[Commentary · Candace Owens] 🔴 LIVE: CANDACE OWENS vs ANDREW WILSON | Watch Along + After Party | Charlie Kirk Case (Part 1 of 3)

Document text

COMMENTARY by Candace Owens — "🔴 LIVE: CANDACE OWENS vs ANDREW WILSON | Watch Along + After Party | Charlie Kirk Case" (published 2026-08-14).
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=vbetOWvBo10) — verbatim ASR.

Hello. Hello. Welcome in everybody. Welcome. Welcome. So, we do have a panel today and um we'll do introductions and stuff here in a minute. Uh but I just want to start this off by saying if you can make sure you have Candace's stream open as well on another device or on your television that gives her ad revenue and that helps support her as well. And obviously there are I know dozens if not hundreds of people that are streaming this everywhere which is why that's the only reason why we also decided to stream it. Otherwise I typically wouldn't have. Um but with that said um we are going to do the initial upfront. We're going to be doing what we're doing here which is the watch watch along I guess you can call it. And then when that is done we may take an intermission but we're going to keep the stream live during that and then we're going to go into an afterparty after that. and we're going to break down, you know, favorite moments, who we think won, and all that kind of stuff. So, um, welcome in. Welcome in. Hit that like on the way in. Make sure you subscribe to all the channels. Hey everyone, I see you. I see your your gifts and your jewels. All right, so I'm going to do my little intro. This is for YouTube. Got to make them happy. And then, um, we're going to just kind of be casual, you know, grab your coffee if you're laying on your couch with your blanket. Get comfortable. And, uh, we don't know how long it's going to be. This could be an hour and a half. This could be four hours. We don't know how long they're going to go, but official intro. Today, one of the most anticipated confrontations surrounding the Charlie Kirk case is finally happening. Candace Owens versus Andrew Wilson face to face with PBD moderating. And we're watching the entire thing unfold together. For months, these two have represented dramatically different views of the evidence, the unanswered questions, and the theories around Charlie's assassination. But tonight, the clips, posts, and arguments from a distance are over. They have to defend their positions directly to each other in real time. As far as I know, they also both have fact checker teams that are going to be in the control room. We're going to react to the biggest moments as they happen. And after that, like I said, we're doing the afterparty. The plan for the afterparty, if everything works out, is to go through categories like biggest crash out, um, best recovery, you know, those type of things, and rate those pieces and those clips and show them. So, make sure you guys join us back for that. And we also may have Heavy Duty Country and Jesse on Fire and possibly Baron at some point during this as well. They've all been invited. >> I think Baron said he might show up during the actual debate. >> Yeah, during the debate. Yep. >> Yeah. So, we'll see. >> Yep. So, like I said, support Candace by watching on another device as well, so she gets to add revenue and the support as far as numbers go. Um, you can open, you know, the stream on your TV, for example, and just let it play out. And after it's done, we'll be going over the key points and reactions. But like I said, we might do an intermission. And the reason for the intermission, it could be up to an hour or more. Um, is so we can organize everything, go through the transcripts, and find those key moments to actually go over with you guys. So, we'll decide that during the stream depending on how long this goes. And of course, hit like, subscribe, check and make sure you're still subscribed if you want to be. That goes for all of the creators. Uh, the platform has a habit of just unsubscribing people against their will involuntarily. So, uh, I I've seen my numbers jump as much as three or four thousand subscribers in one day when I remind people to make sure they're still subscribed. That's that's not good, >> dude. I was unsubscribed to like Coffeezilla to a bunch of people that I've watched. Baron, there's a bunch of people all of a sudden randomly, especially the last month, they've ramped it up, >> 100%. Now, I just want to remind everyone, we're independent and viewer funded, and your support is very much appreciated. And we'll go ahead and do introductions here. We'll start with Casia. I think you're muted. >> Oh, you're on mute. Yeah. >> Hi. Now, everyone can hear me, right? Okay. So, >> yes, I'm Casia. I'm De Fredo. I think everyone uh knows me by now that are here. obviously very excited about the about the uh debate and hopefully our Candace our girl will kick some butt today. >> Danks, what's up everybody? I'm Danks uh Dankster Intel. Um just a deep dive researcher and just here for the truth. You know, honestly, I I've given various opinions on this debate. I think it's great for content, pushing the goalpost forward. That's what I really hope to see, at least some of it. So, I'm excited to see what happens. I think Candace will do great. I think Andrew, my prediction is that Andrew will will spin out at some point and Candace will be like, "Okay, okay, okay." So, let's see if that happens. Nice to meet everybody. >> And Mr. Costello, >> what's up everybody? I'm Zach Costello. We have the Zack Costello Show on YouTube. Um Matt, thanks for having me. Thanks for the invitation. Uh excited for for today's debate. I mean, I know myself and a lot of us here have have been covering uh the Charlie Kirk case and doing commentary and doing investigative work on it for a long time. And I think that this is a this is a big moment I think for for both sides here um in this whether or not Tyler Robinson is a psy Tyler Robinson is is the lone wolf. It'll be interesting to see how each side uh takes frame and frames their argument. I'm going to be looking for that pretty early on. Um Andrew Wilson was on my channel. We had a long conversation about this, a long debate I guess you can say. and uh his strategy is going to be to get Candace to take a position and provide and demand um you know basically courtroom level proof for everything that she's saying. So it'll be very interesting to see uh how she avoids that trap, I guess you can say. So um I think that's something she's going to need to avoid very early on um or at least be able to position herself effectively very early on um depending on the claim that she's making. I've seen in the intro video with PBD. It's almost like, and this is this this adds to my skepticism of what PBD is doing here. If if you looked at that intro video, it has Candace say like Tyler Robinson is a psy. So, I'm wondering if they're trying to like get her into a into like a into a frame or into a box just right off the bat. So, uh going to be looking for that early on. That's going to be really interesting to see how it plays out from there. >> Awesome. And we also have Nissi with us. I'm not sure if she's quite ready yet. >> I apologize I'm late, guys. I apologize. >> Well, that's why I start 15 minutes early, >> but yeah. You want to introduce yourself to all the audiences? >> Yes, I'm familiar with Zack Costello, but I've never never spoken to him. Same with Danks. But I've spoken to Matt and Cassia. And oh, we're live now. So, I have uh I'm from the Nissy Social YouTube channel. Not NY. I I as much as I love Candace, she does mispronounce my name and then I see people mispronouncing it as well. >> Hey, I've been doing it right. I've been doing you right all this time. >> Yiky, thanks. >> All right, so what we're doing at this point is we are just waiting for this to start here in the next u anywhere in the next 5 to 15 minutes. I'm guessing they're officially supposed to start in seven, but you know, with this much stuff going on and all the technical coordination, they might be starting a little bit late. But we're going to be we're going to be casual between now and then. We're just casual hanging out and then during we might do some reactions and stuff, but we're going to try to not talk over it and we're going to try to not pause it because we're going to do an afterparty afterwards and discuss all that stuff. >> I wanted to do to say something. I did notice some people already saying they're they're stream hopping to all of our streams. It's better if you just stay in one location for all of us. It's you did the longer you watch on one channel, whoever you're you want to watch on, do whatever you want, but it is better, I think, if you stick around on one channel instead of just hopping around. >> Um, I would say uh obviously it's up to you guys, but definitely because so we're up to almost uh 7,000 people now live with us between all the channels. So, for anyone this that just came in, um we definitely recommend having a second browser or a second device open with Candace's stream directly on it. There are hundreds of people streaming this today, but we also want to make sure that she's getting that ad revenue as well as the support and numbers. So, if you can have multiple devices open and then also um you know, consider subscribing to all the different people's channels here today and hit that like help push this out. But, uh >> Yeah, we're going to have a good time. I've been looking forward to it. Interested to see how Candace and Andrew actually approach it because, you know, it's just like a battle or sport or whatever. Or how Baron said the other night, blood sport. You know, you can you can practice and plan and schedule and and and coordinate, but when you're in the moment, anything goes, you know, and so that's what's exciting about a debate or anything like this. >> Real quick in chat, can everyone check? Um, we're going to do a sound check for each person. Someone, uh, Casia says she might hear an echo. I just want to make sure there's no echoes going on. Casia, >> It's not echo. I'm just hearing double, so I'm trying to sort out my own settings. So, I'll be quiet for two minutes while I do that. >> Okay. Um, Zach, Danks, Nissy, do you guys hear any doubles or echoes or anything? >> I'm good on my end. >> Okay. And then and then chat, can you put a thumbs up or a 5x5 in chat if you >> Uh I saw in the chat some people asking about the baby. No, she we're literally just waiting right now. So it could be today. So if I have to bounce, uh it's probably because the baby or there was a All right. Now, Zach, did you want to give us a quick rundown of your experience debating Andrew Wilson? >> Uh, sure. Yeah, I mean, it was interesting because when I had originally I mean, I guess scheduled to talk with Andrew. It was it kind of it was a thing on X that like he myself and like kind of Ian Carol were involved in and it ended up with me and Andrew talking and and me being like well like hey if you want to come on and talk about some of this stuff. Um you know I've been skeptical of the mainstream narrative the entire time and I didn't really know what Andrew's position was. Um he had said some negative things about Erica Kirk. Um it's no secret that I'm not necessarily a fan of Erica. So I I didn't think that we were going to have much disagreement. I was really just interested in kind of his position on things. Um so when I had him on, I didn't really know his position. It turned into I learned me learning that Andrew basically took the charging documents position and um I' I've obviously been been very skeptical of that. I think one of the one of the main mistakes that that I made during that debate and I've talked to different people about it, like talked to Baron about it since, and Baron said to me, he was like, "I initially thought it was a mistake for you to do this, but then as time has gone by, I think it ended up being a good thing because it kind of revealed uh some of the strategy and and what Andrew Wilson was kind of about. It kind of revealed some of the game and and I agree with that. I I think what my mistake was is that kind of what I said in in my intro is that Andrew tried to get me into a position to to make it so that I the burden of proof shifted on to me and and that was something that was unnecessary because in fact I mean it's the prosecution it's it's that side's responsibility. the burden of proof is on them to prove that Tyler Robinson did it. And and the best and most effective strategy, it's like, okay, like this, it's the charging document narrative. It's the mainstream narrative. It's the lone wolf narrative. That is what needs to be proven. The burden of proof is on them to prove that. And all of the other holes, it's it's the dissenting side. I guess you can say it's our responsibility to poke holes in that argument. And and that's that's that's where I should have stayed in that debate. I didn't. I mean, there were some good moments that I had like bringing in bringing up like the Joe Kent um you know, e ev evidence that was that was not looked into by the FBI. Um we got into like a kind of a semantic war over the word decoy. Um I expect that to happen today. I expect I expect Andrew to pick apart some of the specific language that Candace uses and try to kind of drag her down into some semantic arguments. It'll be interesting to see how she gets out of that. Um, but and and I told you this, Matt, before before we came on, I think it's it'll be interesting to see how they have this set up, like if they're going to be able to show video to show some things that that provide context to the things that they're describing. And I I think that if if they do, um, we know that Candace is sitting on a lot of stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if they're able to show things on screen to back up what they're saying. if we see some some new things that we haven't seen before today. I think that's I think there are some things that Candace may have up her sleeve that that she can do there. So, I'll be I'll be on the lookout for that. That'll be interesting to see if that's the case. >> Yeah, I think that perspective is great. Um I know Jesse on Fire also I think Jesse on Fire and Heavy Duty Country have both also challenged him and I don't know if he turned it down or what, but that never happened. But having that firsthand experience, that's great. Um I and for anyone who's watching right now, if you see that poll on the screen, enter a number. So you can vote for Candace, Andrew, or neither by just putting one or two or three or whatever in chat. And that's how this poll works. And I'll be putting these up throughout >> Does my vote count as five if I put it Actually So, um, what do you guys think? I' I've made it pretty clear to my audience that I think that this is fun and stuff, but I don't I don't know if any any value like when it comes to actually getting further along, like I said earlier, pushing the goalpost forward. Does anybody else feel the same way or or do you think that maybe we will? Like Zach, you brought up a good point. Maybe we're going to see stuff we've never seen before. I mean, is that a most likely outcome or do you think the most likely outcome is that it's just going to end up being like, "All right, well, next episode's tomorrow, you know, like kind of thing." Or do you think we're going to get something substantial uh some type of ending that feels substantial in some regard when it comes to putting pushing the goal post Well, I think one thing that might come of it is there might be some people who are believing the the Fed narrative and they haven't looked into it much deeper. And this, you know, because I I presume that some people from Andrew's audience are going to be watching. This could be an opportunity for those people to hear some of the refuting evidence, people that may have been reluctant to watch Candace before. Cuz I've seen people online make like make comments saying, "Well, I don't want to give her my view. I don't want to watch her videos." people who are very anti-Candice that might be in the Andrew camp and maybe this can persuade them. I think all of us who who have been following this, of course, we're not going to be persuaded. We already know. But hopefully people who were actively avoiding learning what the other side's arguments are might be persuaded. >> That's a good point. Yeah, that would be the best actually. you know, even if it's a couple of people just to see because I think a lot of people out there are just I think they're just piling on instead of doing the research, right? So, >> yep. >> For people that are saying it, I'm not going to the restroom. I'm eating breakfast. >> We're not going to get into that. Oh, they're pooping when they leave thing. All right. All right. So, Cassia, um, she's having some audio issues, so we're gonna have her rejoin here in a second. Um, I did do a poll. I said, "Have you watched a debate before?" Ever. >> 60% said no. So, this is completely new to over half of the audience. >> My favorite debate that I ever watched was when Dave Smith debated Chris Cuomo on the jab. >> I don't think I saw that. >> That was I felt vindicated a little bit. He was He was fighting for all of us who Well, it's a sad. >> Okay, I'm back. Everything is fine now. >> You good? >> I will be talking now. Yes. Sorry, I had like 3 second delay of all of you talking all at the same time. And to me, it was like swarm of bees in my ear. But now, now I'm back. >> Like radioactive Polish bees. Those are the worst. >> Seriously. And for people here, anyone just joining, um, we're actually at almost 11,000 live with us right now. Let's go. >> And then we're looking at we're we're already past start time, so we're we're just sitting here right now waiting for them to start. I'm going to be monitoring PBD's channel, too, in case there's some technical issue on Candace's side, but I I think it should >> It would be cool if they had like a pre-event camera kind of set up as they're getting ready and stuff. That' be kind of cool. >> You're like behind the scenes. >> Yeah. >> I think like this community in general is big enough to the point to where we could do more live events like this with a variety of creators. It would be kind of interesting. >> Are you talking about debates specifically or you just talking about >> No, just chat like live stream but in person, you know? I think that would be fun to to start like a I've talked about it with other people before like I'm not at that size yet but I mean you know if there's a a tour going around the country you know perhaps in different cities like say there's an organization that that hosts these events and in every city major city maybe the creators in that city they come for a live event and then it's like a weekend thing where there's all kinds of shows going on I don't know like a convention for I don't I just think so. >> You're all welcome to come to Cypress >> You know, >> like a It's like a non Erica Kirk Afest. >> Yeah. >> A better one. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. Not an unf America tour. Not any of that. Just >> No. No. >> Just America tour. >> That's right. >> You know, >> that's right. >> I'm Erica Tour. >> On Erica. Oh, >> an unrica America tour, >> guys. It's starting. Okay. >> And like we said, we will try to uh not speak or anything during this as much as possible. We don't know if it's going to be like non-stop action or if they're going to have breaks or how it's going to work, but all right. We know she has her her intro is pretty long typically. And I'm watching PBD as well. He's also just like in a standby type of status, so it hasn't officially started yet. Kenis has at least 100,000 live right now already. >> Gosh, man. >> 33,000, right? Yeah, that's crazy. >> PBD has 30,000. Let me check the Crucible. >> Yeah, he's got 30,000. >> Crucible. Let's see. Oh, his isn't uh his not kickoff yet. Maybe that's what they're waiting for, but Oh, he has very interesting. >> I mean, everybody's showing up. I'm looking at all the live streams. I mean, a lot of people. >> There's so many people watching this right now. >> Wow. >> This is the Super Bowl. This is the Super Bowl >> of debate. >> Someone someone commented on one of my videos. They were like, "Oh my god, that's what people who follow sports >> Imagine gambling on sports." Oh man, >> that's >> Guys, it's Everybody's in Cyprus. I'm trying to sort out my air con as well. >> 45 degrees C. >> Yes, 40. Yeah, >> 40. It's going to be really interesting right off the bat here what specific sides these two take. >> They're going to try to they're going to try to put each other in into specific frames. It's going to be really interesting to see how that plays out. And if and if both of them try to avoid that box, it's going to be interesting to see how far we get as far as what's coming. >> No, no, it's going to be Andrew Wilson. He will focus on one thing and he will continue. You know, do you claim that? Yes. insert. >> He's going to He's going to continue to try to do that. He's going to continue to try to do that and then make Candace show >> literally courtroom level evidence to back up her claims. That's exactly what >> Yeah. I don't I don't know if you guys spoke about it already, but that was kind of his tactic when he was debating Stu Peters. like he kept harping on the Fort Wuka thing and he's like Steu Peters is like I'm not interested in debating that and rather than moving on he spent literally like an hour >> going back to that topic and basically like filibustering the whole debate and then Nico wasn't a very he wasn't a very good moderator. >> Well, yeah, I think part of this part of the Stu Peters um debate people said he lost only because he wouldn't take a position. So, in that debate, he kept saying that things were wrong and things should be questioned and there are things being looked into, but he never actually said this is officially what's happening and I have proof and that's what Andrew was looking for. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, if this becomes like a proof to man like, oh, that it's just going to I don't like that. I would like to see a real conversation where they're, you know, that he's got to put up his side. You can't just say everyone's grifting, lying, uh, destroying a company's entire future of business opportunities and then not prove that, you know, I mean, >> I don't know. And not to put up your side on why we're doing it. You know what I mean? Or something. >> The problem is it's just the charging document side. And but he's going to say, the thing is he's going to hedge that and say, but I'm open to the fact that, you know, it might be bigger, but you got to show me evidence. It's like that that's that's where he's going to sit the entire time >> and he's going to say, "Well, this it doesn't matter that footage you showed, that picture, it's not in court, so it's not even in in play probably." Stuff like that >> because that that image she just dropped. What do we do now? I mean, you introduced altered footage into court with the garage footage. So, I don't know how you're supposed to what now, I think that's the best strategy is just just to poke holes in the evidence that has been presented >> 100% >> because that's that's why that's where all of our skepticism comes from >> 100%. >> Matt Moon goddess says that your >> Sorry, Casia. Go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> Um, it's just a message to Matt from Moon Goddess. Uh, Moon Goddess, sorry. Uh, your your bot put her in timeout. So, if you can turn off the bot or make it less strict. >> Wait, let me see. I haven't even seen the bot in there. Did the bot even turn on? So, so I have a bot. I named it Trigger Daddy. >> Yeah, Daddy. >> Yeah. So, my Trigger Daddy bot is much more uh much more kind than Nightbot was. So, uh, but Moon Goddess has a lovehate relationship with the bots. She's She likes to use naughty language and they put her in timeout. >> Matt, you recommended Nightbot on my channel. I got it set up and it just like basically kicked out all my regulars. >> I was like, "All right, I got to I got to I got to tone this thing down." >> Yeah, Nightbot is vicious, bro. >> Well, you you can you can tune it however you want, but >> Yeah, >> by default it's it's pretty intense. Yeah, and I should have. >> Yeah, it's interesting that I'm not seeing my bot activate. That's But I do have great moderators in there right now, so maybe I don't need them. Maybe I don't need the bot this time, you know? And thanks to all the moderators across the board. You guys are amazing. We couldn't do it without you. Like this this this whole like moderation thing, especially it being volunteer in 99.9% of cases, is just incredible. I also want to give a shout out to my girls that are moderating today. It's qu It's a little bit busier than I expected, so I hope they're okay, but those girls are amazing. So, I am really really lucky to have them. >> Yeah, shout out to all the mods. Uh, thanks for >> shout out to the mods. >> Shout out to the mods. >> We have >> We have 11,000 live with us right now. I didn't expect it to be honest. >> Yeah, I didn't either. >> I saw someone commented that that starting at 12 Eastern Standard Time now. >> Well, let me >> cuz it's moved. Originally, it was 10 Eastern, then it moved it to 11 Eastern last night. So, let's see if they actually moved it another hour again. >> I wouldn't be surprised. I mean, if they're having technical issues or something like that, they would have to It's like three different teams trying to synchronize at the moment. >> I've only seen 11. I mean, Candace is in the pre-screen now. So, >> yeah, I'm I'm watching it right now. Candace two hours ago said 11. I don't see anything else that changed anywhere. I'm checking PBD as well. >> Someone says Andrew is trying to open a jar and that's why it has not started yet. >> Trying to get that jar open. Yeah, trying to get that jar of evidence open for himself. Yeah, PBD, same thing. 11 o'clock. So, I don't see any last minute things >> Maybe something on X. I'll check. >> That's why I'm looking right now. >> I don't see anything changing times yet. So, but like we said, they're coordinating three three separate remote locations technologically. So 11 a.m. ET is now. >> Yes. >> Okay. So that's the last we've heard. >> Mhm. >> So in the meantime, Cassie is going to play viola. >> Absolutely. Let me just whip it out. >> Well, she started playing like some folk country music. >> Um >> should we sing for everybody? I mean, >> you'd be barely I'll be bass. >> Danks will be soprano. >> Imagine I'll rap >> people. >> Missy, thanks for asking. I I I I really can sing. Yeah, I sing for my audience all the time and they love it. >> You sound like you can sing. Like you have a nice talking voice. >> You do like Frank Sinatra. >> I can't sing at all. And I heard from my audience and I >> I oversold you. >> Wait a second, Zach. You did rap, didn't you? >> I did rap with Coach. Yeah, with Coach Colin. We did like the when Erica came out in her Eminem costume. >> Do we have that clip somewhere? >> We did like a rap battle. Yeah, >> I can rap. I mean, rap rapping is different though. When I try to get like the bravado in my voice, it doesn't go well for me. >> I try lack of effort to rap. I will pay you to rap. >> Hey, I'll rap if you do. You won't be alone, bro. I got you. >> Thanks. Raps, too. >> Thanks. You go first. With a name like Danks, I better rap. >> Seriously, >> I'm stuck like a trap. Grabbing around my ankles, wrapped it, and won't let go. I'm about to snap, so I hang up my thinking cap. Taking down my night cap. I deserve to relax. Maybe eat some apple jacks. Kick back and recap. But when I do, that is when it hits me like smack. And then I wind up black and blue with some tracks. I'm caught up in this death grip of sober in just one rip. All I need is one hit, one match for one fix, but one is too many. I've already done plenty. I need to turn a new penny. But this pressure is too heavy. I need to lighten up. Just have a half a cup. And at the end of the night, I still end up effed up. >> We're waiting for this moment. >> Hold on. >> I think I think Danks has been practicing this for like a month. >> Was that a freestyle? >> It's uh No, it's not a freestyle. >> Oh my god. Man, >> no, it's not a freestyle. No, I've I used to write and do music and do shows. I used to travel and until I was about 22, that's all I did was DJ, rap, you know, I worked in odd jobs delivering pizzas and as as a cook, but I did shows for quite some time when I was younger. >> Well, I'm looking around and everyone's in the same waiting state everywhere. So, I don't think we're I don't think Candace's is different than anyone else's. >> Nice one, D. So, what you started YouTube in hopes that one day someone will ask you to rap >> back in the Justin Bieber days, I started taking my stabs at it YouTube. >> He got an opportunity. >> No, I started off as a DJ. So my first big show it was I DJed on My Sweet 16 for this famous kid's Daughter when I was in high school and then kind of kept doing that ever since. So a lot of more independent shows DJing electronic hy rap music. I was doing clubs. I was MCing. So I did that for quite some time under the age of 21. I was under 18 in some of that. But it it that whole industry it got dark real you know I was young and when you're left to your lonesome and you have the habits of my of me you know it was it was all bad. It turned out all bad. There was there was a distinct track and I chose I remember deciding to go the underground club route or the MC radio route and I made the club route decision. >> 126,000 waiting >> for Candace's stream. >> Yeah, I'm looking at numbers. >> A lot of people are like 5,000 plus on channels that never get, you know, channels that never stream and channels that never get above like maybe a thousand. They have like 8 10,000 people in them. >> Yeah, >> this is this is a big event. Should it be? I don't know. But it is a big event >> on PBD. >> 31,000. >> Yeah, we're we we uh let's see. We >> Thank you guys for hanging out with us, by the way. That's nice. >> Yeah. And actually, let's >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Sorry. No, I just want to know. Danks, did you did you get your name during during your your MC era? Is that where it came from? >> No, I got it a long time ago. Uh when I was Well, yeah, actually. Yeah, I guess you could say cuz like my nickname came from like a variety of things. Like I was up to no good. Um but I for some reason just pe I always kind of gave people that energy like that that uplifted energy like it's a good time, we're having a good time. I've always got the things I had at that time to have a good time. So, it was like thanks kind of just stuck. And then my friends and my family and everyone just started calling me Danks. So, that was when I was like young, you know, in high school. >> Okay. >> What What about your name, Nissy? Tell us the story there. >> Well, it's it's actually the nickname that my family calls me, Nissi. It's not my real name, obviously. on my government name, but my family calls me Nissi. My friend, >> what's the government name? >> It's a secret. You know what it is? All right, I'll reveal it here on the stream. I'll reveal my name. My name's Anissa, but people call me Nissi. >> Anissa. That's a nice name, by the way. Nissi as well. Anissa. All right. >> Yeah. >> I don't care for either one. No, I'm just kidding. Um, so I just I just put a poll out here really quick. this poll is asking. So, we're kind of throwing around the idea of doing an intermission after this debate is done. So, we have up to maybe an hour or two hours to prepare for the afterparty so we can come with better information and like clips and that kind of stuff. So, can you guys vote and let us know what format you'd want to do? Do you want to go directly into the stream like right after into the afterparty and just stay on the same stream? Do you want to do like an hour intermission so we can get better information or do you not care either way? We're just trying to fill out the audience and the intermission would continue this same exact stream you're on. We would just let it keep running. I'll put up a screen holder for the time we'll be back and then we'll just pick up where we left off. >> That's good. >> And that gives us time to do cool stuff like pull the transcript from the and go through that transcript and find like biggest crash out, best moment, best recovery, most claims, all that kind of stuff. I can pull all that stuff very fast with my system. So, >> yeah, as soon as they're done, it'll take like five minutes and then I'll be able to get the full show. >> Yeah, I wrote software last night that does similar. So, >> nice. >> Um >> Oh, yeah. You want me to Are they Do you want me to be checking stuff or they said they're going to be doing it? It's uh I can set up a little bit. >> They're going to be doing it as well. And I assume their format is going to be real time. So, if a claim is made and someone says that's not true, I assume they're going to like pause and like let their fact checkers, you know, do their thing. That's what it sound like. Um, it looks like most of you, uh, almost 70% are saying that we should do an intermission. So, we'll plan for that. Then we'll do an hour intermission after the debate and we'll just leave these streams up and you guys will come back to this exact same stream for the afterparty. And we may have Jesse in heavy duty country and maybe Baron might join at All right. Where we at here? Chat is flying. Um, >> for you guys who when when you start getting like anything over a few thousand live, you definitely want to consider slowing down your chat. >> I never remember where to do it at though. >> Customization, I think. So, you have to go back. >> Oh, okay. So, I have to go back to the previous screen. >> Yeah. Sorry if chat's flying. Let me um let me slow it down for you >> at Danks. Do we think Candace minds these watch parties instead of streaming from her channel? I'm hopping around to like all my fave creators, but don't know if it's rude or not. Uh we suggest that if you have two devices, try to watch Candace. You do whatever you want. Uh usually I I suggest people just stick around one show and it's better for everybody, but it's up to you. Whatever you want. The reason I I don't think that she minds. I mean, more publicity for her. She That's us shown for support. So, and she gets plenty of views anyways. I think she's going to get probably double the live views today than regular. >> I'm just going to say what I answered to one of the not going to say it. >> Here we go. Oh, they're muted. I can't hear him. He's mute. Unmuted. There you go. Candace, Andrew, you know, good to sit down here with you talking to you guys about uh the conversation that I think started with you being on Joe Rogan when you said, "Hey, I'm offering $300,000." And for the audience watching this, you have to know when you see this final product, there's a lot of stuff that happens behind closed doors. There was still communication till midnight. Even some of the stuff this morning, like it's like you're trying to sell a company. It's the last 24 hours that the deal doesn't work out. But kudos to the both of you guys that you made it work. Uh the topic of discussion today, how this got prompted is Andrew, you said there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk and Candace, your position was he's a psy. Tyler Robinson is a psy. So, of course, we'll talk about a lot of different things, but that's kind of how the whole thing got started. For the audience watching, I think this is uh truly for three different people. Number one is anybody out there that loves Charlie, respects Charlie, his legacy, what he did. Uh we have a lot of love and admiration for what he did. He changed the lives of many people uh uh young men, young women. You worked with him for many years. You guys were friends. You've said a lot of good things about Charlie, respectful towards him. You guys may have disagreed on some things, but you got a lot of respect for him. The second audience is um the folks out there, you that's watching this. And so for you, you've been wanting something like this to take take place. And kudos for Andrew for coming out and saying, "Hey, I want to have this conversation and for Candace to accept it." Uh, so you you have the ability to say, "I agree, I disagree." Comment to all the stuff that you're doing online. And if you want to see more of these things, any of the three channels, subscribe to the Candace Show, The Crucible. I'm sure some of the people from Crucible are watching as well, and the PBD podcast. The more you subscribe to this, the more we're able to deliver these types of conversations to you. And last but not least, it's about the two of you. My goal is to speak as little as possible. 99% of the time, it'll be you guys speaking and the audience will be able to see it. If I jump in, just so everybody knows on the back end, both have agreed in the back there's three people representing Andrew and three people representing Candace to do factecking. So at any point if somebody makes a claim, the other can say can we fact check this? I can jump in and say fact check this. Even the folks in the back can say fact checked this. So it is a very fair conversation that we're having here. And so with that being said, u kudos to Michael Nolles. Your name was mentioned a lot. you missed out right now. The last 10 minutes, we talked about you. There's a lot of love and respect here mutually from both parties, all three of them here. And then of course the great Joe Rogan that started this conversation and he also volunteered, but it ended up being uh this format that we have here today. So with that being said, Andrew, your claim is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. Opening statements, opening comments. >> Sure. And what I mean by overwhelming is I just find it very convincing. That's I think that's what most people mean when they say overwhelming evidence. So I have a brief opening statement. On September 10th, 2025, Charlie Kirk was murdered. Many of you already know a lot about the events which occurred after Kirk's death. You remember the ghoulish laughter, celebrations, and madness we saw from leftists all over from Tik Tok invasions, debates, posts on social media, destruction of memorials, and things like this. Within weeks of Kirk's death, a cottage industry began to form, peddling various alternative theories on how he died, what special interest may have killed him, what nations were involved, and was our own government one of them. Because this was the first nationwide traumatic event in Gen Z's lifetime, the demand for answers was severe and pulpable. The leading theory from the conspiracy verse is that Israel worked with the United States government to murder Charlie Kirk. Within a day or two of Kirk's death, Ian K Carroll claimed that Israel killed Charlie Kirk and the conspiracy caught on like wildfire. This theory was built on one misleading piece of evidence that in his final days on or around September 8th, Charlie sent a text message reading, "Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause. This was sent in the context of a platforming dispute regarding Tucker Carlson. From this of misleading information, it was speculated that Israel killed Charlie Kirk because he would have successfully opposed the Iranian war. Now, that's a fun theory, and who doesn't like a good fun conspiracy theory? I like them. But there is no evidence that Israel actually killed Charlie Kirk. And if Candace has some, I'd like her to actually show it to me. I'm open to suggestions, but to date, there hasn't been any. There is, however, tons of evidence that a leftist killed Charlie Kirk, just as Charlie feared they would. I believe Charlie Kirk, and I have the receipts. No, I didn't have a dream where he came to me and told me that the left killed him. Uh, no, he didn't come to me a dream and say Candace Owens betrayed him. That never happened. In fact, I don't need dreams of any kind because I hold in my possession never-before-seen messages from Charlie Kirk to his security team on September 9th, 2025. I'm going to share the message with you today, which is the first time this information's ever been publicly revealed. On September 9th, Charlie security team wrote to him, "Yes, law enforcement has been fully supportive and agreed to uh security plan and posture. Tomorrow's event will be covered by both my team and the campus PD. If additional support is required, patrol units will be available. I have 11 on site. Charlie responded with this. Okay, great. Remind them that they are there for one person's security only because I'm somewhat worried the left is trying to kill me. That was a message sent September 9th. Whatever could he have meant by that? Well, I think he meant exactly what he said, that he was worried the left was going to try to kill him. Now, we'll discuss this more later on in the debate, and maybe I have more never-before-seen evidence that exposes just how wrong and, in my opinion, idiotic many of these conspiracy theories have been. But that's what happens when you rely on what's called the evidence of the gaps. In other words, they don't have evidence. They seem to just make up evidence. And what did they make up? Well, in my opinion, kind of whatever lined the pockets, and I think it's ghoullish to profit off of the death of a good man. But we came here today to debate. And so, let's get to it. The debate topic today is one, my belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, and two, Candace's belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson was a psy and didn't kill Charlie Kirk. In some, the audience is going to decide who has more evidence supporting their theory. My theory is that the state is correct that Tyler Robinson is the killer, at least based on evidence so far. And Kansas's theory that Tyler Robinson is not the killer and he is a pathy set up by the feds. To be clear, this is not a question of reasonable doubt. If it was reasonable doubt, and that's all it was, and that's all Candace was profering, I wouldn't even be here having the debate with her. It's fair to have doubts as a trial has yet to occur and the state hasn't even begun to try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But Candace makes a more forceful claim. She claims that there's more evidence that Tyler is not guilty of murder and was set up as a pathy than there is for the state's case. And I just think that that's absurd. And she will not be able to demonstrate that in any way. In fact, she has almost no real evidence at all of her theory. Whereas my theory is supported by compelling witness testimony, physical evidence, multiple confessions, all of which are independently compelling, but which are even more convincing as each piece of evidence corroborates the others. You'll notice the term overwhelming was included in both theories. This is because Candace demanded I defend my use of that term, which I think is fair, in describing the evidence against Tyler Robinson. She, on the other hand, only wanted to defend her theory as merely viable. That is until I showed her her clips in which she said she believed the evidence of her theory that Tyler Robinson's a pathy was supported by overwhelming evidence. Only then did she agree to defend that position. Regardless, we're both defending the claim there's overwhelming evidence on our side. So, it's worth defining that term. When I say the evidence against Robinson's overwhelming, all I'm saying is that I mean that as of right now, I find it very convincing. I see almost no evidence at all. Only speculation on verified claims and suggestions of things that could merely be hypothetically possible. Dreams, vibes, feelings, things like this. Uh, almost done. By the way, I have no problem defending the state's case and welcome Candace bringing up any challenges she would like. But if I'm honest, the reason I was willing to pay the $300,000 was this for this debate was to finally have a chance for someone to demand Candace be held accountable for the unbelievable theories and claims she's been making. Candace's investigation's indistinguishable from a leftist operation. She couldn't be doing more damage to the right if she were trying. She uses her considerable platform to relentlessly attack one of the most influential conservative outreach organizations for young people. And she's making a mockery of the online right-wing commentary class. She's harming Republicans in an election year by dividing them. She's attacking the very organization Charlie spent his life building. And she's attacking the people he loved, including his wife. And it cost me $300,000. But today, I hope that she finally answers for some of that. >> Thank you, Andrew. Candace, did >> you get it out of your system? >> I did. >> Okay, great. Well, I'm not going to waste time with a preamble because I think I just want to get to the substance of the debate and I will just speak to the audience. I I've obviously had an audience since we've been covering this case. People know that there was a personal friendship between me and Charlie. um and diminishing the pursuit of something that makes sense regarding what happened on September 10th by throwing it to this is just people who are conspiracy theorists. These are people who are just trying to generate clicks. I I'm don't think that people should be satisfied by that. I want people to remember that it's important to think we've been lied to by the government a great many times um over I mean just the last couple of years if you just think of the things that we've learned about our government. Um, and I do want to say this. What's been the most disturbing element I think for everyone is that not only does the narrative not make any sense, which I'm going to demonstrate. I need to waste time at the preamble going through the points or trying to insult you or pretending that I've been running a podcast saying it's just dreams and vibes like I'm Miss Cleo. And that's the reason why it it's taking so many influencers, it looks like a billion-dollar industry of influencers, um, to dispute everything Candace says. It's not because I'm on my platform saying, "I had a dream last night." I don't think that that I think that diminishes you as a as an argument. Obviously, we had presented a lot of evidence. You just presented a text message and said, "This is evidence." Well, that's how this entire thing began. Uh you're talking about how Israel got into the conversation. It was because immediately after Charlie died, uh one of the first things we saw was this push to make us all think and remember how much he loved Israel. It's because the prime minister of Israel, who's fighting like a 27 front war, felt that he needed to come do a little mini tour and to be strangely to to state that I did not kill Charlie Kirk, but nobody um was having that thought that I can remember. Nobody was going. I wonder if BB Netanyahu killed Charlie Kirk. And then we had a round of influencers who lied and said Charlie was not changing on Israel, that he wasn't having any disagreements regarding that topic, that the day he died he just loved Israel so much. And I demonstrated via a text message, which you just mentioned, uh, and you're now contextualizing and pretending it was just about Tucker Carlson, which is is not true. It was a part of a broader shift that Charlie was having over the last I would say actually on your show it began um since October 7th which is when I began asking myself more questions about Israel as well. >> Uh and so yeah when all of these things happened immediate aftermath and then I drop a text message after everyone is denying that Tucker Carlson then comes out and confirms the conversations that he had with Charlie. Megan Kelly then comes out and confirms the private conversations that she had with Charlie. People then begin to ask a reasonable question, which is why are we lying about this? If they were forthcoming with that and they had said, "Hey, yeah, Charlie was starting to ask questions." I think after October 7th, it's reasonable that people are starting to reexamine our relationship uh with Israel. We wouldn't be here today. But it has been lie after lie after lie, debunk after debunk after debunk. Yes, I did share that I had a dream that Charlie was betrayed. It's not a dream anymore. It's a reality. I look at what the organization has become, the people that they are partnering with, the lies that they are telling, uh, the extraordinary people that they're sending out to say that I never I hadn't speak to Charlie since 2018. And it begins to look like a conspiracy. And just as a historical fact, that entire term was created by the CIA to gaslight people after the assassination of JFK. So, it's not exactly one uh that makes me nervous. like calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is essentially saying that they demand further answers and they're not accepting the feds slop. So, um I'm grateful that you came today. I don't need to, like I said, take cheap shots and uh discuss your manner of debate or your strategy. And I'm also grateful that you shared that you had that text message today because everybody watching knows that I I have been demanding not a debate, just a open conversation with Turning Point USA. They should be here. It shouldn't be you in that chair. It should be the person that took Charlie's place. Maybe Erica Kirk, maybe Andrew Kovat, he's a spokesperson. And rather than doing that, they send us another influencer. So, let's see how it goes. >> 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%. >> Candace, >> 0%. >> I'm at zero. So, >> with what we've seen in terms of the evidence, I'm at 0%. So not not only you know that maybe somebody was behind him as a pathy influencing him. You're not even saying that he didn't even shoot Charlie Kirk. >> Right. I would if you said was he involved that day as I have consistently said on my platform I would say yes he was. I I don't know what role he played but as the shooter 0%. >> Do you have any evidence for it? >> Uh for what? My percentage. >> The fact that he didn't he didn't shoot and kill Charlie Kirk. >> Yes. Which I'm hoping we're going to get to all of the evidence that he feels that he has. I mean, I don't I'm not even convinced that Charlie was shot from the rooftop on Losi that day based on the evidence that has been. >> Do you think he was shot? >> I I do not think that Charlie was shot from a 30 six from >> just shot at all. >> I don't I don't know. I I think that a projectile hit Charlie. And I'm open to other people's presentations, but I have not seen any compelling evidence that Charlie was shot by a 30 six. Can we see maybe if we're going to have an olive branch to each other if maybe we can establish what we consider the facts of the case to be first? >> Yeah, sure. >> Okay. >> So, you don't you you're not sure if he was actually shot. You're open to alternative theories. >> He was definitely hit with a projectile of some description. If we're talking about was he shot from a gun, a 306, I would say definitively no. >> Okay. It defies it defies common sense to think that he had a Superman neck. And even if he did have a Superman neck, which has been demonstrated, I think actually recently a YouTuber actually set up Spalhalla steel cages and shot it and it went through. So >> under no circumstance will I >> So at least not a 306. >> Definitively not a 300 ft. No, >> but you're not necessarily closing off the avenue that he could have been shot at all >> with maybe a smaller >> smaller caliber. Okay. And then um there's some things that I'm going to make concessions on that I do think we need more answers on and I'm fine with that and we can get to those things as well. The other thing is in the timeline, one of the things that we dispute I think on the timeline >> is that you think that uh Robinson drove hours away to a steakhouse >> in the timeline. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And what's the compelling evidence that you think you have there? >> I spoke to the owner of the restaurant. Mhm. >> Um and I u have seen the receipt. I know the conversation that I had and uh I think it's enough that you know it will be presented obviously if this goes to trial but yes I do believe that he was in Panguage which is near his grandparents home. >> Did he give you an unedited copy of that receipt? >> I have seen an unedited copy copy of that receipt. It was not given to me from the owner. But I want to before you we get into like all the timeline stuff, I want to address what you think is evidence so we can keep this on par with what your claim is since >> Well, I think that that's a piece of evidence that's in dispute and that's why I'm >> Yeah, but we're we're trying to get to whether there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did this. Yeah, starting with if you want to use the first part of that for the internal >> critique. We should go over the actual evidence that we feel >> the first reason that I think and I think it's compelling evidence is that Tyler Robinson's rifle was found uh near the crime scene. So I would consider that to be very good evidence. And also the fact of the matter is is that I dispute this claim that a 30 odd six could not have made this wound. I think that that's absurd. 150 grain Remington corlocked. absolutely could shatter when it hits the neck of any human being. When you say that there's some steel neck and it's a smaller caliber, you have to make a counter explanation. Why wouldn't a smaller caliber also go through bone? >> It could. I didn't say it can't. >> Right. Exactly. So, if that's the case, then ammunition is going to be the critical key here. And if we have frangible ammunition, which we do in this case, a flex tip round, well, I'm sorry, not a flex tip, a soft point round from a 150 grain Remington corlock. just a small jacket that goes around the actual lead piece. These that this thing could have split apart in air for all we know, but definitely upon impact. And we have the medical examiner who confirms this in a summary. My team can bring that up, the summarization, which means he would have to be a part of some kind of conspiracy as well. >> Okay. So, just to start with your point about saying that the gun was found near him, I mean, uh, near Losy Center or I guess off in the woods. that gun. Did you watch the the testimony? Did you I'm Did you watch the preliminary hearing? >> Covered it live. Yeah. >> Okay. So, forgetting what the summary of the medical report was, did you watch the testimony that was given by the uh Caitlyn Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha Carer, any of those people who went into the science of >> Yes, I recall. You're talking about >> the bullet analysis. >> Yeah. When they went into the DNA. >> Okay. So, that's kind of the most relevant part. Okay. I'm not denying I've never denied on my platform or anywhere else that a gun owned by Tyler Robinson was found near the crime scene. Right. >> That doesn't that doesn't remove if you think somebody set up as a pathy I you could take a gun out of this room right now and you could walk out and plant it in a woods near a crime scene. That's not convincing evidence. >> I concur I concur with the fact that that's a possibility. >> So you are you I think have said on a platform that you were a gunsmith. >> Mhm. >> Okay. And for how many years? >> Many many years. for many years. You also said that you were an army sniper. >> I wasn't a sniper in the army. Okay. >> And I never said that, but >> Sorry. Your wife tweeted that you were an army sniper. >> Yeah. I don't know. Like 15 years ago, she said something. >> Does it change 15 years later? >> She said that it was colloquial. So >> Army sniper is a colloquial term. >> Yeah. I'm not an I was never an army sniper. >> Okay. Um what did you do in the army? Did you teach this? She then I corrected it and said you taught rifles in the army. >> Not. No, I didn't teach rifle. No, I taught rifles as a private citizen. Okay. >> Uh, >> and I was an NRA instructor for many, many, many years alongside my my gun >> as with your expertise when she uh gave testimony on the stand, Samantha Carer, that there was dust and there was debris. >> Mhm. >> That was found in the gun barrel. >> Yep. Uh, and then when we had the person who, and this was, I believe, Caitlyn Oliver, who explained painfully about the DNA, the prince. >> Well, let's start with a point. >> I'm not done. You You said something, so I'm I'm going to finish my thought, right? >> You don't want to do a point in time? >> No. Well, sure. If you want to respond to I want you to respond to two points. I want I want you to start with two points. Okay. >> Dust and debris in the gun barrel. >> Yeah. Secondly, the fact that there were five sets of prints, five plus actually by the end of the testimony, five sets of prints, uh, for which we already had the woman who worked for the FBI forensics testify at above two prints, if you're taking a sample, it it's no longer a science, right? She testified that when they took the sample of what was on the trigger, they saw five plus prints. And among those five plus prints, Tyler Robinson's was the most degraded. Mhm. >> So, I would like you to explain how Tyler Robinson's prints could be the most degraded when she said, "Actually, you could have DNA on something that you've touched. You could have DNA on something that you've never touched." And to get DNA degradation, we've they've looked at pieces um items 20, 40 years on that don't have degradation. Yet, Tyler Robinson's prints amongst five plus other prints were the most degraded on that weapon. >> Yeah. So, let's get into all three of the claims. First with debris. When it comes to debris, firing rifle doesn't always blow the debris out of the barrel. >> Okay. That I I You think there could be debris? Uh I'm sorry. Debris and dust. >> Yeah. >> He just fired the weapon. >> Okay. >> Not only that, he left it in a forest. >> Now, I don't know if if you agree with me, but if you leave a rifle in a wooded area, it's also possible that Debris could get in that way. But I'm not even sure that that's what the case is. I think it's far more likely that he fired the shot. It just didn't blow all the debris out. And it often doesn't. You'll find this if you if you take Grand Papy's, you know, dirty rifle and it's all dusty inside the bore and you go fire it. You'll often look down the board and there's still dust. >> Okay. >> Happens all the time. >> Okay. And the prince? >> Yeah. So, the prince we don't know all of the details on just yet. >> We do. It was It was an excruciatingly long >> testimony. We don't because they haven't gone to trial. So, we don't know uh on the print front, but Tyler Robinson's DNA was on there. You made the claim that Lance Twig's DNA was on there and it was not. >> Uh, well, when she gave the testimony. No, hold on. First, let's go to your first point because that's wrong. We can get a fact check on that. What do you mean we don't know until it goes to trial about the degraded prince? She testified and this is the person who who took the prince. >> Yes. But the problem is is that inside of this particular testimony, you agree with me that there's going to be much more of the DNA analysis trial, >> right? >> But you also would agree that her fact is not going to change that among the prince, his was the most degraded. So, I'm asking you to address that. How could that be possible? Let's give it um let's just grant this for a second as a possibility that his fingerprints were degraded. >> No, it's not a possibility. It's it's a fact. The person who took I'm just granting it for the sake of argument. >> You should grant it because it's a fact. >> So now So now So now it's granted. So what? >> What do you mean so what? >> Yeah. So what what does that prove? >> It proves that if his prince were the most degraded amongst five of them, you're going to have to explain how that's possible. If he's the one that recently fired the weapon. Yeah. So, wait a second. You're saying that it's an impossibility that if his fingerprints are the most degraded explain it, you're the you're the gunsmith. >> Wait a second. How would a gunsmith give an analysis on fingerprints or DNA? Do you think that I've worked in a DNA laboratory? >> So, your answer is I don't know. You can just say you don't know. You don't have to. >> But I did. But I did. >> No, you said so what. So say I don't know. I actually don't have an explanation for that. Candace is my question. Well, I think that what it would prove is that it is a more viable theory that people who had stronger prints on the gun may have used it more recently. >> Did they tell did they say who else had fingerprints on the gun? >> They named Matt Robinson explicitly and then and this was a part of the testimony where she was speaking about how they got samples of um elimination samples from the home of Amber Robinson, Matt Robinson, and Lance Twigs. Those were the three names they named. So, are you saying that twigs? >> Would you like me to finish my statement? >> I just want to make sure I'm clarifying. >> I'm I'm I'm trying to finish the answer, but it can't be clarified until the answer comes out of my mouth. >> Okay. So, go ahead. This was a portion of her testimony where she was explaining how they got elimination samples from the home. And she named Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson, and Lance Twigs as the elimination samples that she was using. Um, and so she explicitly said she said some of them some, so we can assume two out of the three >> uh were their prints were found on the gun. She explicitly named Matt Robinson um as someone who had prints on the gun and then said there were five people that they had taken that sample from. And again, what's also relevant here is the earlier testimony uh which came from uh the FBI forensics analyst. I believe it was on day two where she said that when you're using those mixtures and those samples and you get up to five plus, it's really hard to make any sort of a determination. So, both of those things are relevant. If you can't explain why his prints are the most degraded and you're saying he is the shooter, it's not really a so what. It's an open-ended question that people have a right to pursue. It's not a conspiracy. It's actually proof of my claim that there is evidence that he was set up as a psy >> that wouldn't prove anything about him being a psy. They said it's evidence it to support the claim that he could have been set up as a patch. >> Okay, so this is why I said earlier, so what? Because even if it's the case, this doesn't have an explanation for it yet. That doesn't actually give you any evidence in your corner for Tyler Robinson being a pathy. >> Hang on, hang on, hang on. I didn't cut you off, >> right? You would need to actually explain how this would demonstrate Tyler Robinson. This is tied into to Robinson being a pathy. Are you claiming that these fingerprints were Lance twigs or that he had any DNA there? I I'm saying that it could be Matt Robinson. It could be Amber Robinson. That sort of information is going to come out during the trial. >> How would that tie into the idea that he's a patchy? >> Yes. Because if his is the most degraded prince and the information that I shared on my platform is true that this gun was given to Tyler Robinson as an heirloom. I had conversation with members of the Robinson family, Twig's family, both of them. You know, like I said, we're not just dreaming. Um, and if we're having those conversations and they told me that that gun was only given to Tyler Robinson because it was a family heirloom. Okay. So, it was his grandfather's gun or great-grandfather's gun. I don't remember the difference. Uh, I don't remember which one it was. And so, he got it because he's the firstborn. So, but he's not much of a shooter is what I was told. Uh, and so he has this because he inherited it essentially. So, if I get something from my grandpa and I put it up on the shelf and I own this, you could see that could be >> How do we get to the patchy part? You don't let me ever get to the end of the sentence. So, how could we get to the psy part if I can't get to the end patiently till we get to >> So, that could be a reasonable explanation as to why there was dust in the barrel because he doesn't often shoot this weapon and he is indeed a fisher. Um, and it could also be a reasonable explanation for why we have Matt Robinson's prints on this. Obviously, Lance Twigs, even if he has prints on things, they live together. That doesn't really mean anything. But that could demonstrate that somebody took his weapon and put it somewhere. His prints are the most degraded. somebody else's prints there. There's more presence of somebody else's prints and that could demonstrate that somebody is taking items from his house and putting it into very >> but it also could demonstrate nothing. So the problem the problem that you have here is that this is pure conjecture. This is hang on. This is not evidence that Tyler Robinson is Apache. It's only evidence that you have conjectured up that uh well if it's the case that these are the the more degradated prints then therefore that means must be psy parents finger dad's fingerprints on gun describe how this actually links in to Robinson being a psy >> okay I just described that for you so I'm not I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you so I'm going to move on from that uh but to just go back to your point about this is not evidence uh you can't make that claim because you're the entire basis for why you think that there is evidence for Tyler Robinson being the person that took the shot is based off of a hearing under Utah 1102 rules. Meaning that they are doing the exact same thing that I am doing. This is the state. You said you're here to represent the state. Well, did you watch the preliminary? >> I didn't say I was here to represent the state. >> The state's position you think is strong and convincing. What I'm here to do is represent my own opinion which is based in your opening statement based on the evidence presented so far by the state. >> The state has presented it evidence under Utah's 1102 rule. >> But this doesn't demonstrate any patent. >> No, that's very important because that rule is hearsay. So you can't say at the same time Candace you're not allowed to. And and what that means under the Utah rule which I'm sure you know because I'm sure you watched the preliminary hearing and yourself understand what that means is that the entire hearing was hearsay. It means none of that information that was presented is going to be allowed. The majority of it, the overwhelming majority of it is is not going to be allowed at the trial. They're allowed to present when it's just a probative hearing. >> I don't think all the evidence that was that was put in was hearsay. >> Okay. You didn't watch this case. >> But not only that. No, >> no, no. That's this is a huge point. >> I want you call for a fact check. If all the evidence need more than a fact check, this was every single day. We want to go there. So, they said they had there's a medical examiner's explanation of the shooting that's in the back. Rob, if you want to pull it up and then Candace, if anybody from your team wants to pull something up, no problem as well. But they're requesting it. If you guys got it, pull it up uh so we can show it. And in the interim, Ken, is that it? >> Yeah. So, I'll read this. >> Just what what are we looking at just so we know? >> Yeah. So, the this says the bullet or at least part of it sequentially perforated the interior left of Mr. Kirk's neck, strap muscles of the left side of the neck. This is a summary, by the way. Uh, left common uh, carttoid on the left internal external jugular veins. The bullet also obliterated the left side C27 vertebrae, transacted the cervical spinal cord. Medical examiner observed a significant portion of Kirk's cervical spinal cord was traumatically absent. Mr. Kirk suffered from other severe injuries including bilateral apical and posterior intercausal hemorrhages, pulmonary apical hemorrhages, multiple disruptions to the thyroid, etc., etc. So there the summary of the examination is that he was shot. >> Okay. >> That was what they were pulling that up for. >> Okay. And I don't I'm not disputing that he could have been hit with a projectile. I we're not disputing that. So I don't know why this is brought up as a fact check. Uh, could you bring up 1102 Utah rule? Because this is an unbelievable point that you're making by saying that I am not allowed to infer off of evidence. >> You can infer. I'm trying to follow the inference. >> No, but your your entire reason like you you asserted that you believe there's overwhelming evidence on the basis of what we saw in the preliminary hearing. The entire preliminary hearing was hearsay. >> Yeah, I'm fine with your inference. >> But no, you just literally said I couldn't do that. Yes, I can. >> No, I didn't. I'm just saying from your inference, how do we get to PY? This is how you got to shooter the Tyler Robinson did it the same way you got to Yes, you did. You you again we this is something important. So we should pull up a f fact check about what the 1102 Utah and under their constitution for the sake of a preliminary hearing. They do not have to have hard evidence. They don't have to put people on the trial for them. But no no that's why the entire hearing was basically hearsay officer back >> and not all of it. Like I said, >> the overwhelming majority I mean outside of the one that you don't that you don't want to give. Please don't tell me though. >> Outside of No, that is what's in dispute. It means that your entire brand of saying you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence falls apart when the entire preliminary hearing is based off of hearay. In fact, Lance's testimony before they had about an hour debate, actually maybe it was more than an hour debate before he sat and they said, "This is not going to be allowed. You wouldn't even be allowed to do this. We'd be able to cross-examine him." uh the questions that they're asking Lance are all leading. And what did he say? Well, I'm the magistrate under Utah constitution. You know, 11:02 it is my job to allow all of this so we can see if the state has enough here that we can then move to a trial which will then they would not allow this stuff. They would say we get to cross-examine Lance Lance will say I'm not disputing. >> No, but the entire substance of your argument is that people can't infer off of evidence. That's what you're saying to me. >> Yeah. When you say Candace, I'll give you the argument which say fact. >> I'm not saying that off of that that Tyler could have been a psych. You're just literally making stuff up. So here's what the position is. I'm asking I am doing exactly what the state did. I'm looking at a piece of evidence and I am saying you're not showing me how you get there. You describe to the audience what rule 112. >> So this just so everybody who's watching this at home understands what I am saying even if he doesn't. What Andrew is arguing is that I don't have the right to extrapolate from a fact like >> making it up. >> Just purely making it up. >> I'm asking based on based on Can I show my evidence? You just showed yours reliable hearsay. You'll get a chance reliable hearsay in criminal prelim preliminary examinations. The entire uh preliminary hearing that you just saw was on the basis of reliable hearsay. And what that means essentially is the people who are making the statements can just say Patrick told me that he did this on Monday. Patrick's not here. Uh and that is they they can allow that into the hearing. That's just it because it's just meant to be probitative. And so it's the state saying here's what we have inferred. So you are allowed to take a piece of evidence and then you are allowed to infer off of that evidence. Okay. >> Case in point. That's a demonstration of to give you that's a demonstration of what I just did. I said the prince were the most degraded off of Tyler Robinson. And from that what I am inferring is that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson was set up. >> That doesn't that's the point in contention. >> That's not a point in contention. That's the point in contention. >> It's not a point in contention. If you're saying it's a point the point in contention, >> it's not the point in contention. I'm telling you that is what the entire hearing allowed for. So the evidence that he is describing that he is using to argue his case >> is all based on inference, not fact. >> Great. >> Inference, not fact. what they are inferring off of the facts. >> So again, we're going to take this and I'm just going to even grant it because it's irrelevant. I'm asking how you get to the inference that even if you dispute that piece of evidence, that means psy. I'm looking for the logical chain for how you get to that inference. What I am telling you is it's the exact same way that when you tweeted I think that this evidence is overwhelming when they say that looks like Tyler Robinson's car. He drives a similar car. Okay. They are inferring that that's Tyler Robinson. >> Can you walk walk me through the inference >> so that I understand >> it's it's not a fact. It's not a fact. When you show a blurry image which you kept citing that we have >> No, I'm talking about your inference that the fingerprints even if they're degraded equals psy. How do you get that inference? I I didn't say it equals psy. I think it is enough evidence that it should be explored, which is exactly what this preliminary was in the inverse. >> That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is when you said I'm using this as evidence that he could have been a pathy. I'm asking how do you get the inference to PY from that >> because what I am saying is that it shows that somebody else had more DNA presence on that gun than Tyler Robinson did. So, it is plausible, which is all they're doing. They're presenting plausibility based off of the facts. Okay. It is plausible that somebody just took his gun and put it there. That's it. >> Is there equally >> That's how it works. >> And is there equally hundred other plausible explanations? >> I think that's the reason why most people are exploring when things don't make sense. So yes, at the beginning of that this is how this is how the court process works. If there'sund other possible explanations, then Candace, why is it that we should go with this idea that it was a pathy? >> I I'm not saying that we should go with the idea that it was a pathy. I am saying that there is I thought that was the whole defense. The your whole claim. >> My whole claim was that there is more evidence that he is set up that he is set up as a pathy. >> How does that equal evidence of psy? >> I don't know how many times I can say this like I I'm saying that I am using the exact same mechanism that you are accepting for some reason in the Utah courtroom. Yeah. >> Right. To say I'm going to look at the evidence and I'm going to infer an alternative theory. So you just saw the states and you're accepting it and they are they have not presented any concrete facts. You listed on your own Twitter that what you found to be convincing was something that looked like his car pulled into the driveway. A blurry image. No, I didn't. Standard white guy coming up the steps that could literally be anyone. >> This never happened. >> Can we get a fact check on that? Can we pull up his tweet where he goes over? >> I didn't say that's what convinced me. >> When you you actually didn't say it's what convinced me, but you said this is the evidence that you found to be overwhelming and you you named I believe actually five things. I think you said it was his car. Uh, you said it was >> Well, there's multitudes of things that I find. >> You just said you didn't say it. So, we're gonna get a fact check on that. You did. Go ahead. Um, you said the blurry images coming up the steps quite literally when officer Baggley testified. They talk about when I'm talking about making inference. This is the most I thought was the most absurd testimony I've ever heard. And pardon me, it was actually Hull, David Hull. Uh, they asked him a question. How did you know the guy in the maroon shirt was the same as the guy that came up the stairs later that was wearing the American flag black shirt? And he said, "They're wearing the same shoes." >> Why is that absurd? >> That's how you decided these two are the same people. Oh, wow. What a scientific. They're both wearing Converses. Okay, that that's an absurd thing to say. That is not evidence that these are the same people if we're both wearing Converses. That was what he said. That's what flew on the stage. >> But I I still don't understand how that would be absurd. If somebody for instance, if somebody were to change their clothes but keep the same shoes on, wouldn't you utilize the shoes to try to track that person if the idea that on a college campus two people wearing this totally different outfits but both wearing Converses can't happen is such an absurdity that I don't even need to like argue that. I'm just going to let people Why is it absurd? Just concede that point. Obviously, it's absurd to say I know these are the same people because they're both wearing Converse. >> Yeah. I'm not sure if in context that's what happened, but even if it is, you can get a fact check on But even if it is, um, again, if we're utilizing inferences, when whenever we're dealing with logic, when we're dealing with making a logical inference, we're going to take the entire collaboration of evidence and then we're going to make inferences from that. You would do that with any type of logical proposition. Otherwise, you could never have a true or false claim. >> You just told me I couldn't. >> So, when we're I I never that never happen. You're just making stuff up. So anyway, when we're talking about logical inferences, what I'm looking for is the logical inferences that you have that Tyler Robinson's Apache based on the totality of evidence that you have. >> We can keep going through your other evidence. We should find his tweet where he pleas where he lists the reasons that he was convinced. >> Let's start with the 306. I think that that's fine. >> Your team's looking for Do you remember how long ago that was? >> Uh the tweets of the uh five. Did you delete it or no? Okay, cool. I just look for he said the it was his car. It was his uh >> it was the car and it was definitely the staircase photos and it was when the trial was going on. >> Okay, she has it. Perfect. If you got Skyler has it if you want to pull it up so we can see it. >> Somebody said, "So give me the clear evidence right here. I want you to provide it right here. All I heard from the investigator was we believe this to be Tyler Robinson. Is belief something you go as a fact?" You wrote the car pulling in. That's a totally blurry image. um Robinson getting out of it. You have no idea if that's Tyler Robinson. The fact that he is seen four other times on camera, the fact being just a standard white boy with brown hair was seen getting walking up staircase. The DNA on the roof. We should discuss that. And on the screwdriver that he left behind, it's overwhelming, man. >> Yeah, but that's not an exhaustive list. >> Well, just so we're clear, you did tweet it, >> but it's not an exhaustive 5 seconds ago. You should. >> You said I only said this one thing and said that that was overwhelming. Actually, >> that's not what I said. >> It is. You could even pull your own. >> Can Can you Can you check if that was said or not? I did not hear her say. >> So, the thing is funny here is like we still aren't getting to any of these inferences. So, these >> Why are you pivoting? But just say you just say I was wrong. >> I was I'm not wrong. So, back to the tweet the tweet aspect here. It's really funny. That's not an exhaustive list of why I find it. >> I didn't say it was exhaustive. I just said you said it. And on top of Well, no, you didn't. You said that I only said this one thing and then said based on that it's over. Well, I didn't. You didn't mention that I mentioned the screwdriver, DNA, all these other things. You never mentioned any of that. So, no, you're actually incorrect there. But on top of that, moving over to the actual evidence itself, >> are you uh >> Yes, I'm okay. Anyway, back to the evidence. >> You're okay. Actually, I'm glad you were asserting that you're okay. I wasn't worried about your health. I'm just saying that I just said you tweeted this. You said no, I didn't. You got a fact check and now you're like just going to gaslight me and pretend that I said there's no gaslighting. It wasn't exhaustively. I never said that. I just said you did say this. >> Zero gaslighting. >> I didn't say you couldn't have said more, but I would like to address what you said. >> Your time if this is how you want to spend it interrogating my position. You can do it that way. >> I'm just addressing what you asserted on your Twitter was like the hard evidence that convinced you was overwhelming. That's literally >> That's not what you said. >> That's not actually in fact what happened in that exchange. >> I was here for it. So what's your position here? >> Yeah. So my position is that based on all of the evidence which has been demonstrated at least all the evidence to my knowledge that I am actually not seeing um anything that's compelling as an alternative theory. I'm not seeing anything which is convincing me of something otherwise than what the state is presenting is evidence. That's that's my position. That's what you're asking me. >> So just going back to what you did actually tweet, is it fair to like to for me to ask questions about that? Um that's the only tweet you're going to ask me about. >> Well, we're we're addressing your claim that the evidence is overwhelming and this is a tweet where you listed what you felt was overwhelming. I think that's fair. I feel like that's fair, >> but not exhaustive. Just so >> I and I never said it was exhaustive, even though you said I did. >> Sure. Whatever you want. >> Um but yeah, so going back to that all of that as you say to me, well, Candace, why are you addressing and making inferences off of the testimony? >> No, I never never asked you why you're making inferences. I asked you how with the inference you made, you got to the conclusion. >> Okay. So, I would like to know how you got to the conclusion. Uh, and I'm just going to throw it right back at you cuz for some reason you permit yourself to do it and that's what I'm demonstrating is that you permit yourself to do it and then you say when I do it, it's a conspiracy, right? >> No. >> How are you able to infer off of blurry staircase images that that is Tyler Robinson? >> Yeah. So, in that particular case, what you do is you take that evidence, you combine it with other evidence. So, it's not just that Tyler Robinson is seen in the staircase. >> Why are you calling him Tyler Robinson in the staircase? That's what I want to get to. >> Yeah. Because I mean, we'll just use this. If you don't agree that that's Tyler Robinson, then you would just have to humor me. I think it is. So, I'm using the name. >> But why do you think it is? Cuz you make everybody call >> what I'm trying to explain to you. >> Okay. >> So, if you're asking for my inference why I think it's Tyler Robinson is because a Tyler Robinson said in his text messages, you you'll be able to see me on security footage at the campus. Said it in his own messages. On top of that, Twigs, yes, you can pull them up if you want to fact check that. He did say on top, I'm sorry. I actually think I really did miss that. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just I don't remember him saying, "You're going to see me in >> par." By the way, um Twigs himself said that he had the staircase that he had some um >> maybe a tiny bit of doubt, but it sure looked like Tyler Robinson inside of this various uh surveillance footage that he saw. >> So, sorry. >> There's hang on. Hang on. So, there's multi there's multiple reasons why it is that I believe that that's Tyler Robinson, not just because of blurry footage. >> Did you have a dream? >> Just kidding. >> No, it's because I combined multitudes of evidences. >> Okay. Uh, so let's address those multitude of evidences. The first one we're working on a fact check on because I I do not ever remember him tweeting that's me in the stair I mean or tweet it >> texting that that's me in the staircase. I think that I I >> I didn't say I didn't say that. I said he I literally didn't. What I said is that he texted over you'll be able to see me in footage at the at UVU. And I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he said. >> Yeah. Could we get a fact check on that? The second thing you said was Lance's testimony where and actually what Lance says is I'm not 100%. I agree. >> But in terms of what he wears, again, me pointing out the absurdity. Uh he wears Converses, he wears sneakers. if his boyfriend is not 100% I'd like to understand why Andrew Wilson is overwhelmed by it. That's what I'm trying to get to. And lastly, I would like to remind you about Lance's statement would not be permitted. This was a huge part of the preliminary hearing that they were leading. All the questions that were ask asked of him were leading. So, they would be struck down at the actual trial. And also, I would like to remind you that he got use immunity for that >> use immunity. >> I understand. >> Which means like >> that happens, by the way, all the time in these >> and I'm wondering why it particularly happened for Lance in this testimony. And I would also like to point out that something that's remarkable about this, again leaning to my perspective that Lance has a lot more, which I have said many times, Lance has a lot more involvement than the feds are are um letting us know. I think more is going to come out because they >> interviewed him on September 11th and then for whatever reason, just ahead of what was supposed to be slated as the preliminary hearing, which was initially supposed to be in May, they bring him back to do this interview, which in my opinion should have never been allowed. And I I actually agree with the defense that it's a violation of his constitutional rights, not to allow them to have cross-examined him. But I understand Utah 1102. Do what you do. It's all hearsay. Uh but to allow it in that way for him to just be able to also have use immunity knowing that he's not going to be he's not going to get in trouble. He could literally get up there and lie about anything and he's not going to get in trouble because the use immunity was given to him in April. I believe April 28th is when they uh gave that testimony to the defense. I think they shot it in like April 20th of 2026. That is not compelling to me for somebody who has use immunity to give a testimony and to say I'm not really sure but definitely like he wears jeans and stuff. >> That's not what he said. >> He did actually. You can get a fact check on that thing. >> So, so a couple things we have. We have rule 801 Tyler's messages that says it's not hearsay. But first, go to what Candace is asking about Skyler. I think you have it. You just texted me if you want to pull it up. You said you have the text. If we can uh put that up on the screen. Thank you. >> It was me. Look at the pictures from the surveillance footage. It was me. Okay. I literally said to you, it's not an oof. I said I didn't remember this. And I'm I'm happy to have a fact check on that. Okay. That I I didn't call for the fact check saying you're wrong. I literally said I don't remember that from the time. >> I'm just saying to you like I'm trying to be concise for you. >> And then also bring the 801 that you just said. What was the other one? >> Yep. The 801. Uh Tyler messages saying it's not hearsay. If you have that as well. There you go. >> Wait, what are we saying? It's not here. >> Not hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay. >> It was hearsay. They said it in the trial. >> Hang on. Hang on. >> Okay. uh uh is consistent with the declarant's testimony and the declarant denies having made the statement or has forgotten or is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut express implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated or acted in recent improper influence or motive in testifying. So then wouldn't that mean that a bunch of this wasn't >> hearsay? So the issue with his >> I just want to make sure would that make would that mean that a bunch of this wasn't hearsay? So the opposing party which down the line like I said they talked about this for about an hour and a half and they discussed how if Lance was in court and he was giving his first party you know giving his testimony as the opposing party whatever all this would be fine. They had an issue with how the questions were being asked and that they were not allowed to cross-examine him. So that is why his video testimony would not be accepted in the main trial. And what I said to you is this entire preliminary hearing is under Utah's 1102. So they are allowed to just use hearsay. >> No, you didn't say that. You said most of it was hearsay actually. >> Yeah. >> The overwhelming majority. >> Well, I mean, and that's I'm I'm leaning now into my opinion that some scientific aspects which they kept asserting like the federal rule 403 or 402. >> Some of those parts were quite >> Sounds like you're backtracking quite a bit. >> No, I'm not backtracking at all. What do you feel? Let me help you. Where do you feel like I'm backtracking? It was It literally was done under Utah's 112. >> Yeah. Nobody disputed that. What the dispute was is whether or not most of it was overwhelmingly hearsay. Is that the case? >> Yes, it was. >> Yes, that's a fact. I'm not backtracking on that. How many times did I watch here? It's like they constantly I'm 11:02 11:02 11:02 11:02 11:02. And the reason for that is because it's allowed. I'm not saying it's illegal. It's allowed at this stage. But I'm just reminding you that when you're going to sit across from someone and your claim is going to be where is your hard evidence? This is what I heard and I agree with what I'm watching. you are watching the state put on a hearsay preliminary hearing and that and all of those things are not going to be allowed, right? Even when they got into witness statements and things of that nature, there's a reason why they swear you in and they say, "You swear the truth, the whole truth. Did you, you know, write this statement?" >> So, it's the overwhelming majority of what you saw was hearsay because other people were representing other people's statements. They were saying they had conversations. We don't know where it came from. All allowed at this stage, okay? But it's hearsay. So, >> but even a lot of that stuff may not fall under hearsay under what we just read, right? >> But the evidence that you're speaking about like when you're just when you say that we're going off vibes, you don't know Tyler Robinson. Okay. >> His boyfriend is not 100% it was him. So, I'm going back to your points that you made that this was overwhelming evidence for you. That doesn't make sense to me. >> Well, overwhelming just means >> you can't consider another option that there could have been another white guy wearing Converses on campus. >> Yeah. Do you agree with me that I said that? What overwhelming means to me is that it's just very convincing to me. >> Yeah. And I find it to be completely unconvincing. >> That's fair. I understand. >> I looked at those blurry photos that they presented and said >> your your statement on right now is that >> he's wearing Converses and he also That's just crazy. >> These aren't the evidences that I find the most convincing. >> Well, you said that in your Twitter. >> That's not the only thing I've ever said on my Twitter about this case. >> Right. But the question that was asked of you was pretty direct. Yeah. Right. What What did you find? This is not an exhaustive list of all the things. >> That's not what you said in the tweet. You can tweet longer, too. It's not like we're limited now to 240 characters. >> So, wait. So, anything that I tweet and all other tweets that I've ever made are now excluded because I used the word overwhelming in this one. Even though all of this information, I've said so publicly over and over and over again is what informs my position for why I'm convinced on the case. That's bizarre to me. >> I feel like this is Andrew versus Andrew. Somebody asked you a question. What are the points that you find to be the you know the most overwhelming and you answered >> you mean from that day from that particular day of the hearing that I was responding to >> do okay is there something you have do you find to be more overwhelming that question okay go ahead go on what do you find to be more overwhelming >> yeah can we do this do we want to get into it or do we know do we want to do a quick ad break >> are you guys good to keep going or >> I'm I'm fine to keep going but we we can also >> Would you like to take a quick break or doesn't matter to me either way >> if we're going into a different topic that may be another 30 minutes 40 I don't want to stop you guys in the middle of >> what you find to be more overwhelming. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, if we're the for me, it's the confessions, the text messages, all of that is what I consider to be uh from my opinion that's the most convincing for me. >> Okay. We should discuss the text message confessions when uh we get back if you'd like to. >> Okay. That's a good idea, folks. We're going to take a quick uh ad break. We will be back in three and a half minutes. Thank you. >> All right, you guys. All right. What are we thinking so far? >> First of all, overwhelming doesn't mean convincing. Okay? It's not the same word. English might not be my first language, but I know that much. When someone says overwhelming, they don't mean, "Oh, I was convinced by it." No, it's not the same. >> Yeah, I would agree. Um, I think what's happening right now is he's doing his exact tactics that he does. He's he's putting all the emphasis on her saying you have to prove your position and anytime she tries to get him to prove his position he circles back to her and tells her she has to prove her position. So basically she's caught in a cycle right now. >> Yes. And um I believe which I also send in my chat message. Um I believe that TPUSA supplied him with some things to blind. >> Oh yeah, I bet he has some ammo. I bet they both do technically, but >> yeah. Yeah, we heard in his opening the message uh that we've never heard in full. We knew that he texted they're going to analy me, but we didn't know the continuation of that message. So, suddenly he has it. So, I'm afraid she might be blindsided by some things that she's been requesting. Actually, she said she wanted to have that uh conversation. She wanted to work on it together. She just wanted that info and uh they never gave it to her and suddenly it's a it's ammunition for Andrew I think. >> Well, and and when you have stuff like that, it can blindside you quite a bit, >> you know, to because I think this whole entire for this last year, you know, like we're we're like almost on a year now. Everyone's been saying that that text meant, you know, when he said, you know, I think they're going to kill me, everyone assumed that it was, you know, another nation state. And now that he's saying that it was the left, we haven't seen the text. Now granted, we have not seen the proof ourselves and they didn't put it on the screen or anything, any proof that he has that text. He just read it in his intro. But if that's true, that means he may have information that we don't. It more convinces him the way that he's thinking. >> I think she handled that pretty well, though. I think she handled it. I was like, "Oh, well, you have those text messages. Thank you for sharing that." And that that and he pinned she pinned him with Turning Point USA, which I thought was very effective because he's been out here saying, "I don't work for Turning Point. I don't work for Turning Point. And it's like, well, >> you're getting inside information from Turning Point. And I thought that was I thought she was pretty strong on that. But >> I said this at the outset, like he is going to try to pin her and her positions like that. This is what he does >> when she is when she's going well. He she is getting him to explain his overwhelming position or his overwhelming evidence position and then she just needs to continue to poke poke holes in it. like she was doing that early and and that was good. She needs to stay in that frame because he like you said Matt, he's going to try to get her back into it. Um, one of the things that I thought was interesting is that he >> he with that opening statement, he baited her on certain topics like Israel killed Charlie Kirk and he was basically gonna he's he's basically trying to set her up in that tone you need to prove to me that Israel killed Charlie Kirk. Like that that's what he's doing. That's the game. And She's got to stay out of it. She's got to keep him She's got to keep him defending his position because she has enough holes to poke in his positions to stay there. >> Yeah. And I think another piece of it too um that the guys are talking about in chat is defending the position that >> It is. So, so what they were saying is it should have been more like there there's alternative ideas, which Andrew actually said, you know, he got her to basically admit there could be other possibilities besides him being a psy and she said yes. And that right there kind of took away the psy as far as this argument goes. Anyway, so I mean she can definitely come back, but I think at this point it seems like, like you said, the opening statement he said kind of set the tone for this particular conversation. I do think it's interesting that these text messages have existed where Charlie has said that I'm afraid of the left and for 10 months they've presented the text messages all all the all the times that they're calling Candace a liar and this that why why up until this point haven't Erica Andrew Blake sniff like how come they haven't presented >> let's remember let's remember Erica Kirk said there was no messages like that at the beginning. She said, "I have his phone and he has never sent a message like that ever." And I hope Candace will remember that because if he will suddenly pull this message out, >> then let's pull the video of Erica saying he never wrote that. >> That that's a that's a very good observation, Casia. Yes, she she said explicitly on Glenn Beck that there are no text messages on his phone saying that. That that is a blatant lie then that that was told. Like I that would have been incredible if she was like, "Oh, well that's that's interesting because Erica said there were none of those. That's a really good point." Yep. >> I just I just hope that she's going to remember that and they can play that video even because that's a that's a big one. That was a big lie. >> And uh then she said that actually in private Erica told her that, "Oh, did you see this message?" Candace said, "No, I haven't seen it myself." And then Erica said, "Well, actually he meant that it's the left." So Candace actually reported on it. So she didn't lie. She didn't hide it from us. She always reported what was said to her. Okay. If he's going to pull out this message and will say that it was the left, then Candace says, "Well, I reported on that. I never hid it. It was I said that it was said to me. I have never seen it myself." And the point is, why hasn't she seen it? Why they couldn't just show it to her? Yeah. when Erica flew over to her and started presenting a um alibi for Brian Harpool that he wasn't at the fortuka. I mean, she could have shown the message, right, as well. So, that's why it's so tricky. >> Well, you make a good point because if they had all this information and they wanted her to stop and they wanted her to be quiet and quit talking about all these other alternative theories and things, then why didn't they share that simple text that says, "I think the left is going to kill me." I mean, something as small as that could have convinced her to kind of like back off on things or help, you know, bring her back into the fold or whatever you want to call it. But I just find it interesting that they withheld that from her. >> Yeah. And it's with them. It's like that, right? It's the text messages and it's uh the video of Charlie appointing Erica. You know, they have it supposedly, but they are refusing to show the full version. So, that's why it's you just can't catch them on a lie, but you're kind of there. I don't know. >> Yeah. I mean it her path to victory here is just to get him to explain because his claim is there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. Make him back that claim. Poke the holes. Create the doubt. Create the reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson might not have done it. And then all she needs to say is and then my opinion >> is that it's a psy, right? Is that is that he's a psy and and that that's it. Because there are so many people that are going to see these holes that she can poke in it and just be like, "Yeah, that makes sense. I don't know if there is overwhelming evidence." And if you can just leave people with that question in their minds, I don't know if there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did this, she wins. She wins. Yeah. Just on fire had a really good point. you said, you know, even besides the whole Paty thing, just bringing up that the possibility that Lance did it is just as high as the possibility that Tyler did to a lot of people based on some of the evidence and things that people have found. >> Exactly. And let's not forget that Krew uh uh Krew Andrew >> Kandrew said that um he had questions. Yeah. He was suspecting that maybe Twigs had something to do with it. He was like maybe there were other people involved. Um, so they are open to that as well. So what are we actually debating today? >> One of the >> I think >> I was just going to quickly say Well, go ahead. You're you go ahead ladies first. >> I was just I was just going to say one of the questions that I have is that if you have such overwhelming evidence like the the prosecution if they have such overwhelming evidence of Tyler Robinson's guilt, why is it necessary to give Lance Twig's use immunity? If if you don't like you shouldn't need his testimony if everything else is so strong. Why is he why has he been giving >> That's a good question. One of the audience members in the chat literally just said like why does he get immunity? You know, like what is and that's what leads me to feel suspicious sus much more suspicious than I typically would over Lance Twigs. like almost like it's >> Looks like they're back. The Crucible. There's 30,000 concurrent there watching. Support uh Andrew Wilson. That's your your fans of his. Click that subscribe button. It helps him grow his business. If you're watching Candace, I think there's 225 to 250,000 concurrent right now. We'd like to see that 300400,000 number on there. Click that button as well to subscribe and share it with your friends and family. And if you're watching it on PBD podcast, do the same there as well. This allows us to have more conversations like this. The mainstream media hates the fact that we're having these conversations right now. Just so you know, they want to control it. This is free. This is what's best for the audience. That's why we like freedom of speech. Having said that, let's go back into the text conversation you were having. Right. Okay. >> Let's stay there and then we'll go into the cross- examination stuff in about 30 minutes. >> Okay, that sounds fair. Um, okay. So, yeah, my I I use basically three pillars for the totality of the evidence. Okay. So, if you want to know exactly what those three pillars are, this is going to be uh the testimony with the text messages and um the confessions. This is going to be the physical evidence. And this is going to be the totality of the summary of the case. Okay. So, >> uh right now we're we're focusing on one of these pillars in my defense, which is fine. I understand that I have to defend my claims as well. So, when we're talking about the messages themselves, uh they seem totally valid. I have no idea why they wouldn't be valid. And I have not heard any good explanation for why it is that these messages should even be questioned. The defense hasn't questioned them. As far as I'm aware, nobody has actually questioned that these messages came from Robinson to date, except perhaps you and and other other people who are kind of in that camp. But why should I question these exactly? I'm not sure. >> Okay. So, first let's just go over legally what the point is of appropriative hearing. The defense is not putting on they're not there to say or to argue or to defend themselves at all. They have to address what is being presented by the state. Okay? So, they're not here to then say, "Let me give you an explanation for these text messages." The relevant portion of what the defense did do was actually before we got to the preliminary hearing. I I had mentioned that it was initially supposed to be scheduled for some time in May. Uh they asked for an extension that that reading through those filings of why they were requesting an extension and why I actually believe their extension should have been granted uh because they did not receive discovery on their text messages. That was one of the reasons. There were many reasons why they wanted to have an extension, but this was crucial, right? So forget just the general sense that these messages feel off and and yes, you are allowed to have an intuition. you are allowed to have a sense and just go this is very weird. We're being told this kid had like above a 4.0 Tyler Robinson. He wanted to get away. I mean the tech text tech messages just almost run headtohead with themselves like he wanted to get away with it. So he thought the best thing to do would be to text a full confession of what he did uh down to what I didn't even remember saying yeah and that's also me and the surveillance footage. It it felt a little too on the nose. I just people have common sense. You just don't text message. But then we're also supposed to believe that he put a note under because and burn this and get rid of the evidence. But don't worry about that because I'm about to text you a full confession. That it felt off. It felt weird off the bat. The manner in which they were texting. We're told he's like a gamer who's using a Dremel uh to carve expressions catch fascist, but then suddenly he's writing like a 1700 player. He did get he did actually get the 500k code. Correct. >> Yeah, I'm not a gamer. So we'll say that we start debating that. you'll be way over my head. But yes, >> but my point being is just that just first just a general sense of why people had a reaction to these messages uh that seemed like they were written by Jane Austin rather than like a kid who games and writes caption >> that is I am I just said that I said just put parking aside the intuition of just something feels wrong here which you should follow your intuition you should actually do that if you say vaccine is running out feels like it's coming out too fast and there's too many celebrities telling me to do it I'd like to take a pause that's good that is you allowed to do that. I believe in intuition. >> But hang on, hang on. Let me respond a little bit here because you've been going for a minute. Let me at least respond to a little bit of this. So, the first thing is is like when people bring up the COVID vaccine, not trusting the COVID vaccine in mass was the science. That wasn't just intuition. That was the science. There was tons of competing science. Now, they tried to suppress it. That's true. But there was tons of competing science for why you shouldn't take a risky mRNA vaccine um and things like this. They kept telling us was about intuition though when you say trust your intuition I'm actually giving a different message >> you actually should be very wary about trusting just your intuition it is true that intuition can be useful but you it has to be tempered with logic reason explanatory power and evidence not just intuition >> that's why we're parking it aside intuition is the first step something feels off right >> okay >> that was my first step with co I don't like the way it's being pushed it shouldn't require a celebrity campaign by the way another element of that is why people don't feel good about the Charlie thing why do we have so many influencers are saying things that's over. Why are you guys all using uh the same adjective? Can you switch it up? I'm overwhelmed. I'm overwhelmed. Like chill. Like you could say, I found some compelling. I think this should go. >> I found I found some parts compelling. Maybe we should, you know, see at the trial. That would be kind of >> Don't you think fed slop's a buzz word for the other for the counter industry? >> Everyone on the same day of watching this trial, which was I would say not overwhelming at all. Nobody came in medium, right? No one came in like there were some interesting aspects. This was a little suspect. I I but I do think it's enough to go to trial. They all came in like they were passing away and we're going to die from being overwhelmed. >> They're trusting their intuition. >> Okay. Well, actually in that scenario, they're they're looking at the preliminary hearing and have a reaction to it. It wasn't their intuition. But like I said, parking aside, just getting to the substance, parking that aside, parking aside, just a general intuition might be sex messages. Then we look at the filings which came from the defense and they were requesting an extension saying we have gone to the prosecution and we have requested all of this stuff in discovery. Yes. You are saying that you took Lance's phone. Okay. And that you uh collected his phone on September 11th and that you sent it off or whatever. You took a picture of the text messages and we are being given these text messages to review. Crucially, Kathy Netor said, "I have not even been given access to my client's phone during this hearing." She said, "I haven't been access my client's phone." She can't tell you as a part of their discovery request is it's not enough to say to me, "Uh, Candace, I just got a text message from Candace." And I say, "I didn't send that text message." Maybe that's what her client's saying. We don't know because we're not at the trial, right? Maybe he didn't send those messages. Could there be someone who logged into his Discord? Could there be someone who logged in to his Apple? George could be sending text messages right now. We are married. He has every login that I have and remember he's up for a death sentence. So if I'm able to seow reasonable doubt with common sense, he may come during the trial and when they actually have to address these points say I did not write those messages. I was here Lance my boyfriend was logged into my phone, logged into my Apple ID and my iCloud sending messages. I know that we have the capability because my husband does it. He has the capability to send messages from my phone. It is not convincing to the public when for whatever reason the FBI would not FBI combined with the FBI. It was not the prosecution's fault. They made that clear during that hearing. Would not allow them that discovery request to be able to see where did that message come from? Because you're saying my client was here, right? I want to know if that message actually was generated from his iPhone when he was waiting to retrieve his, you know, rifle, hoping that the pooch doesn't have a bad sniffer. Like just weird messages. I want to make sure that yes, it was actually him. He was holding his phone and his boyfriend didn't just log in to his computer when he was home. Lance was his boyfriend. That is a that is a crucial fact here. That discovery was not met by the time we got to preliminary hearing. So I remain unconvinced by these text messages just as you feel convinced by them. I feel unconvinced by them. >> Okay. So then the idea here is the reason that you don't think that these are valid text message and you don't right. >> I I I I it has not been proven that these messages are valid and they don't sound valid to me. I don't think anyone even if someone was selling like a >> I don't know pot on the corner would be smarter than to write a full-fledged confess confession. He even writes, "I thought I would get get away with it and I was hoping never to tell you until old age and then we're being told that he wanted to commit suicide and okay, but he just said he wanted to get away with it, but he's not smart enough to um I don't know, maybe not text a like it's such a confession like we've never seen. I think this would be like the first time ever somebody has start to finish written an entire here's I'm in the surveillance footage and I'm here and I'm wearing my Converse. You know, I'm being a little facicious here, but it was a little ridiculous. It didn't it didn't pass a sniff test for me. >> You have kids and you love them more than anything. I do. >> If it was the case that you thought that the your kid was innocent, wouldn't you be out telling everybody and their brother that you thought that they were innocent? And also, wouldn't you say wouldn't you maybe recant and say, "Hey, I didn't actually he didn't actually confess to me. He didn't actually none of this happened the way that the uh state is presenting it." What would have prevented the parents from testifying in >> Well, two things. I can answer that. And if you if you watch my show, I keep telling you it's not vibes. So, right after the shooting happened, uh Lance Twigs, you know, the FBI put him into a house, safe house they paid for. They went to the parents as well to Matt Robinson. Amber basically said, "Your life's at risk. There could be somebody who jumps up and wants to avenge Charlie Kirk and you know, we're going to watch you." And they went into a federal safe house. Uh what happened next is that they started thinking that the feds were maybe gonna like maybe not as honest as they thought. Um and >> how do you know all any of that? >> You got to you got to watch the show, right? >> Yeah. No, how do you know that? >> I I I had a source within the Robinson family. >> You have a source, an anonymous source, of course. So there's no way for us to verify that what you're saying right now is actually even true. >> Do you find it to be reliable hearsay? >> Uh no, I don't find it to be reliable at all. It's just a source. I'm just doing what the process what you're doing is a cool story. It's not a cool question. You must have hated. You're giving us a cool cool. You're saying that according to your sources that the reason that the parents haven't recanted any of this >> recanted what? They have no statement from the parents. >> Wait, I just want to make sure that I if if it was the case that was being reported in mainstream media that your father came to you and said, "Hey, is this you? Is what's going on here?" and then he and one of his uh buddies took you in where you turned yourself in. You wouldn't go out and be like, "No, that's not what happened. >> That isn't what happened, though. You're just wrong on this." >> Okay, maybe I'm paraphrasing. What am I wrong? >> So, what is your Sorry, just so I'm clear. What where is your evidence that the parents turned him in? >> Oh, no, no, no. I didn't say that. I said media. >> I said with um a sheriff friend. >> Yes. >> But the father did confront him. >> The the father confronted what? >> Tyler Robinson. >> And where did you learn this? that the >> I mean that's part of the official documents. Our fact checkers can pull that up. But yes, >> but I'm saying but when you say official documents, do you mean you saw this on CNN or you saw this play out in the hearing? >> No, this was one of the things that I went through and fact checked pre-debate. >> Are you talking about like the charging documents? >> I think it was in the It could have been in the charging documents, but I did but I do we can pull them up. No. And the And yes. Are you disputing this? >> Do we have that on the back to pull it up? I can I can already tell you what you're talking about the charging documents because this is where we had to figure out where this story came from because everyone was operating under the assumption that Matt Robinson turned him in >> until we got to the preliminary hearing and we understood like I said even for that when you are charging someone you can use hearsay it's all probitative right nothing so they didn't have statements it's not like Matt Robinson even though he was interviewed that night Amber Robinson was interviewed that night by a fed separate rooms uh Tyler Robinson was interviewed by a fed they did not produce statements saying, "My son did this. My son I believe my son did this." Um, but what happened was they did interviews, but also the crucial person here who you just brought up is Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell is the biggest unknown in this entire case. Everyone keeps saying they heard from Mike Mitchell this, they heard from Mike Mitchell that. So, when the person wrote up the report that night, and it was Brian Davis who wrote up the what became the charging document, he uh after they transported uh Tyler Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's County office uh up to I think it's Salt Lake City at I think it was 4:00 a.m. in the morning that they got up there. He then writes the uh charging what becomes a charging document. So, he's basically saying, "We all spoke to a bunch of people and here's the information that we got." Right? We've not seen that. So it could have come from Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell could be saying >> I don't know how this negates the point though negates the point because you don't have a statement from the parents. You are you are going >> Why wouldn't they just correct the the >> it's not correct. It doesn't negate the point. The point is is that we now got the preliminary hearing. If the parents were the ones who said I'm turning my son in because he's guilty. >> I didn't say they turned him in. >> Yeah. This but I think you're talking about the over. You said it's been the narrative. Everybody's known this. the narrative initially, which I think you agree with, was that, you know, Matt Robinson knew his kid was guilty and turned him into the police station. What actually happened in terms of Sheriff Brooksby who was present there and gave a press conference. What happened was this Mike Mitchell character uh essentially peer pressured him and we can get a fact check on this. We can find Sheriff Brooksy's uh press conference and he said, you know, they they know it's you and you're going to come in uh peaceibly or people are going to be banging down your door. He was a undercover cop, which I don't like that. I don't know what he did undercover. It's very hard to find anything about me Mitchell, but he worked with them for 20 plus years, the police officers. Uh, the reason why Tyler Robinson knew him was because he lived nearby and he was also his boy scout. >> How does this negate that the parents could write this second? And by the way, if you if you had >> address that point, I'm just saying that your your first point, which is that the parents did this. Yeah. >> We don't know that the parents >> I never I didn't say that they did ever. Never ever. You're you're quoting the parents as having said you said that Matt Robinson said that his kid was you say involved just I don't want to misquote you >> confronted him about it >> confronted him. >> Yes. >> And I'm telling you that we have not seen any evidence that that is true. >> We can fact check that. Okay. Because we do have evidence >> and I'm saying it's the charging dock which could have been derived from a statement Mike Mitchell said. >> Two thing I have ready in the back. One is the charging dock and the other one is a video of Kathy Nester saying she hasn't seen Tyler's phone. >> Okay. We can run Kathy to go back to Yeah. Kathy first in court saying she didn't get her client's phone. Yeah. And then I think we'll go to the if you're okay with that. >> A thing not in dispute. These are all things that I'm not even disputing. >> We never get to the thing that I am disputing. >> Well, you were I was just providing an answer. We were coming back in from a break because you were talking about the text messages as something that you felt was concrete. So, it was just my rebuttal to you that it's not concrete because they haven't had a chance to actually answer that and she didn't even get to see your client's phone. So, that's effectively again the state saying these messages are real. You don't get the discovery on these messages just yet. She will during trial. They will actually get >> that would make their case fall apart if it was the case that they weren't able to actually pull the data off the text messages. Do you think the prosecution would go to court with fabricated text messages? >> It's called it's called winners and losers. They may not be fabricated, but by the way as as what they are saying, like I said, if there was somebody logged into his phone, they may not be fabricated. That's the point. So, let's get to the parents the parents fact check that >> I was saying I I believe what you're talking about was derived from the charging doc which was signed off by Brian Davis. Uh, let's see if that's correct. >> What are we looking at here? >> Robinson's mother explained uh that over the last year or so I'm sorry. >> Can you zoom in a little see it? Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the shooter used matched the rifle that was given to his son as a gift. As a result, Robinson's father contacted his son and asked him to send a photo of the rifle, which makes sense with the text messages. >> Robinson did not respond, however. Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Robinson. Robinson implied he planned to take his own life. Robinson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home. >> Yes. So, this is proving my point. Is this this is from the charging document, correct? Yeah. So, what I'm saying to you is that three people got interviewed on that night. Mike Mitchell got interviewed, Amber Robinson got interviewed, and Matt Robinson got interviewed. Of the three of them, only one of them actually wrote a statement, which was referred to in this preliminary trial. He came in, I believe, in March, Mike Mitchell, and he wrote a statement, which I find to be very shady that they decided to bring. >> But why aren't the parents disputing that? Well, first off, that's the question. First off, the parents are not going to ever play in court, play to the cameras in court when they have a legal team that is going to be advising them not to speak to the court because you could your son could go to prison. >> But they're playing to somebody else who's your source. >> I I'm I I I'm not going to address that. >> They're playing to someone else who's your source, but won't go publicly tell the media this is not true. Well, what I I I did not say to you that I just said I have a source. So, I want to be very clear and take it from somebody who was involved and permanently sued. Uh when I have to take my lawyer's advice, I mean, there's so many things that I want to respond to when people are speaking about. >> Yeah, but it's bizarre that they would utilize a source which would get the information to you, but wouldn't just go to the media and be like, "Actually, that's all wrong." I >> I I am telling you that you would ner find a lawyer who would advise you to go to the media and this this thought that my kid was up for death. >> If I thought that my kid was in any way, shape, or form going to be up, you couldn't shut me up. Or my wife, she would be like, "That's not true. That's ridiculous. There's no possible that never happened. These people are lying through their teeth. I They'd be public whether you like it or not." >> Yeah. I that I'm that's for you and your wife. But when a judge issues a gag order in a case and your son is up for death and your lawyers could be advising you that if you say anything you could blow the case, you would have a more responsible consideration. >> I see. >> And and and we're and we're speaking opinion here. You're like, "Well, I wouldn't care. I'd violate it and I'd violate the judge's orders and see what would happen." If >> you have a source, it seems like they're violating it with them. >> I didn't I I'm not speaking to a source, but I am saying to you is speaking just relevant to what this is. We have not seen any proof >> that that statement that is included in this charging document. I think it is highly likely on the basis of the preliminary hearing that that all came from Mike Mitchell and Mike Mitchell would be a part he said >> based on the statements of >> well it's him saying the parents told me this the parents could dispute that that's going to come down the line right they're going to be able to seat the parents I I will say this putting together context clues if the state had it on you know 100% certainty that Matt Robinson and Amber Robinson said it a fiveday preliminary hearing would be a good time to say we have enough evidence and I can tell you why Matt Robinson uh made this statement and here is his statement that he signed. That would have been a good time to present that evidence. >> That would also be a good time for the defense to say that's just totally >> fabricated. That's not the wrong time. >> Why couldn't they? >> That is completely the wrong time because what they're doing is they they already said they didn't receive discovery. They literally can't. They literally can't because they can't. They did not receive. >> You're saying that they didn't receive that information? >> No. No. They just received the text messages. But in order to >> That's not the text messages. >> Uh the probative information. >> Yeah. We're talking about the information that we just reviewed. That's not the text message. >> They never presented it. The state never never put it on. >> Yeah. They didn't. The defense could easily still still have presented this. Yeah. >> No, >> they could have said they're No, no, they're not allowed to. Are you sure? >> In a preliminary hearing, the def the defense is engaging with whatever evidence the state decides to put on. They did not put this on as evidence. Brian Davis was up there. Uh, >> so they're not allowed to present anything. >> They're responding to the state. >> I'm asking, are they allowed to present anything? they are allowed to say >> like if there was a conspiracy that they could prove right then and there would they present that in one of these hearings? >> No, it wouldn't be the right time for that. >> I disagree. I think that I think that they not only could do it but they would do it. In fact, when I talked in depth with my attorney, they said that's exactly if you had actual evidence that there was fabrications by the feds, >> that's exactly when you would introduce that. So when in the document that they filed yesterday or a couple of days ago, >> the appropriate like what you're doing at this stage of the hearing is the state is saying we have enough evidence that we think this needs to go forth with a trial. Hence the reason that there's this extraordinary we allow hearsay because it doesn't really need to be perfect. It can be enough that we feel like we can move forward, right? Um and okay, I disagree with that in general when somebody's rotting in prison, but whatever. Uh the next phase is for them to meet in court and for the defense to essentially present an argument to the state that says we find this filing to be defective in and of itself. We don't even have to defend ourselves because you the state have enough uh you know what the laws are on the books and this filing is defective and you should get rid of these charges because they don't make sense based on what you can decide bas based on a law on the books. So then that's why they then file the dismissal. Right? So in the dismissal, what they're doing is they are engaging and this is what was widely misinterpreted. >> Well, yeah. They're engaging as though as as it's a hypothetical. If this is hypothetically true, then you're saying all of these I'm not disputing any of that. What I am saying could what I'm asking specifically is like who could shut a shut parents up who are like, "No way. There's no possible. This never happened. This is ridiculous." They would be shouting it on CNN. They would be shouting it from the rooftops. They would be losing their minds. And you're like, "Nope. the gag order would be enough to to keep them quiet. Not enough for them to talk to your source, but enough to keep them quiet. I think that that's quite ridiculous. But I'll even concede this whole point to you. Let's just say maybe this was misconstrued, right? There's um there's a little bit of reason to doubt it because we're still waiting for the evidence for trial. If that's the case, then why not take the same standard for the evidence that you present? You're just waiting for trial. >> Well, you didn't do that. >> Wait a second. Wait a second. >> I just I just want to make sure that I got this right. That's your argument to me, right? >> My argument to you is what? >> My argument your argument to me is that hey, wait a second, Andrew. There's not enough here that convinces me, right? >> Well, that's actually my rebuttal to you is that you are saying, why are people engaging in what you term to be conspiracy theories? I I I term it to be thinking. They're just thinking because they're recognizing there are a lot of holes in these stories and that this is not strong evidence, right? >> This is the reason they're doing it. I'm I'm explaining to you this is the reason that they're doing it. I'm I'm addressing what you view to be overwhelming evidence. And and by the way, I want to be clear >> that which convinces me. >> What? Yeah. Well, but thus far every point that you brought up every point that you've brought up, would you did you feel like this is beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, you're you realize what I said in my op going to be >> it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just what I find convincing is what I find overwhelming. So why are you so upset when people say they don't find it convincing? >> If that was the limitation of the claims that you made if it was just wait a second, there's a little bit of problems. There's some problems in this case that I have questions for that I want answers to. Nobody have a problem actually, least of all me. I would be the least likely person to have an issue with you, any of your fans, anybody saying. In fact, I've had tons of Discord calls about this. My position's always been clear. Of course, conspiracies exist. Some of them have way better evidence than others, but I've seen them myself. I know conspiracy. In fact, the federal government has hundreds of thousands of laws about conspiracies. They see them everywhere. We both know this, right? That's never the what the problem is. The problem is when you make claims outside of, well, wait a second. I'm just questioning evidence here. I'm just questioning what the state's case is here. I'm just asking questions. It's when you make claims outside of that where you claim that there's good evidence or good standards you should believe because and then it turns out that it's all nonsense or it's whackadoo stuff or it it makes no sense. And when we have a chance to cross-examine your evidence that you've presented, I'm going to show a lot of that. A lot of this conjecture that's based on literally nothing that leads from no inferences whatsoever. Like you couldn't even infer it logically. That's the problem. The problem has never been whether or not you just said, you know, there's not enough in this case so far until we get to the trial. I remain unconvinced. I'm sure there's tons of people who remain unconvinced yet until we get to the trial. I think that's fine. I think it's fine. There's people who are convinced, too. That's never been my problem. My problem is the claims which are external to that. >> Okay. Um I not sure I really care if you have a problem with what I think in my own spare time. I don't I don't understand this like lecture that you just gave. Um but beyond that, what I am saying is that the state is allowed to use this is what my this is what my problem is. You guys are not like yeah you guys think while it's illegal. You actually you can you are allowed to do that. So um but anyway going back going back to you saying I wouldn't have a problem. >> I think I just demonstrated pretty thoroughly that what you claim that you have a problem with is exactly what the state is engaged in at this stage. So it doesn't make it just doesn't make sense. >> That's not the case. in facts. >> So if people look and they say, "I'm looking at the gun and I see and I'm inferring this." And someone else says, "I'm looking at the gun evidence and I'm inferring that." They're both doing the exact same thing. You're just saying, "I want to do it for the state." >> That's propositionally false. Explain exactly how >> it is the case that every proposition is going to have a true or false conclusion. Period. That's just logic, right? It's the law of excluded middle. All propositions are going to be true or they're going to be false. When we get into when we're making inferences, we're making inferences based on on propositions. We can make we can actually come to true conclusions with false uh premises inside of a proposition. In fact, what we're talking about here is not whether or not you feel that you're convinced by this evidence, >> but you felt like you were convinced, >> right? Sure. But here's the thing. When you ask me my reason, Andrew, why are you convinced by this? I can give you my reasons why I'm convinced by it. Why it seems reasonable and rational to me to be convinced. You could even say, "But Andrew, I'm just not convinced by it." If that was the limitation of your claims, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. That's why I wanted to have the conversation, in fact, was so that we could move into your actual claims that you've made, which transcend the idea of I'm just asking questions. >> Before we get into that, your team has one thing they want to show before you go into that. So, if you want to pull that up, this is the prosecution filing showing defense had full discovery by April 1st. O, >> they did not. That's not true. >> Wait a second. >> Yeah. >> To date, the state's prosecutors have disclosed all evidence that is presently and reasonably available to them as required under rule 16 Utah R criminal to be more precise as of April 1st. >> Yeah, that was that was not that was not 100%. That's why that they're caging that by saying what's reasonable. There was I mean there was an entire and we can pull this up like we should now play the Kathy Nester clip because that that's from there. So and they were basically saying you don't need it at this stage meaning it's reason it's not reasonable that you're asking for this when we're going into a hearing that's just going to be based on hearsay and stuff of things of that nature but of course by the time a trial comes you're going to get all the discovery show. Yes. So that's what they're saying there. >> Yeah I understand. Okay so that's >> and I'm even and I'm even fine with it. >> Yeah. We all we all know and then by the way just now that the hearing is over and you can also fact check this. They now at the at the end of the preliminary hearing dropped like an insane amount of the discovery stuff they gave to them like the week after. You guys can give me the exact amount. I don't want to say because I don't know my uh um I don't remember how much it was. It was an absurd amount of stuff that they gave to them right after the premier hearing that they had been asking for because that was one of the things that I kept saying on my show is as we were watching that preliminary of the preliminary, why not just give them the stuff now so they can engage in these arguments is I feel like you it's like I want to hear what they have to say about the text messages. I want why can't you just give them what they're asking for so that they can actually engage you and uh it didn't happen. So, but the judge ruled that it wasn't necessary at this stage and that was the whole point of that uh >> because the preliminary. Yeah. >> Yeah. Would you like to play the Kathy video? >> Uh well, he's saying he's not disagreeing, so I don't think we need to. >> Yeah. There's no disagreement that that she said that. >> So, the Yeah. So I guess the disagreements now would move into the evidences that you have stated on the record which transcend elements of reason. >> Why are we having a >> transcendental conversation now? Because I mean your entire thing was about looking at the evidence which never made sense to me again because all of the evidence that you felt to be overwhelming was hearsay. That was bizarre to me. You told me that I could take as much time as I wanted to question. No, but I'm just asking you just to lay the groundwork of what you're saying is probably that it trips into something else and I do still want to hold you for going through because we've discussed the gun. We've discussed your u you can hold me to those things but I would like to get into the things as well. >> So, and I'll explain exactly what the groundwork is. When you make claims which pass the idea of I'm just asking questions because the state's evidence is not convincing. I think you have to answer for those claims because they are in regards to this case. You're saying I have a claim. It is in regards to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is what we're talking about. Not just the case of Charlie Kirk, his assassination. You should have to answer for the claims that you've made in regards to the assassination itself. You should. Yeah. Agreed. So, if that's the case, then I would I would like to finally dive into some of that evidence and dive into it. Well, just to be clear that and I'm happy to to have you talk about like I said publicly you want to engage in some conspiracies, but I said I want to make sure that we get to the substance of our debate. The substance of our debate is this is me demonstrating that all of the >> quote unquote evidence that you feel that you have which demonstrates that Tyler Robinson I mean that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk. >> You don't find convincing. >> It's well it's been invalidated by the by the testimony that we saw and in your answer for when I explained to you that he had the most degraded prince was I don't know. Okay. Well, there then there lies my ability to process that. >> It's just fine for you to not be convinced up to this point. All of your viewers, everybody watching, nobody's giving, >> nobody's giving a dispute that if all your claims ever were just up to now, the evidence that the state's given, >> I'm just kind of not convinced. That is not what's been happening. What's actually been happening is that you've made tons of claims uh in regards to this case and in regards to the Kirk assassination which are far above and beyond I just doubt the state's theory. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, sure. I doubt the state's theory. I also am welcome to >> say what I think. You know, if you want to move into opinions, if you want to talk about Erica Kirk, if you want to talk about Turning Point USA, >> like to talk about all >> and get into it, I'm totally happy to do that. I just want to say that like I do not feel cuz I've said what's important to me is that we exhaust this topic >> first of our actual debate claims. I do not feel that you sufficiently have argued that the evidence is overwhelming. >> Question for you, but I am sorry you feel that way. >> Candace, one question. What What evidence do you need to see for you to say Tyler Robinson killed Charlie K? >> That's a great question. Um, so I actually expected in this preliminary hearing actually the almost the in inverse of what he was saying is true, right? So the this is now the time the state is putting on their evidence. That's the purpose of this hearing, right? The state is using hearsay, but they're also putting on their evidence. So I was just expecting some sort of a slam dunk. Like we got them on camera taking the shot. At least we have them clear on camera. You're telling me this guy drove 13 hours all around. Like we can definitely show you a picture that it's going to be beyond a reasonable doubt before we even get to the trial. people are going to see and go, "Oh crap." Like it was really Tyler Robinson. Um I was expecting to at least see evidence that cuz I had reported early on that uh the source was saying that Tyler did not step foot on campus that day. It is my perspective that he had something to do with something. I I do believe he was putting like disposing clothes at at this stage at this phase. I do believe he was disposing clothes. He was involved somehow. Um I I find Lance to be more uh suspicious if I'm being honest with you. Uh, and also like I said, the use immunity that was given to Lance by the feds, the fact that the feds didn't ask him any questions, the fact that I spoke with Lance Twigs's family, and they were like, "It's very weird that the feds are not asking him more questions. He's exactly the person um that I would imagine to be involved in some stuff allegedly. I'll say allegedly." Uh, but uh when we got to the preliminary hearing, there was no there was not a single piece of evidence that I felt was slam dunk. I was waiting for that. A photo. I mean, anything would have made me go, "All right, I think this this could be the guy." Uh, if they had handed over the discovery on the text messages since that was their big, "Tada, we've got the text messages." That would be the first thing that I would hand over. But actually, who was holding them up? Like I said, it wasn't the prosecution. They're right to say we we were handing things over and we heard the defense argue on behalf of the prosecution saying it's not them and it's not the FBI, it's the FBI that's holding on to things. It's the FBI took everything. The FBI took the gun. The FBI took initially the screwdriver and then when I heard testimony about the things that they didn't that they found that were suspicious. Um example being the backpack. That's something that really bothers me. Uh that they say they traced the shooter. They traced the route that he went on and then there was an abandon. We know like it looks like he's wearing some sort of a backpack. We know that there was an abandoned backpack found at the bus stop in front of a library and they felt that this should be taken into evidence. They took it. uh the FBI. Uh this was the testimony of Amanda Baker, I believe her last name is, but you might want to fact check that because I think I'm blending last names. Uh she so she was the forensics for the FBI. And then she says she gets a call on the 13th and they stop testing on this backpack because they find that the backpack actually belongs to somebody on Charlie's team. But if you know the map of the layout of the campus, you're going, "Well, what the hell are they doing all the way up? This is nowhere near anywhere." And by the way, that's not an acceptable answer for why you just gave it back. That's not that like why would you give it back? You're acting like no one's ever been killed by somebody on their team before, right? So I found that to be very strange that that it was on the exact route that the that the alleged gunman ran and that their excuse was we just gave it back because we heard that this was some this belonged to somebody on Charlie's team. So that to me is you this is why the the investigation itself feels underwhelming when you learn and this is completely crazy to me that the some of the artifacts that Charlie was wearing were immediately returned to Erica. That's absurd. That is absurd. Everything should be in evidence. When you learn that the car that they carried Charlie in to go to the hospital, they had immediately towed, cleaned, and back up for resale. That's absurd. That should be sitting in evidence. And any police officer that you speak to will say or person that's been involved in a crime will say, "I didn't get my stuff back for years. Had nothing to do with anything. It was just around and I and they kept it into evidence until the trial was over and it has to be approved. I think somebody said by the attorney general has to sign off on giving you those objects back. And we were told this is all fine. And we see and this is just one example. Erica holding the uh crucifix. Uh that's that should be an evidence irrespective if you feel bad for her and think she should have you know have it and it's sweet that should be an evidence. uh immediately paving over the crime scene. Is this This is like the craziest thing ever. You're This like defies common sense. You immediately and when you heard the guy who did it actually go up on a podcast and explain, I got the call. They said it was a PA emergency. I don't I've never in my entire career heard of a PA emergency. They had already had someone come up and dig up the dirt. So, by the time he got there on Sunday, the dirt had already been dug up for him to lay down pavers. That is what people are looking at and going, "This is weird. There needs to be answers for why this was done." And he tells us the call came from the feds and the governor's office. UVU's wa washed their hands of it. And what he's saying sounds true because we heard during the testimony, uh, one person described the regions of who was in control of everything. The feds were in control of the courtyard. So, in order for anybody to have paved anything, that was federal territory, so to speak. I'm maybe not using that the best cop term, but the feds were in control of the courtyard. So, these are things that I think should be answered for. Why Why are we doing things differently than you would in any other criminal scenario of keeping the evidence until we know more, until we're confident? Uh, you know, the various decoys. I did it. I did it. It just doesn't look right. >> Okay. So, go back to the question. So, what would you need to see for you to say >> something if they had I was expecting here we have him. He took the shot. Here it is. And then I'd be like, great. A clear image of him on the staircase. Like that's definitively Tyler Robinson and he was on campus. We got nothing. We got literally nothing but hearsay of people saying, >> "But you're basically getting no case." >> What? >> You know, basically no case on planet Earth do you get that? Oh, we got a picture here with the murder weapon. Here's him taking the shot. >> Most most of this doesn't take place on a college campus that has surveillance everywhere. >> Yeah. >> One clear image of his. >> But I don't understand when when you're asked >> plates. If you're asked the question, what would it take to convince? It'd be the same question be asked to me. Andrew, what would it take to convince you that the oppositional is true, right, that he's a pathy or something like that? >> Just good, clear, concise evidence that's been presented, right, and is being presented that I could go through and link all together to see if there's actually some clear picture of there being a pathy. That's what it would take for me. Okay, just a good >> I don't disagree with that. You haven't heard the defense. >> Just a good evidentary standard. And then, of course, I would change my mind. So, so to just to qualify this, so there is a possibility in the next few months that you may come out and say, "Guys, it's done. Tyler killed him." So, you're saying yes to that. I think it's very important for the audience hear that for me without question for you. Is there anything that you could see for you to say, "Yeah, this guy was a psych." I'm going to always follow evidence. So, my my whole thing is just this. It's it's really important to me. I don't mind people being truth seekers and justice searchers and the internet has helped solve tons of crimes. There's no ifands or buts about that, right? However, there's also people who, you know, they they not only don't solve crimes, but they just come up with conjecture and they what's called flooding the zone. You flood the zone with tons and tons of conspiracy based ideas and they go nowhere, right? And in fact, they actually take away from uh legitimate investigation. Now, I'm not even saying anybody here's purposely flooding the zone. That's not even the claim. All I'm saying is is that the claims made absent absent. Oh, uh, this is just me not being convinced by the state's evidence. Those become claims. And claims have to be defended. Just like mine have to be defended, yours have to be defended. And that's what we're going to get to now. Yeah. >> You want to get into it? >> Would you guys like to take a ad break? >> Take an ad break. and we'll talk Erica Kirk and TPU USA >> and con and the conspiracies that have been conjectured by Candace Owens in regards to this case in the Charlie folks we'll take a three and a half minute break break and we'll be back soon. >> All right, where we at? >> There at the end. >> Just want to say shout out to the dangsters. Everybody loving the chat. We've got almost a hundred super chats on our site. Thank you to everybody. We're going to read them here. Uh I don't know what triggers uh planning. I think at the end probably or maybe during breaks longer during the mid break. Do we have a plan for that? What do you think? >> We'll figure it out. We don't have to have a plan right. I mean it's the same way we always do it. We can do some right now, but I think most people would rather talk about this. >> Yeah, I agree. >> And then we typically cover at the end as many as we can. And uh >> yeah, it might it's going to be hard. You know, I I tell I'll tell you it's it's a long day, you know. So, if we don't get to all of them, don't hate us. But everyone, make sure you guys hit that like, subscribe, grab a drink, rest restroom break, whatever you need to do. If you're at work and you're hiding listening to this in the car or something, you know, stretch your legs, whatever you got to do. But, um, up to this point, what's everyone thinking? Like, in chat, put a one if you think that Andrew Wilson is winning. put it to if you think Candice is winning. I'm just kind of curious to get a a read on what everyone thinks right now. And it's interesting because both of them basically just conceded the other one's possibility. So Candace just conceded that she's open to Tyler being the one and Andrew just conceded he's open to Tyler being a psy. So wouldn't that be a handshake and debates done? I don't know. It seems like at this point, >> sorry, >> I was going to say, so it seems like at this point any further conversation is just Andrew trying to trap her up for some legal stuff maybe or something similar. >> I just want to go back quickly to when he said that his parents uh if they believed that Tyler was not guilty, they would be shouting it off the out of the rooftops. Uh well, that's a bad an okay, never mind. But um >> I get it. >> I think he has a point. Uh yeah, if they believed that he hasn't done anything wrong, they would be out there saying nothing happened. But I remember Nissi when we were actually on a podcast together last time with you Trigger at the when we were watching preliminary hearing together. Nissi brought a very good point that um if he was involved as a psy and if he had any prior knowledge of what was going to happen no matter how he was involved in what percentage in what level he is guilty of something. So therefore, nobody can go out there and start saying, "Well, yeah, he didn't really put the trigger, but he knew it was going to, you know, it's not going to happen." They might believe he didn't un alive Charlie, but if he was in any way involved, it's done. Like he's guilty of something. >> Yeah. Like I had explained before, if someone like if he let's say he was involved in diso like planting the weapon or disposing of clothing or something like that, but he wasn't the trigger man on the roof having any level of involvement. When someone is killed in a crime like in the state of Utah and many other states in America, every single person who was involved can be charged with felony murder even if they themselves were not the person that pulled the trigger. So, I mean, if he had any level of involvement, admitting to it wouldn't serve him. So, and then for as far as his the the gag order, if there is a like there is a gag order and it's a it's like you can serve court time for violating a court order. So, if the judge says if you are a witness in this in this trial, you are not to speak to the media. You are to keep your mouth shut. And if his parents are witnesses, which it is a strong possibility that they are, even if they don't end up being called, they're still probably on the witness list, they could serve court time if they violate the judge's order by saying something like the judge's order is not just, oh, I would like for you not to say things. No, you can go to jail for violating a court order. So, I think that's not a bad argument that she >> Zack. Yeah, I tend to agree with that, Nissi. I think that as far as the Tyler Robinson's parents being quiet, like I think the temptation for every parent would be to shout it from the Los Cy Center rooftop that your child was innocent, right? I mean, but but I think being prudent if if you were taking the advice of legal counsel, you'd be like, "Hey, like this is a process. When we get in front of a jury, like they're likely going to testify." I mean, I think that as far as I'm concerned, like Andrew asked Candace, like, "What would be convincing to you, I think Tyler Robinson's parents' testimony, if they do testify at trial, will be a very pivotal moment in this case?" Like, I mean, like, if Tyler Robinson's mother is on the stand and she backs up what's in those charging documents, I mean, that's going to be pretty interesting. Um, the only thing that I'll say is I'll express just a little bit of a little bit of frustration on my part because I I I don't know why, and I said this at the very beginning, I don't know why Candace's initial premise is that Tyler Robinson is a federal pathy. I wish that her initial premise was just Tyler Robinson was not the lone wolf assassin because that that's the argument on the other side that Tyler Robinson is overwhelm there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson is the lone wolf assassin and I feel like if it was just Tyler Robinson is not the lone wolf assassin. It's it's very easy to poke holes in that overwhelming evidence narrative. So, I guess there's a little frustration because I I feel like proving proving right here before trial in this specific debate that Tyler Robinson is a federal patenty. Like that's what Andrew just keeps going back to. He keeps pinning her down right there and making her continue to justify that claim. Whenever she tries to get it back on him, explain the overwhelming evidence. He always puts it back on her. And and and it's it's it's pretty frustrating to watch that. and and I and she truly believes what she is saying. And I and I I I am on the I'm on Candace's side and I I'm I'm I agree that there's a lot of holes in the mainstream narrative that Tyler Robinson is not the lone wolf assassin. I just wish that was the premise and not the not the py one because I feel like that's a much higher standard. It's harder to prove right now in this debate. >> I agree with you. I think the reason she's arguing it so aggressively is like like she mentioned she spoke to a family member who was adamant that he wasn't there at all. So she's like that's that's the hill that proverbally she's she's dying on. And but I agree with you. I think there is there is overwhelming evidence that he wasn't a lone wolf. Like I I do think that's a much stronger position to argue. >> Yeah. There's just reasonable doubt. There's just reasonable doubt that he wasn't the lone wolf assassin. That's that's all she needs to do. It's all she needs to do. So, we'll see. We'll see how it can I mean, you saw you you heard that last prompt from Andrew. Um, he's he's kind of piling it on like he he's he's he's making her prove more and more and more throughout this. Um, so this will, you know, it'll be interesting this next segment, but the problem is we went into the last segment and they were going to talk about Andrew having the overwhelming evidence. They were going to talk more about that and I feel like they didn't talk at all about that. So I I sent the message in our private chat like what's PBD doing? Like we got to keep him on topic here. >> Yeah. He's been kind of lax laxidasical. Is that a word for it? Maybe. You know, it's just kind of not even existing there much. He's not doing much. I feel like he should be interjecting more frequently. He should be kind of directing the conversation much more uh strategically, kind of like helping them dig into their points, helping maybe pull back if it goes, you know, arai or off topic, but we're not seeing that, you know, and I I was hoping for better. >> Yeah, we might as well. >> He's a spectator. He's He's a spectator, not a moderator. At least he's not like Sneo. Like, you guys aren't listening to me. I'm just gonna just stop the time and forget it. What a what a guy. >> He's a sneak tater. >> Did you watch >> Now, did did anyone watch Baron's show last night when he was talking about PBD? >> Yes, >> that was quite interesting. >> I I was very surprised to see that. I'd never heard of that. I did not know that. So, you want to explain it? Yeah, I guess the short version because we don't know when this is going to start again is that PBD was offered PBD was offered to be the president or the person that runs Iran around about the same time that and had a meeting in the with people in the Hamptons around about the same time like within a month or so had a meeting in the Hamptons >> and he said like it was so serious that PBD apparently said that he was no he did say he had spent two or three months considering it But ultimately, he's got a family, he's got four kids, he would have to move to Iran. Like, all of these things came out. I'm like, what? That's wild. And then Baron, he's like, why are we deciding a president for another country in the Hamptons? And whose house is this at? And raised some really great questions that are it's like and then he he went, "How would we feel if this was happening in some other country?" country. I think he used Poland actually as the example. A Polish >> Polish group of people were trying to decide who's going to be the president in the United States. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And he also mentioned too that Charlie was anti-Iran war. >> So, you know, you put all those things together, you can make inferences from that. But it's very interesting episode. And we have >> what I didn't see so far, what I didn't see so far from Andrew, there is no defending his stances. There is no defi defending of why he believes the official narrative. I don't >> I find it lacking completely. Uh Candace is doing all the defense. >> It's one-sided >> and he's on the offense. Yes, it's very one-sided and she's not being she's not able to bring it back to him because like Zach said uh when she was trying to to do that to start questioning him he was like well what did he say? He's like oh I'm sorry that you don't believe it or something like that. It's just very passive from him and that's the strategy. So, I think she needs to go a little bit more on the offense now and start questioning him. Why you believe this? Why you believe that? What do you think? She didn't address uh she she didn't phrase it as a question like why do you believe that the that the backpack that was found at the crime scene close to the gun belonging to TPUSA wasn't added to the to evidence? Do you find that suspicious? you know, so she needs to start really directing these things at him. She's kind of talking like on her show to the audience. She's like listing things why she believes this, but she needs to start a little bit more straight on to him. >> Yeah, that was an interesting moment. I mean, he's been this whole time saying, "I don't agree with your position. I don't agree with your position. You need to prove it to me. You need to prove it to me. Show me your evidence. Show me your evidence. I don't your your position is a conspiracy theory. I don't like it. She could easily just return that return what he said to her and be like, "Well, I'm sorry you I'm sorry you feel that way. >> I I'm sorry." That's literally what he did to her. She She was like, >> she tried to get it back on him, saying that she didn't agree with his position. >> Ask him asked as asked him to show or to prove his claim that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson is the lone wolf. and and said that she didn't agree with it. And his response was, "I'm sorry you feel that way." Like that that's not a valid response in this. And then it literally just and then he literally just put it right back on her. I mean, you're 100% right. I mean, that that was an interesting moment, but she could very easily just do the same thing. I'm sorry you feel that way. Um, you know, she's at least trying to to to defend her stance. And that's that's the problem. He is not defending his stance. He's just he's just keep he keeps peppering her with it and it's that's the game that he plays like and this is the problem with this. It's like it's not a good >> back. Uh Andrew, before we go into the other issues you want to talk about, is it fair to say you're good defending your position of the overwhelming evidence? >> Yeah. Okay. Beautiful. You take the lead. Go for it. >> Yeah. So, >> let's go. >> I have a bunch of questions for you and I want to make it super painless, right? So, uh no traps, no gotchas. I'm just going to ask them direct. And I think that as long as they're not loaded, if they're loaded, you should not respond yes or no. But as long as they're not loaded, if I just directly ask them, I'm hoping that you'll just give me a direct answer. >> So, here's the questions that I have. >> Wait, wait, before we get into that, I would like to just reply to that. So, just to be clear, we agreed to debate our claims and then I agreed publicly that I have no issues having a conversation with you about other things that I've discussed that were outside of the court hearing and things like other evidence that's come across our lap and things that we've been speaking about. But I just do want to make it clear to viewers that for whatever reason you think that you have a right to sort of depose me. >> I'm not deposing you. I just want to ask you, >> but you literally said that I want to be able to question. >> This is a meta meta conversation. Right. But okay. So now we're transcending. Like I to use a word to use a word that you're saying. >> But this is but this is what you're doing, right? So this this part to me feels like a bit. >> So am I allowed to ask the questions? >> I'm going I've already said you can ask questions, but I made it very clear to you. >> Yeah. >> Via email and with you in conversation >> that >> we should be speaking. This isn't like you get to sit and I said if you want to depose me, you should join defense team. But you're like ask questions. Can you answer it? Blah blah blah. It's like I don't know what you're going to ask and I'm going to answer issues because I'm not >> I get it. Yeah. Just so we're clear. >> Usually in in the debate if something's not loaded, I'm just direct. >> Because you kept saying I'm Joe Rogan. They have no evidence. They have no evidence. And now you're like, let's move away from the evidence. Let's talk about transend. >> They actually Yeah. Okay. Anyway, so direct question, super easy. Was Lance Twig's DNA on the rifle as far as you know? >> We can't say that for for certainty. >> As far as you know, >> I I already answered that in the first part. We can't say that for certainty. I told you the context of which they spoke about those things. >> So no as far as you know. >> We can't say that for certainty until we know what other the five sets of prints were on. >> So that would be no as far as you know. >> We can't say that for certainty. >> You can say no as far as I know for certain. >> U we can't say that for certainty. I actually can't say that for certainty. >> If if your if your energy here is going to be like you're my dad and you can tell me how to speak or what I'm supposed to say, you're you're you're just going to come against the wall. I I'm I'm familiar with this debate strategy. Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no? We're not debating anymore. We're having a conversation. So, I already addressed that in the first half of this about why >> No, we're still definitely debating. This is still >> No, it's not a debate. This is you saying I want to probe things that sit outside of the evidence. I actually already addressed this. You asked me. >> You're not going to go like we're you're you're sitting and I'm on trial. I'm not on trial. >> Okay, great. Can we have a conversation? >> Let's talk about the Foreign Legion. >> Sure. >> Was the Foreign Legion do you believe trying to kill you? >> Yes. That's why I reported it to the correct officials in government. That's what I was told and I handed over that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office. >> What's your best piece of evidence for that? >> Well, it was >> positive evidence. >> It was told to me by somebody who is high up in the French government. I passed off that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office. I also passed it off to Trump's office, Donald Trump's office. >> Um, and that's all I can tell you. I I wouldn't be able to probe any evidence because I don't have the power to do that. I'm at the federal government. And I would also like to say that this becomes this this other piece of what you do, which is when people say this, I was told this and this is the evidence that I have and I'm willing to have that conversation and write the email to the correct government body that deals with this. Like, I can't hack into Emanuel Mcronone's bank accounts and say whether or not the information, but then you go, well, where's your evidence? He's like, well, my evidence is that I I reported it. I did the right thing that you're going to do. So, if somebody calls and says, hey, Andrew, there's a viable death threat against you. and that person definitively has the rank to be able to tell you this and you say, "Well, what I'm going to do now is I'm going to report that to the feds." Then I go, "What's your evidence?" >> It's like, "Well, I got the information and I gave the information that I got from who I got it to the right body of people." And that's what I did. >> Got it. I just I just want to make sure. I'm not trying to trap you. I just want to make sure I got it clear. >> And that's why I said I wanted to know what you're doing now because this has always been the thing. It's like we actually can't win on the overwhelming claim. So, we're just going to go and bring up everything that I think can try to embarrass her. I reported exactly. >> I'm not trying to embarrass you. I just want to make sure that I get your positions clear. >> I have not said. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Now, you have stated multiple times that you believe that Israel is involved in the death of Charlie Kirk. >> Can you give me >> Yes, we can pull up the clip. >> I'm sorry. I'm just saying. >> Can I finish the sentence? >> Go ahead. >> Can you give me the context for what you're are you talking about like when I say generally speaking why people think that Israel is involved? >> Okay. Where's your question? >> Yeah. Do you have any positive evidence whatsoever that Israel killed Charlie Kirk? >> Well, I couldn't say Israel was on the ground and shot and killed Charlie Kirk. I would say that there are various things that we're trying to establish, one being a motive. And since I don't believe that Tyler Robinson and his transfery uh is a convincing motive uh because he was fired up about politics, which Lance testified that he never spoke about with him, nor do I believe that he was, you know, so into LGBTQ issues since Lance testified they never spoke about LGBTQ issues, that he stopped and ate at Chick-fil-A, which if you are into LGBTQ issues, wouldn't be your lunch before you go kill Charlie Kirk for LGBTQ issues. Uh because, you know, Do you have positive evidence? >> I'm I'm I'm answering the question as I feel like I want to answer it. Like I said, you don't get to for an hour and a half. >> But the question I'm asking is about positive evidence. telling you that in any case establishing a motive and what I and again I already explained this at the top of the show but the reason why people find Israel to be an interesting question is because truthfully Charlie's perspectives were changing on Israel and he was starting to realize how much pressure was being put on not just our government uh to constantly fight their wars but also being put on his organization personally if people had come out and been honest about that uh rather than rabid claiming he never flinched and everybody's lying and this is not true. You would probably have people that just go, "Eh, that's life. People change their opinions." >> I understand. >> And then there was the rabbit. I mean, not even that. It's like everything was about trying to convince the public how much he liked. >> So then other than intuition, how you feel about things. Do you have any evidence Israel was involved in killing Charlie K? >> I have already said, and if you're watching my show and the context of what I said, this is the general sense of why people think Israel's involved. We don't, nobody has made the claim that is Israelis. There were also, you know, obviously >> Carol made the claim. >> Well, Joe Kent, who I I think would uh have the right to assert it, uh, noted that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground that day. I think most people would like to probe that. Now, it could be maybe they were students, you know, and they were Israeli students in Utah that day, but we'd like to probe that narrative because what we've seen after coming from the Israeli government, the Israeli prime minister, uh, kind of denying that he did it, which wasn't really necessary, was quite busy, uh, the phone call that happened, which no one wants to discuss in the Hamptons the week prior, uh, or not the week prior, I think it was, uh, around August 5th or 6th that took place. And again, the almost desperate lies about Charlie shifting opinion on Israel lead us to believe that there could be an Israeli angle in this. Uh, but we cannot say for certainty that Israel called the shots and this is how it happened. But it is definitively, I think, a thread that a lot of us would like to see. >> There's no positive evidence. >> I I whatever you want to say, however, positive, negative, however you want to say it. I don't have a conversation. material evidence and other evidences. >> What we said is on our show is what we said which is we this feels like a conspiracy building. There's no reason to lie about these things and yet people are lying. Uh BB ain't acting right. The Hampton's thing was weird. And the way they tried to shove the is Israel narrative down our throat immediately. I mean the day he died posting a picture of him with an American and Israeli AIed photo on the president's feed doesn't feel right. Do you have any evidence that Erica Kirk or TPUSA participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk? >> I've never said they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk. So, how could I say that I have evidence they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk? >> Okay. So, then you don't believe that they did? >> I never have said that statement. So, I'm not going to get you to ask me personal questions about things that I've never said on record. >> Okay. Fair. Your team is sending messages in the back saying they have a video they want to play. >> Okay. Go ahead. If you're Yes. You said that there's a video you want to play that Candace said she has full confidence Israel was involved. >> Yep. >> Yeah. You said evidence that I that they killed him. I said they're This is why people think they're involvement. Involvement. >> If they have the clip, they can play the clip. They're they're referring to a clip. >> Yeah. via who? My guess is Pierre Eica. I think that there's a reason Pierre knew that Charlie was dead first. I think there's a reason he was a priority. How why think France and Israel are involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination and um I'm going to put that out there with full confidence. >> Okay. >> I also involvement >> I understand. >> Yeah. >> So you think you you with full confidence you think that >> Yeah. I think Israel >> Yeah. I I I mean the person that gave me that thing that I reported said that uh French Foreign Legion were on the ground that day. Again, this would be this would be at a professional limitation for me to then go and probe that information that I handed over. I can't do that. I'm not there. >> But you don't have any positive evidence of that. >> I don't you can you just stop? It's It's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying positive evidence. I just ask me what I think and I just tell you yes, I think they are involved. >> That's a claim. >> No, I said here's what Here's what I think. I have every right to ask you about your claim and if there's positive evidence for your claim statement I literally just said I think and I am allowed to think you'reowed to think but you're making a claim I have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think >> I agree you're allowed to think >> nobody's disputing whether or not someone is allowed to think what I'm asking is what's your issue that what is your issue with the state I think >> that Israel >> is involved >> that's not what that's not just what you said you said >> it's with full confidence. I think that if you had full confidence >> to think when you think >> if but if you if I said for instance I think I'm going to be late to work right with full confidence I would say my evidence for that is that I'm 20 minutes away and I need to be there in 5 >> that's how you would know whether or not you have full confidence tell you something let me finish let me finish let me finish >> if it was the case that I said I have full confidence I'm going to be late to work I would say my evidence that I'm going to be is that work is 20 minutes away right and I have to be there in five so I have full confidence that's why I would think that. So, I'm asking if you think that Israel and France were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk and you say with full confidence, I'm just asking for the evidence or at least walk me through the mindset of why it is that you could think that with >> I actually don't have to walk you through why I think um I can also I can give you something that I think with full confidence. I think with full confidence that you know you lost the substance of this debate and now you're moving toward things that I have said that I think which I can do. I'm not pertinent to this debate that it's not exactly pertinent to this debate. It's not pertinent because our debate >> these are claims made made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. That's the complete substance of the debate. >> No, actually, would you like to remind him of what our debate claims actually were? >> And would you like to remind that you said I could ask you about any of these things to my heart's cont? >> Feel free, but you did you do not get to structure how I'm allowed to reply or ask me why are you structuring how you're allowed to reply? I'm just asking you direct questions. My I have full confidence that you do not feel that you represented your claim well and so now what you came prepared to present yourself like a professor of fallacy just want to know >> and to say you are not allowed to say that you can't you can say whatever you want >> nobody's disputing that I'm asking seems like you are disputing I'm asking specifically when it's all said and done I've already explained to you I explained at the beginning of this why I think Israel is is is ultimately going to be proven to have involvement in this um I just explained to you in the middle and now you're wanting me to structure the sentence or provide evidence. You don't have to. You're just allowed to think and I've explained to you my thought process. I don't need to structure it in a sentence. If you feel like a professor today, you picked the wrong day. >> Don't you think that like tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people would want to know what Candace Owen's positive evidence for why it is that Israel and France were involved in the most traumatic public assassination of Jenz's lifetime is? That's why they watch my podcast. >> So, you're just going to drip to them? Like, here's why. >> It's not dripping. I Every time we come across any of these discussions, they're watching this in context and they know why I'm saying it. So, for example, when you're bringing up, well, Candace, where's your evidence for France doing this? I just told you someone who was high ranking in the French government, right? Who's >> nameless? >> Of course. >> Of course. So, there's good reason to not conspiracy though if I then took it to the federal government. Like you can't just go out there making a claim to the federal government. You get in trouble for making false statements and things of that nature. So, and then you go, "Well, I'm going to probe that." Well, how can you probe that? This happened. >> I can ask you specifically. This is my podcast. I am sharing my life and my experiences and what has happened to me and you're basically coming in like you're going to what regulate what I how I'm allowed to say it. I'm not trying to regulate anything. I'm asking very questioning a bit like a professor trying to regulate and say, "Candice, >> you sound very defensive and like you just don't want to answer questions. I I did answer your question three times. I didn't say in the way that you wanted to kind of offiscate and you run away from it. But I would like for you to actually go through every clip that you guys have prepared because I it's pretty I I I think with full confidence people will recognize the strategy that you're trying to employ. So let's get to the next clip you have prepared. >> Sure. They can pull up whatever clips >> whatever it is that you guys have prepared. But there but I I would still I on this point I just want to make sure that you have full confidence that France and Israel were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk and you have no evidence for it at all that you'll give us. >> Well, the high I I already did tell you where it came from. I like I said I can explain it to you. I can't understand. >> Did that same higher up tell you that he was going to kill or that France killed Charlie Kirk or just that you were in danger? >> They said that the French Foreign Legion was involved and on the ground that day. I've already said that. You just don't like hearing it. No, >> Ken, just out of curiosity, when you pass down that message to a Tulsi or Trump >> Tulsi's office. Yes. >> Tulsi's office. Are you >> giving them who told you that or you're just saying here's what I heard from someone >> and I have this and I have this information and of course if they wanted to open a file on it, which I thought was quite mysterious that Trump's office never got back to us. It was kind of weird about like from maybe that maybe they're not the correct office to. I did receive a response from uh Tulsi Gabbard's office, but I I don't think there was ever any investigation into what I said. >> So, the call was, "Hey, I've been told some the email was I've been told >> I have information." Yeah. That that that the French Foreign Legion was on the ground during Charlie's assassination. Um uh and that I mean I it was a lot of information, but like >> Well, you didn't give specifics who it was from. >> Not in the first email because I figured they would like >> Perfect. So if they do contact you, are you comfortable giving 100% who it is? >> I would absolutely give them as much information. If if whoever is the US government, why are you not >> Yes. It's very strange to me, >> you know. So if that's the case now, they may respond back and say we did, you know, that's their position. >> That's why I did it in writing. >> And so I'm glad that's the case because >> so so if they >> and right away in Trump's office his like Margot got right back to me. She said it was on his desk. So he has that. There's no. >> And if you do say that and they contact that individual, obviously you don't have to leak your sources here. >> Is there enough credibility where that person would be willing to talk to them and explain to them exactly what their sources are? >> Yes. >> Okay. I mean, that's >> it seems reasonable. And so why he's asking me to defend that is like >> I'm not. >> I think those are two different things. That's more something different. Why are they not reaching out to you? >> I've asked that many times on my podcast. >> What do you think about that, Andrew? >> What? the fact that she emailed, she gave it, and nobody reached out to want to contact the source. >> Probably didn't think it was actionable is my guess. But even if they did think it was actionable, great. Every lead should be followed up on within the confines of what's rational and reasonable. >> Is it fair to say that this is maybe a different individual because this is a person that was involved with TPS, had a relationship with Char? No. No. Her relationship >> like this isn't just anybody. So if an average person sends it Yes. >> Yeah. But I mean, we don't know who the source is. We don't know any of this. >> Well, then if it wouldn't you if you were in that department, wouldn't you want to even you assign it to one of your guys? >> There's no guarantee they didn't look into it. How do we know? We don't have the information. More of the information. It was a long file. >> This is a separate This has got nothing to do with the debate. This is more on on uh >> Well, I just I sent the email assuming that's I'm saying like you go and you you make a report. you think they're going to come back to you and say, "Hey, what's more