here are the seven charges which we think we have enough evidence to move forward with. The defense then takes a look and they say, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Three of these charges are so ludicrous on their face that the courts should just readily dismiss them from this filing without us even wasting time or money having to respond to them." Like, that's what a filing to dismiss means. It's you, if you're on the defense, saying to the judge, the magistrate, your honor, I shouldn't even be forced to waste money responding to this filing in part or in whole because it's defective. There's nothing wrong with it. And you, your honor, based on the current laws that are on the books, have it within your capacity to just outright dismiss this, right? understand um that basically there are certain causes of action if they're civil charges if they're criminal that should just be readily dismissed your honor. So I can give you an example that happened recently that you you guys will recall because we were on top of the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. It ends with us legal saga. Remember initially Blake Lively sued with 13 causes of action against Justin Baldoni. The next step is Justin Baldoni is going to file for a dismissal. And the court came back and decided, actually, yes, Justin, you're you're correct that 10 of these causes of action are inactionable. It's defective, and I'm therefore going to outright dismiss them before we even go to trial. So, in theory, if they had not settled, Blake and Justin would have been left just arguing three of the charges. Okay? Same with me and Brian Harpole. There's another example. Again, these are civil examples. He filed a lawsuit. We went over it. It carried with it a long series of claims. We don't want to argue every single one of these claims. Of course, I don't want to argue every single one of these claims. Some of these are just ridiculous. We filed our dismissal like I went through them with you and was like, "This is ridiculous. This is ridiculous. This doesn't make sense." As just one example um of of one of the things that he's accusing me of. We we're go we went back and we said, "Hey, your honor, some of these claims are are are wrong. You have it within your capacity to look at current laws on the books as one being opinion is protected speech." So, he's suing me for saying I found his interview with Shawn Ryan to be unconvincing. That's my constitutional right to think. I'm not arguing with him about that, right? That's what I'm saying to the judge. I'm not I don't want to argue with this guy about this. Can we just get rid of this? I don't want to spend money having to write a response to that. And so, the judge will look at that and they'll say, "Yeah." Or they'll say, "No." And say why it's no, but yeah, that yeah, maybe that is protected speech. >> Get rid of that. >> You can't. >> We're not arguing the substance of the case yet. We're dealing with perceived defects in the filing itself that we believe the magistrate can take a look at and get rid of what's just essentially junk. It's every single case whether civil or criminal has this stage. So a lot of times there's people online going, "Oh my gosh, Candace filed a dismissal. They did this recently with like the Bridget Mcronone one." It's like, "Yeah, did you read it?" Obviously, we don't want to argue with Breijit over all of this, all of these things that are just fundamentally I'm saying to the court. She's not even supposed to be here. That's one of our argu She's not supposed to be here. What are we even talking about? She's in Delaware. I'm in Tennessee. I mean, she's in France, but she's shopping in Delaware, but I'm in Tennessee. That is what it means. You're arguing something before you even get to anything. And you have a judge that's going to act as a magistrate and to look at that. So, I want you to know that they are intentionally lying and misrepresenting when they say this. We have not heard anything. Um, we are not supposed to at this stage hear what Tyler Robinson thinks about the text messages as an example. So, we again have to ask the question, why do they do this? Why are they doing this? Why, if the evidence is truly so overwhelming that influencers wanted to pass away, they were just p like passing out on the side of the road outside of the courthouse from the overwhelming uh evidence that Tyler Robinson is guilty. Why? Right. Which, by the way, that's been expressed from this organization, Turning Point USA, since the moment Erica forgave Tyler Robinson on the stage. When you forgive, it is because somebody has done something wrong. Why do they need to continually misrepresent the filings? Why does it seem to the public that Andrew Wilson was actually sent here to try to entrap me into a defamation lawsuit? language, his face, the way he was trying to fill in the blanks on what I could mean when I said complicit. Why are they intent on punishing the public, me, for noticing? Why did we all simultaneously get that feeling? Um, that this debate wasn't actually about debating the case. It was about tricking me in in many ways for about an hour and a half. like they needed me to clearly accuse Erica of killing her husband because they know that I've never actually done that. They wanted to get me, oh, when you said complicit, you sent straight to jail out of context. They're they're seemingly also working with journalists to try to get that narrative out there so they can maybe point in a lawsuit and go see this article, even though we were kind of behind it against Candace shows that most people just thought she was accusing Erica said that in her speech. Candace is accusing me of killing my husband when she was dressed like Janet Jackson. It's factually false. She knows that's factually false. Why Why are they asserting that narrative? I've been very clear. I think she is wrong. I think what she has done to the organization has been abysmal. I think it betrays Charlie's legacy. Um, she's partnering with his enemies. I think she is uh certainly complicit in helping to seed the narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty or was guilty before we even got to the probative hearing. Vice President, I also said, was complicit in that when he was on stage at Turning Point USA, talking about Tyler Robinson. You're the vice president. How does that not sway the jury? How are you allowed to do that? Do you not believe that people should be innocent until they are uh proven guilty? And we called him out on that. I'm sorry. If everybody hates our Constitution, all of a sudden, it's it's pretty clear. The rule is you are innocent until you are proven guilty. And at the moment, I think a lot of people are wondering why an organization which purports to carry on the legacy of conservative politics is suddenly so staunchly averse to that. >> I mean, for the vice president to go over there and say what he said, that is like that is crazy, though. That is crazy. Wow. I mean, like I said at the beginning of this video, right, they they have to direct people on one side and and everybody that is in that circle need to be standing on what they already decided and put out there. That's what is happening. >> Staunchly averse to the idea that maybe he could be innocent. Why does that make Whoa. What is that? That's a good That's a really good question. Why? That is a really good question. Why is that? Why is that? I mean, it's because he he needs to be guilty. He needs to be guilty for something. He needs to be guilty for something. If it if it so, man, he needs to be guilty. That's just it. Just a fact. You get what I'm saying? Thank you for watching, man. Shout out to Candace. She's exposing everybody. You get what I mean? I'mma catch you guys next time.