Document text
COMMENTARY by Candace Owens — "Erika Kirk vs Candace Owens on Tyler Robinson | Experts Decode Every Nonverbal Signal" (published 2026-07-23).
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=p1vPpDMMCS4) — verbatim ASR.
We had the best time doing the initial breakdown of the body language and behavior in this video, and we decided we'd revisit some of our favorite moments from it. >> Do you believe that Tyler Robinson murdered your husband? >> Yes, I do. >> Why do you think it is so hard for so >> Cuz it's too simple. Again, everyone always has to think there's more to the story. Well, sometimes there's not. I've seen the autopsy report. I've seen our case pulled together. I've been in constant contact with our lawyers, our our the pro the prosecuting team. I've seen it all. And let me tell you this, why in the world why should we prior to the trial lay all of our hands and cards on the table for the defense team to see to somehow then I don't even know what they would do with it. But what I what I will say and I want to get on the Egyptian plane thing, take a flight on that for a second. What I will say is what I'm worried about and I'm fascinated just from a legal standpoint to see how the United Healthcare trials pans out. And I say that because this is the first time where we are seeing the implications. You're talking about Luigi Manion, >> correct? I'd prefer never to say any of their names. They do not even deserve the ounce of oxygen and breath out of my body. But what I mean is it's fascinating to see how social media will impact that court case. Just how it might impact mine. Are you nervous he's not going to get a fair trial? >> Are you nervous that there could be they'll they'll say we can't find a a a fair jury? Like they're going to taint the jury pool and in that case. >> That's how widespread you think these conspiracies have gone. >> Yes. That's how mainstream they've become. Okay. All right, that was fairly interesting. A lot going on with >> she says yes immediately. >> You believe that Tyler Robinson murdered your husband? >> Yes, I do. >> No qualifiers, no softeners, which by itself I think is a solid marker of truth, but her body locks up. Her eye contact goes really wide like she's looking out in the distance. Uh she's kind of doing a left right scan maybe it probably of the host just kind of scanning back and forth which we see people who are checking how their message is being received. I'm wondering what what is your opinion about this like immediate answer and then the freeze here >> but but I think the rest of her body language is congruent. It's telling. There's no hesitation. There's a change in cadence when she makes a point. There's a voice tone telling her illustrators are moving on her hands. I mean everything looks good. There's that pause. Agreed. But it could be because she's heard this many different conspiracy theories, and I have a theory on that, but she has this many different conspiracy theories, she's prepared for a push back. >> Yeah. I think I think the freeze there is is the rage and the sorrow, the her trying to contain the the emotion. That's right. I think she has a legitimate logical [clears throat] concern about about this that you you you just won't be able to find a jury uh who haven't been influenced in some way. I'm nervous that there could be they'll they'll say we can't find a a a fair jury like they're going to taint the jury pool. >> Seems totally legit legitimate to me, but it's hard for her to get that across because she's so consumed with the the despair and the rage and the and the sorrow. So, I think she does a pretty good job of eventually to her logical point, but I think she's trying to control some strong emotions while she's doing that. I think that first part where she answers so quickly back to your thing, Chase, is because she knows the answer to that. I mean, she she knows what she thinks about that and she's sick of hearing it. And I think she's offended by it, you know, as you would as any of us would be when they say, "Oh, there's all this stuff going like, no, this is what happened." You know, sometimes it's what is what exactly happened is what happened, you know, without all the the stuff around it. You know, all >> these these are statement killings. You know, I call this that the same thing with Luigi in the very beginning. These are statement killings. This is somebody satisfying their own Maslo all the way up. And I always say there's two kinds of on the continuum of people. If you think about people who are icon thinkers and people are artifact thinkers are the terms I use. Icon means everything has more meaning than it appears to like a church window. The whole story is encapsulated in one picture. On the other hand, you get animals who a bucket is feed and they'll check it 50 times a day. Somewhere in between there are where most of us are. those conspiracy kind of folks who always need a complex answer because their brain can't take some kid crawled on a roof from 70 yards away and shot a guy with a hunting rifle. Well, I mean, if you see this shot, this is a horrible story, horrible thing. But trying to find a complex answer to this simple thing. I think she's dead on. Sometimes it's simpler than you think it is. Just silly. It's just this is satisfied. This guy's Maslo is all it needs to do. It doesn't need to be 50 people involved. Cloaked is the sponsor for this video and they asked me to do something I wasn't sure I wanted to see. So, I put my phone number into their site and I couldn't believe what came back. You don't realize how exposed your personal information is until you actually see it being exposed. And as dad brokers selling your information, your phone, your email, even sensitive stuff, and they sell it over and over and over again. And the crazy part, you agreed to do this in the buried terms that nobody reads. And every time you sign up for something, you're just feeding that machine. Most services try to clean all that up after the fact, but that's not the real problem. You keep creating that same problem every time you sign up for something. That's where cloaked is different. It shows you where your data is exposed and it helps remove it. But more importantly, it lets you create burner emails, phone numbers, and usernames on the fly. So when you sign up for something, you're not tied to your real identity. So now they're not buying your information anymore. They're buying junk and you're playing them. And on top of that, it monitors the dark web, filters spam calls, has a built-in VPN, password manager, and even a $1 million identity theft insurance policy. So go to cloaked.com/tbp and you'll get a free security scan and you'll see how exposed you are right now. It only takes a few seconds and you'll see exactly what's going on out there. The link is below, so click it and get 30% off any subscription. I understand why there's so much so many uh people questioning this because I've seen that video with him jumping off the roof. I'm not seeing a gun in there anywhere. Granted, he may have thrown it out, you know, thrown it off or something and missed it, >> but you know, you hear all, you know, you know how long it would take to break that gun down when you've seen it on Instagram, but we know anyway. >> You know what I mean? It take a while when you're doing something like that for that thing not to show. So, I can understand that part. and then then putting it back together and then sending those those odd texts that happen. So, I can understand what's happening, but I think there's some there must be another layer of this trying to make it look that way for some. I don't want to get into the the big conspiracy theory with about all that. I'm just saying I understand why she's um being argumentative or would be argumentative about that because and has an answer ready to go because she doesn't believe all that that stuff. >> Well, if you can kill a king, you could kill anybody. That's why people look >> I mean that's the the horrific absurdity of of life is that some kid with a really bad plan but a plan can beat a security team who weren't expecting the kid with a bad plan. >> That's right. >> It's it's just the nature of stuff goes wrong and it's and it's you know that's life. It's terrible. It's ridiculous. The second kid absolutely ridiculous. Yeah. But you know, and they they once somebody gets an idea, then there's the contagion of ideas. >> Maslo Maslo's satisfaction right there. >> Just the way, you know, it's the horrible way life is. >> Yeah, >> there's a lot of anomalies about the case as far as I know. I'm not an expert. I don't research it. Uh it looks weird. There's a lot of stuff that does look weird. But one thing in this video that looks weird to me is she's directing most of what she's saying at the flowers on the table and and not the interviewer, the host. And I it's not off into the distance. It's kind of right there at the table. And people usually look away to regulate emotion or to to access a memory, not to stare at a neutral object while they're talking about a murder. And I just thought that was unusual. And people cope in different ways. I'm not saying this indicates deception or anything, but she goes off on the this thing about United Healthcare. And Scott, I had a question for you if if if you don't mind getting put on the spot. >> No. >> When people shift into procedural analysis >> when they're under stress, >> do you think we're seeing some kind of ego defense or is it somebody just maybe going to where they feel safe? >> I think she's seen this more than all of us. I think she feels she's going to where she feels comfortable. That's why I think she's staring at the flowers because she's going to a spot and just talking. She's not talking at the flowers, but she's so she's just talking. She's got she knows what she wants to say. She's got these these packaged answers. Not specifically so I can guard my, you know, my my thoughts or whatever, but she knows what she thinks about this and so she's got specific things she wants to say about it. So, I think it's more of being um the neutrality she's trying to go for with answering that question without seeming too aggressive. Maybe that's why she's she's doing that is because she she knows what she wants to say and she just aims at that and starts talking. I don't even think she realizes she's doing it. I've seen that a lot. I don't think I don't I don't think she even realizes that's what's going on, but I think it's part of her part of comfort for her. If I had two things to that, what I would say is if you go and talk to children and you give them a task to take, for example, like one of my favorites is ask them to make the scariest animal on earth and they'll take parts of animals. You'll see moving their eyes around in their head and I'm not going to tell you about eye movement, but then what they'll do is they'll come back to a spot as they work on combining the two and talk about it. And I think if she is not a person given to fits of rage and going at somebody and this is pretty aggressive. I mean, look at this is pretty damn aggressive. Maybe it's a perception issue, Chase. Good question. Maybe it's a perception issue of I don't want to look you in the face and be that aggressive. >> I think it is. So, let me add this to it. She's getting a great effect with the interviewer. The interviewer is in full empathy uh with her. So, so whatever she's doing, whether she's doing it to the flowers or she's doing it to the interviewer, the interviewer is really responding. Also, the rest of the audience are responding. They respond to the kind of joke that she makes about flight, the word play there. >> And I want to get on the Egyptian plane thing. We'll take a flight on that for a second. What I will say, >> so she's she's managing to to get emotion. She's managing to get some humor in there with that live situation. I'm not sure whether that translates well to us in TV land here. Probably probably her performance makes more sense live in the room than it does out here for the for the camera. She she doesn't really play the camera a lot. I think she's playing the interviewer and the audience there >> and you'd know that, Mark, because you you'd be able to you've seen it. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you can see the audience responding. She's doing a great live theater job there. >> You see the interviewer go >> trying to control an emotion, right? Yeah. >> The interviewer seems a little bit aggressive sometimes, though, too. Like in that one, she comes out. It sounds aggressive. She's probably not being aggressive, but I mean, she does kind of come in, you know, a little bit hot on some of these. So, let's take a look at [clears throat] I don't know. That's a tie, fellas. >> Do you believe that Tyler Robinson murdered your husband? >> Yes, I do. >> Why do you think it is so hard for so Cuz it's too simple. Again, everyone always has to think there's more to the story. Well, sometimes there's not. I've seen the autopsy report. I've seen our case pulled together. I've been in constant contact with our lawyers, our our the pro the prosecuting team. I've seen it all. And let me tell you this, why in the world why should we prior to the trial lay all of our hands and cards on the table for the defense team to see to somehow then I don't even know what they would do with it. But what I what I will say and I want to get on the Egyptian plane thing. We'll take a flight on that for a second. What I will say is what I'm worried about and I'm fascinated just from a legal standpoint to see how the United Healthcare trials pans out. And I say that because this is the first time where we are seeing the implications. You're talking about Luigi Manion. >> Correct. I prefer never to say any of their names. They do not even deserve the ounce of oxygen and breath out of my body. But what I mean is it's fascinating to see how social media will impact that court case. Just how it might impact mine. Are >> you nervous he's not going to get a fair trial? >> Are you I'm nervous that there could be they'll they'll say we can't find a a a fair jury like they're going to taint the jury pool and in that case. >> That's how widespread you think these conspiracies have gone. >> Yes. That's how mainstream they've become. >> All right. This has been pretty interesting so far. What do you think about what we've seen, Mark? >> Uh, yeah. I mean, it's a it's a kind of a dog's dinner for for all kinds of good reasons of pinging between this the emotion, the dramatic, the ideological. Um, I think it's quite understandable what's what's happening here, though it can read as a bit odd. Chase. >> Yeah. I think the bottom line, uh, if you just took one thing from any of this, grief doesn't always look the way you think it should. Sometimes it's there's a ton of rage in there. Sometimes it's totally numb, just an anesthetized. Sometimes it shows up with strategy, branding, and maybe a media plan. Uh I don't think that makes anybody guilty. But uh the trap is that we confuse performance with deception. That's the only trap I don't want you to fall into. Greg, >> yeah, agreed. What what I think you got to pay attention to here is a complex situation. and a woman whose husband has been murdered, who is fighting off conspiracy theories that she doesn't believe are true, and a prominent person within her own movement, her own party, who is purporting some of those things. All that tied together with people who want more answers than she can possibly give. And she has to contain emotion while she's standing in front of people and trying to continue a movement and picking up the cloak of somebody much taller than she is. I think that's very difficult. And I think you could assign deception to this and you'd be wrong. Scott, what you got? >> I agree with you 100% there. I thought this was a good one because it's somebody being thrust into a situation that she'd never thought she'd be into. She's trying to act the way she thinks her husband would act in this situation. Act the way she thinks other people who are heroes to her would act in this situation when something like this happens. You know, you've got to be the leader. You've got number one, she's got to go back and be the leader. She's got to be the one defending everything. she got to be the one telling what she thinks and what she thinks is going to happen. So, I think all this is new to her and I think we're seeing somebody work their way through this uh new person. They've got to become this new and I hate to say new creation, but the new personality they've got to take on to be able to handle all these little job little jobs, all these huge jobs she's got on her now. So from raising her children, being a widow, dealing with the the situation that you know the world saw happen. [snorts] So I think it's u it's fairly interesting to see how she changes and it'll be interesting to see what she's like in about a year from now. So maybe we'll check back in then. >> The shooter uh or the alleged shooter. You think they're a pathy? >> Of course they're passy. I mean, come on. This was so dumb. It's so He wasn't even on campus that day. They can't show us one clear image. Not even one. All of these cameras. The turning point has everything in 4K. So, shouldn't you have caught the shooter on the roof in 4K? Like, you had cameras everywhere that day. Every inch of that campus is covered. >> Someone else that was running across, wasn't >> Tyler? Absolutely. Someone that just sprinted. I don't even know if there was a person that sprinted that day because everyone's forgetting there was also a news report that came out a week before that somebody was on the roof and a professor came out and waved the person. Now, they may have been dropping off a gun, dropping off the screwdriver. I don't know >> cuz there is one video like one of the students had the person who took that video that I had to track down. Okay. >> Military. >> Really? >> Everybody's military in the story. >> Really? >> All right. Chase, what do you got? >> I don't think there's a lot here to debunk. I think she believes what she's saying. I agree there's a ton of anomalies here that look extremely suspicious. I don't know about the case. I'm not uh investigating it, but I I just talked to Shawn Ryan about this, and it really looks like the caliber of the rifle is 100% false. Uh but there is a mountain of other seriously bizarre anomalies here. And I don't look into the case much, but I know there's a lot of people who are still looking into it, and I hope uh that if any of you are watching right now, maybe you can educate us down in the comments. Give us some facts. But I know that Charlie privately reported intense pressure from pro-Israel donors to stay super aligned. He described uh these funding consequences if he didn't fall back in line. And I think fall back in line is a direct quote. These texts showed super increasing stress tied specifically to Israel related positions. and he his ideological softening kind of showed up right after that that pressure started escalating which is just bizarre. So some really weird stuff that that happened throughout this whole thing. Scott, what do you got? >> All right. Well, we're seeing this the cues of someone relaying what they believe what they tr what they really believe is true. And it's she's using that confirming tone. Her cadence is speeding up. we see the rise in volume and the escalation of her of her, you know, hand gestures and arm gestures and at the same time um I think she's again trying to persuade um this guy or the listener, the viewer, whatever to believe what what she's saying because um to present this the way she is I I don't know. Yeah. So the set I say like this. The setup is for is for persuasion. It's to get someone to believe what you're saying in this situation. It's nothing big. It's not nothing, you know, that's that's overreaching or too much, but it's there. It's it's there. So this is the most animated she's been so far and the loudest volume she's been she's talked at as well. So there's this thing with volume and confidence. And most people think the louder you are and the more you move around and the and the bigger your gestures are, the more apt you are to be believed and to be seen as confident. Whereas it's in my opinion, it's just the opposite of that. If you're get if you're transmitting something that's really important and really serious, then your voice gets a little quieter and you slow down a little bit. You make sure every word is understandable and your gestures aren't all flailing around and real big and all that kind of thing. The more influential person will will won't move as much. They'll be a little little they'll be still comparatively to the person who's who's the other person if you'll keep an eye on both of them. So >> this isn't a baseline big time though. >> Yeah. Yeah. Keep an eye on it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm going to talk specifically. >> Yeah. But I'm talking about how it's moving, how it's changing. All right. Greg, what do you got? >> Yeah. So, first of all, let's say she's an entertainer and what she sells is complex story. I mean, I' I've never candidly the only time I've ever seen her is on political commentary during elections. I've never watched her. Sorry. But so I didn't know what to expect. I know a lot of people follow her with true belief kind of ideas. And she is saying what she believes. What is interesting is what you're seeing is a persuasion technique that all of us have used at some point. Let's first say a conspiracy theory doesn't have to know the truth. Period. Period. All of these conspiracy theories deal in uncertainty and lack of knowledge. And it could be they can point to some things that are anomalies and then let you fill in the blanks. And that's masterful. It's powerful and it is entertaining. What's interesting is watching her. She's very confident. Again, she's got the big illustrators. She's supporting her message like you would expect. This is her wheelhouse. She's telling us something. She's got extended fingers, extended thumbs, but she doesn't adapt her at the back of her neck, which we usually associate with some rising level of stress. Then we hear these upward lils at 4K, not on campus that day. >> So, shouldn't you have caught the shooter on the roof in 4K? He wasn't even on campus that day. >> Those are key points that she's going to use because they're anomalies. Now, we didn't poke and prod and say, "Here's why. No counters. The guy's there to support her and and her story." So, she's gone back now to convincing as she's telling her story. She even does a little head wobble when she says everybody's in the military. >> Military >> really >> and a lip compression at the end of it. That's uncertainty. That's secondhand information of course, but handing this stuff off is part of it. The other thing to pay attention to, and let's pay really close attention from now on, is when I'm trying to persuade you, one of the most powerful tools is to let you contribute to the story. And you're creating part of the soup. You'll taste your own ingredient. And if you watch her, she's doing that with him. She'll make good eye contact and nod when he says something that finishes her sentence. I teach this in rapport building all the time. If you want to build rapport, test the waters and see if the person can finish her sentence. You're getting there. And the way you convince people is by not as much eye contact usually and then you notice her making hard eye contact and rewarding his statements. So, she is trying to persuade. Now, that's the nature of what she does for a living and is well within her baseline. So it doesn't mean deception, but what it surely means is we've entered into part of what she does for a living. Mark, what do you got? >> Yeah, I agree agree with everybody uh here. Um here's where I want to push it. Uh look, first of all, her tonality is is this on this, which is the Charlie Kirk, the subject here is Charlie Kirk shooting. Um her tonality is and is much the same as her religious beliefs, much the same as the Trump stuff. There's there's no I think as you were saying Chase it's it's all pretty much baseline for her. There's nothing too extraordinary how I mean extraordinary she's a great entertainer. She's a brilliant communicator in many ways you know fascinating to watch compelling to watch uh entertaining and not much changing here. Here's what I do pick up on and and yeah, as Chase says, like if you have facts which are positive things that are provable, like put them down below, but ideas of what isn't, don't put those below because that's not fact. That's just a gap. And we will find people find God in the gap. People find conspiracy in the gap. We will fill the gap with whatever is most on our mind or we we most lack at the time. So don't fill don't put gaps put this definitely happened and his and that's what she's doing she's creating gaps in fact she's doing it chase to your point with the same methodology that you're pointing to the scops which is category destruction okay the philosophy of dereda which is you take a category and you completely destroy it so she goes I don't even know whether that person was the person they say in fact I don't even know whether it was a person. >> I don't even know if there was a person that sprinted that day. >> Wow. Category gone. Bang. Gone. That is the way you demoralize people because we have the moral of well we know a person is a person is a person. Now we've got well it could be another person to the person you said. Now a person doesn't even have to be a person anymore. They can be I mean I saw one but maybe it wasn't one. That is beautiful postmodernism. It's absolutely what you know, Chase, if you're right, the receipt of SCOP is is putting forward. She's using those techniques on us right now. So, everybody's part of the problem right now. Maybe I am as well. Maybe I'm part of the pro, but we're all part of the problem. We're all doing all the same stuff. Yeah, we're all We're all doing it. It's highly entertaining, but I >> think you stepped in your wheelhouse there, Mark. I think you all >> Well, no, it's great cuz it's beautiful postmodernism, isn't it? It's beautiful. You destroy a category, you make a new one. You destroy that, you make a new one. It's it's wonderful creativity. >> Let's throw in the asterisk here that it's likely very likely not a conscious deliberate effort to do those things. I mean, possibly. >> I think it is >> possibly. Yeah. I mean, >> I don't know, ladies. >> I mean, your don't think is like give us give us evidence positive. >> Yeah, I got to go. I got to go. >> Not I don't know. There's a gap. I don't know. So, let's say it isn't. >> I think she's doing it on purpose. I think she's trying because there's way too many of these things happening there. Too many red flags from the first video to this video that are showing that that I've seen a thousand times in someone who's conning somebody else or trying to work somebody else or or grab their persuasion to persuade them to think something else. So, that's the one I'm going to go with. It's one I have to go with because I got to call them like a scene as you you guys do. >> But what she does for a living is persuade people. >> Yeah, that's what I mean. That's what I think you're seeing. >> This is all her baseline. She speaks like this all the time and she's passionate about this because she's talking about her friend being murdered. So, >> yeah, I think the persuasion is turned up a little bit, but I don't think it's deliberate. I think her outcome is in her mind and conscious. I don't think the technique is a good look. >> What she has to sell what she has to sell is that persuasion that she does best. I mean, that we we're all dancing around and saying, you know, communication, all that's persuasion. What she does is she draws in followers. I've talked to people that some people who are disaffected from her now, but they loved her clarity of thought and that kind of thing. So, she if she comes across as questioning her clarity of thought, she loses subscribers, followers, watchers. >> Yeah. I mean, ultimately the entertainment here is to open up is to destroy categories, open up a gap, pull people into that suggesting that you'll be able to answer it and then open up more gaps and more gaps and more gaps and never close the loop because people keep watching and watching it. Come back next week and we'll answer that question. What another category just exploded. What you thought was that is not that anymore. And and and I can't >> uh this is George Lakeoff. >> Have you read that? >> I mean it's it's it's postmodernism. It's it's entertainment. I mean people have been doing it since the Greeks. >> It's nothing worked up. >> Yeah. I mean well because people think people think this just got invented whereas next one's even even more been around thousands of years. >> Plato. Yeah. Yeah. >> You want to talk philosophy? >> No, I meant play-doh. Like the dough that you get. >> Oh, I thought you said I used to go to school with a kid who ate that stuff, you know. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Sorry. Man, I thought I saw an opening there. Sorry, dude. I was going in. >> The shooter uh or the alleged shooter. You think they're a pathy? >> Of course they're passy. I mean, come on. This was so dumb. It's so He wasn't even on campus that day. They can't show us one clear image. Not even one. All of these cameras. The turning point has everything in 4K. So, shouldn't you have caught the shooter on the roof in 4K? Like, you had cameras everywhere that day. Every inch of that camp someone else that was running across, wasn't >> Tyler? Absolutely. Someone that just sprinted. I don't even know if there was a person that sprinted that day because everyone's forgetting. There was also a news report that came out a week before that somebody was on the roof and a professor came out and waved the person. Now, they may have been dropping off a gun, dropping off a screwdriver. I don't know. >> Cuz there was one video like one of the students had >> pan who took that video that I had to track down. Okay. >> Military. >> Really? >> Everybody's military in the story. >> Really, >> Mark? How's things looking? How are things looking to you so far? >> Well, things are looking, it's very enjoyable. As I've said it before, very enjoyable. I don't know what is accurate or inaccurate about any of this. And I don't think necessarily she knows, but she does believe. And it's great to see such a great entertainment around that uh belief. But I think all in all, that's what we've we've got here. Um and and may she keep on doing it cuz it's uh it's it's thoroughly uh engaging. I would take it with a pinch of salt, but that isn't for everybody. And some people will want to take it as a full meal and and you're very welcome to. Uh just don't try and convince me of it cuz you know I'll I I won't be convinced of it until I am until I am and so maybe give it a go. Uh Chase, what do you think? >> I think she genuinely believes a lot of what she's saying. Uh she stays on her normal baseline here throughout this whole thing. This is how she speaks, how she delivers and every other video that I've seen of her. And I think she means what she's saying. I think she's extremely passionate about about this topic because it was a friend of hers. Um, and I think that she is coming around to one idea that I agree with of this right versus left argument is the Truman Show uh, designed for sedated people and I think is a staged war to keep you cheering for the actors and blind to the real script writers in this Truman show. Greg, >> make no mistake, politics is bred in circus. Make no mistake, it is to keep you quiet. But aside from that, I don't see deception. I I see her very clearly in five videos demonstrating what she's saying. Now, she falls short on facts. That's what conspiracy does. That's typically there's no reason to have a conspiracy if you can prove something. It's no longer a conspiracy. Theory, it's now fact. It's now a solved crime. So, that's what people pedal and do. I think she's a fantastic communicator. whole body communication, language, eye contact, movement, all of that. And clearly a good entertainer. So I look, I first time I've watched her in any depth other than being on like CNN or Fox or whatever channel she showed up. And it's clear why people would follow her. Not only because she may be a good role model, maybe somebody who is espousing their beliefs and clearly can illustrate what she's thinking, but also she doesn't appear to be deceptive. This to me shows me she believes what she's saying. Good enough for me. Scott, what do you got? Yeah, I she does look like she's being honest. She definitely looks like that, but what she's saying doesn't sound like it should sound to me personally from the from the people I've talked to that weren't being um honest or they or they were trying to get something done that I wasn't aware of that was trying to be done or they're trying to do that to somebody else. So, when I see something like somebody get have happened to what happened to Charlie Kirk, there's somebody up here and they've looked at that and said, "Okay, this came from there." and all of a sudden it's his security guards with a thing around their neck talking to each other about it and stuff. No, I break it down to the most logical thing and say, "Let's look at that first. Let's make sure everything's cool there." But all these things where there the prints aren't right and all this, if you're going to say that, be able to prove it. Say, "Here's who told me." Because it's a big deal when you bring something like that out. You're bringing out you're bringing out fireworks at that point. So, if you're going to do that, then let's see where you got it. Don't none of this, you know, they he was military. I got it from military. No, don't do that. Say so and so gave me this. He's in the he's in the navy. He's in the army. He's in the marine. Whatever it was, I want to know. Yeah, everybody wants to know. That's what makes it believable when you tell something like that. That's what keeps it out of the conspira conspiracy part of like Greg's saying. So >> So you're saying everything is is >> This is another good one, fellas. We'll see you next time. [laughter] The behavior panel. >> Today we're going to talk about Candace Owens. She's been in the news lately. Greg, why don't you tell us about the >> Just that's that'll do fine. [laughter] >> Just that would be funny. >> That's all we should use. [music] >> [music]