Candace Owens vs. Andrew Wilson: The Charlie Kirk Debate | PBD Podcast

Patrick Bet-David moderates a LIVE debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson over the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Did Tyler Robinson kill Kirk, or was he set up as a patsy? Owens defends her alternative theories as Wilson challenges the evidence behind her claims in their highly anticipated showdown. ------ 🎟️ SECURE YOUR 2026 VAULT TICKETS: https://bit.ly/4xU2SCW 👞 GET THE FLB1's: https://bit.ly/4mC4uf6 🧢 SHOP THE BLACK & GOLD FUTURE LOOKS BRIGHT HAT: https://bit.ly/4pe7gZh 🦁 SPONSOR THE VAULT 2026: https://bit.ly/4mFBPpw Ⓜ️ CONNECT ON MINNECT: https://bit.ly/4kSVkso Ⓜ️ PBD PODCAST CIRCLES: https://bit.ly/4mAWQAP 👔 BET-DAVID CONSULTING: https://bit.ly/4lzQph2 🥃 BOARDROOM CIGAR LOUNGE: https://bit.ly/4pzLEXj 🇰 KALSHI: http://kalshi.com/pbd SUBSCRIBE TO: @VALUETAINMENT @ValuetainmentComedy ABOUT US: Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller “Your Next Five Moves” (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

• 0:00Speaker 00

  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. 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 patsy. Tyler Robinson is a patsy. 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 truly for three different people. Number one is anybody out

• 0:41Speaker 00

  there that loves Charlie, respects Charlie, his legacy, what he did. We have a lot of love and admiration for what he did. He changed the lives of many people, 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 we got a lot of respect for him. The second audience is the folks out there, you that's watching this. And so for you, you've been wanting something like this to take place and kudos for Andrew for coming out and saying, hey, I want to have this conversation and for Candace to accept it. So 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

• 1:24Speaker 00

  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 fact checking. 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 if folks in the back can say fact check this. So it is a very fair conversation that we're having here. And so with that being said, kudos to

• 2:07Speaker 00

  Michael Knowles, 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 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.

• 2:34Speaker 01

  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 TikTok 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

• 3:17Speaker 01

  government one of them? Because this was the first nationwide traumatic event in Gen Z's lifetime, the demand for answers was severe and palpable. 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 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

• 3:58Speaker 01

  leave the pro-Israel cause. This was sent in the context of a platforming dispute regarding Tucker Carlson. From this scintilla 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, then 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. It's just 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

• 4:40Speaker 01

  told me that the left killed him. 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's security team wrote to him, yes, law enforcement has been fully supportive and agreed to a 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.

• 5:22Speaker 01

  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.

• 6:07Speaker 01

  And what did they make up? Well, in my opinion, kind of whatever lined the pockets. And I think it's ghoulish 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 patsy 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 a killer, at least based on evidence so far. And Candace's theory that Tyler Robinson is not the killer and he's a patsy 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,

• 6:52Speaker 01

  and that's all Candace was proffering, 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 patsy 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.

• 7:37Speaker 01

  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 clips in which she said she believed the evidence of her theory, that Tyler Robinson's a patsy, was supported by overwhelming evidence. Only then did she agree to defend that position. Regardless, we're both defending the claim that 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,

• 8:22Speaker 01

  feelings, things like this. 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 is 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 here by dividing them. She's attacking the very organization Charlie spent

• 9:04Speaker 01

  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.

• 9:14Speaker 00

  Thank you, Andrew. Candace?

• 9:15Speaker 02

  Did you get it out of your system?

• 9:17Speaker 01

  I did.

• 9:17Speaker 02

  Okay, great. Well, I'm not gonna waste time with the preamble because I think I just wanna get to the substance of the debate and we'll just speak to the audience. I have obviously had an audience since we've been covering this case, people know that there was a personal friendship between me and Charlie. 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 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 over, I mean, just the last couple of years, if you just think of the things that we've learned about our government.

• 10:00Speaker 02

  And I do wanna 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 with 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's taking so many influencers, it looks like a billion-dollar industry of influencers, 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 an argument. Obviously, we have presented a lot of evidence, you just presented a text message and said, this is evidence. Well, that's how this entire thing began. You're talking about how Israel got into the conversation, it was because immediately after Charlie died,

• 10:44Speaker 02

  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 state that I did not kill Charlie Kirk, when nobody was having that thought that I can remember. Nobody was going, I wonder if Bibi 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,

• 11:24Speaker 02

  which you just mentioned, and you're now contextualizing and pretending it was just about Tucker Carlson, which 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, since October 7th, which is when I began asking myself more questions about Israel as well. And so, yeah, when all of these things happen in the 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, Megyn 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?

• 12:03Speaker 02

  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 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, 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.

• 12:48Speaker 02

  So it's not exactly one that makes me nervous, like calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is essentially saying that they demand further answers and they're not accepting the Fed's lob. So I'm grateful that you came today. I don't need to, like I said, take cheap shots and 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 have been demanding, not a debate, just an 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 Colbat, he's the spokesperson. And rather than doing that, they send us another influencer. So let's see how it goes.

• 13:29Speaker 00

  Just out of curiosity, are you, between 0 to 100, what is the likely that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed him?

• 13:36Speaker 01

  Based on the evidence right now, I don't know, I'd say 75, 85%.

• 13:41Speaker 00

  Candace?

• 13:43Speaker 02

  0%?

• 13:44Speaker 00

  0%.

• 13:44Speaker 02

  I'm at 0. With what we've seen in terms of the evidence, I'm at 0%.

• 13:48Speaker 00

  So not, not only, you know, that maybe somebody was behind him as a patsy influencing him, you're not even saying that he didn't even shoot Charlie Kirk?

• 13:55Speaker 02

  Right. If you said, was he involved that day, as I have consistently said on my platform, I would say, yes, he was. I don't know what role he played, but as the shooter, 0%.

• 14:05Speaker 00

  Do you have any evidence for it?

• 14:07Speaker 02

  For what? My percentage?

• 14:08Speaker 00

  The fact that he didn't, he didn't shoot and kill Charlie Kirk?

• 14:12Speaker 02

  Yes, which I'm hoping we're gonna 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...

• 14:23Speaker 01

  Do you think he was shot?

• 14:25Speaker 02

  I, I do not think that Charlie was shot from a 30-86 from Losi.

• 14:30Speaker 01

  Yeah, but just shot at all?

• 14:31Speaker 02

  I don't, I don't know. 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 30-86.

• 14:43Speaker 01

  Can we see, maybe, if we're gonna have an olive branch to each other, if maybe we can establish what we consider the facts of the case to be first?

• 14:51Speaker 02

  Yeah, sure.

• 14:52Speaker 01

  Okay. So you don't, you're not sure if he was actually shot? You're open to alternative theories?

• 14:59Speaker 02

  He was definitely hit with a projectile of some description. If we're talking about, was he shot from a gun, a 30-86, I would say definitively no.

• 15:08Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 15:08Speaker 02

  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 Spalhala steel cages and shot it, and it went through. So, under no circumstance will I...

• 15:25Speaker 01

  So at least not a 30-86?

• 15:27Speaker 02

  Definitively not. A 30-86 from Losi, 150 feet now.

• 15:31Speaker 01

  But you're not necessarily closing off the avenue that he could have been shot at all?

• 15:34Speaker 02

  With maybe a smaller...

• 15:36Speaker 01

  Smaller caliber? Okay. And then, there are some things that I'm gonna 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 Robinson drove hours away to a steakhouse in the timeline, is that correct?

• 16:00Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 16:00Speaker 01

  Okay. And what's the compelling evidence that you think you have there?

• 16:05Speaker 02

  I spoke to the owner of the restaurant, and I've seen the receipt, I know the conversation that I had, and 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 Pangu, which is near his grandparents' home.

• 16:23Speaker 01

  Did he give you an unedited copy of that receipt?

• 16:26Speaker 02

  I have seen an unedited copy of that receipt, it was not given to me from the owner. But I wanna, before we get into like all the timeline stuff, I wanna address what you think is evidence, so we can keep this on par with what your claim is, since...

• 16:37Speaker 01

  Well, I think that that's a piece of evidence that's in dispute, and that's why I'm...

• 16:40Speaker 02

  Yeah, but we're trying to get to whether there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did this.

• 16:45Speaker 01

  Yeah, if you wanna use the first, if you wanna use the first part of that for the internal critique?

• 16:49Speaker 02

  Yeah, we should go over the actual evidence that we feel...

• 16:52Speaker 01

  The first reason that I think, and I think it's compelling evidence, is that Tyler Robinson's rifle was found 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 30-86 could not have made this wound. I think that that's absurd. 150-grain Remington Corelock 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?

• 17:26Speaker 02

  It could, I didn't say it can't.

• 17:28Speaker 01

  Right, exactly. So if that's the case, then ammunition is gonna 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 150-grain Remington Corelock, that's just a small jacket that goes around the actual lead piece. 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, and my team can bring that up, the summarization, which means he would have to be a part of some kind of conspiracy as well.

• 18:00Speaker 02

  Okay, so just to start with your point about saying that the gun was found near him, I mean, near Losi Center, or I guess off in the woods, that gun, did you watch the testimony? Did you, did you watch the preliminary hearing?

• 18:15Speaker 01

  Yeah, we covered it live.

• 18:16Speaker 02

  Okay, so forgetting what the summary of the medical report was, did you watch the testimony that was given by the Caitlin Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha Carner, any of those people who went into the science of...

• 18:29Speaker 01

  Yes, I recall. You're talking about...

• 18:31Speaker 02

  The bullet analysis?

• 18:32Speaker 01

  Yeah, when they went into the DNA.

• 18:33Speaker 02

  Okay, so that's kind of the most relevant part. 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 patsy, you could take a gun out of this room right now, and you could walk out and plant it in the woods near a crime scene. That's not convincing evidence to me.

• 18:54Speaker 01

  I concur, I concur with the fact that that's a possibility.

• 18:57Speaker 02

  So you are, you, I think, have said on a platform that you were a gunsmith? Okay, and for how many years?

• 19:04Speaker 01

  Many, many years.

• 19:05Speaker 02

  For many years. You also said that you were an army sniper?

• 19:08Speaker 01

  I wasn't a sniper in the Army. And I never said that.

• 19:10Speaker 02

  Sorry, your wife tweeted that you were an army sniper.

• 19:13Speaker 01

  Yeah, I don't know, like 15 years ago, she said something.

• 19:16Speaker 02

  Does it change 15 years later?

• 19:17Speaker 01

  She said that it was colloquial, so...

• 19:20Speaker 02

  Army sniper is a colloquial term?

• 19:21Speaker 01

  Yeah, I'm not an, I was never an army sniper.

• 19:23Speaker 02

  Okay. What did you do in the Army? Did you teach, then I corrected and said you taught rifles in the Army?

• 19:28Speaker 01

  Not, no, I didn't teach rifle, no, I taught rifles as a private citizen.

• 19:34Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 19:35Speaker 01

  Mm-hmm. And I was an NRA instructor for many, many, many years alongside my gun shop.

• 19:40Speaker 02

  As with your expertise, when she gave testimony on the stand, Samantha Carner, that there was dust and there was debris that was found in the gun barrel.

• 19:55Speaker 01

  Yep.

• 19:56Speaker 02

  And then when we had the person who, and this was, I believe, Caitlin Oliver, who explained painfully about the DNA, the prints.

• 20:06Speaker 01

  Well, let's start with a point in time.

• 20:07Speaker 02

  I'm not done. You said something, so I'm gonna finish my thought, right?

• 20:10Speaker 01

  You don't want to do a point in time?

• 20:11Speaker 02

  No, well, sure. If you want to respond to, but I want you to respond to two points. I want you to start with two points.

• 20:16Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 20:17Speaker 02

  Dust and debris in the gun barrel.

• 20:19Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 20:19Speaker 02

  Secondly, the fact that there were five sets of prints, five plus, actually, by the end of the testimony, five sets of prints for which we already had the woman who worked for the FBI forensics testify that above two prints, if you're taking a sample, 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. 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, they've looked

• 21:03Speaker 02

  at pieces, 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.

• 21:15Speaker 01

  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.

• 21:22Speaker 02

  Okay, that, I, you think there could be degree, I'm sorry, debris and dust?

• 21:29Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 21:30Speaker 02

  He just fired the weapon. Okay.

• 21:32Speaker 01

  Not only that, he left it in a forest. Now, I don't know 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 take grandpappy's, you know, dirty rifle, and it's all dusty inside the bore, and you go fire it, you'll often look down the bore and there's still dust.

• 21:59Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 21:59Speaker 01

  Happens all the time.

• 22:00Speaker 02

  Okay, and the prints?

• 22:01Speaker 01

  Yeah, so the prints, we don't know all of the details on just yet.

• 22:05Speaker 02

  We do. It was excruciatingly long testimony on the prints.

• 22:09Speaker 01

  We don't, because they haven't gone to trial, so we don't know on the print front. But Tyler Robinson's DNA was on there. You made the claim that Lance Twiggs' DNA was on there, and it was not.

• 22:18Speaker 02

  Well, when she gave the testimony, no, 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 prints? She testified, and she, this is the person who took the prints.

• 22:29Speaker 01

  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 than trial, right?

• 22:37Speaker 02

  But you also would agree that her fact is not going to change, that among the prints, his was the most degraded. So I'm asking you to address that. How could that be possible?

• 22:44Speaker 01

  Let's give it, let's just grant this for a second as a possibility that his fingerprints were degraded.

• 22:51Speaker 02

  It's not a possibility, it's a fact. The person who took it.

• 22:53Speaker 01

  Okay, hang on, I'm just granting it for the sake of argument.

• 22:55Speaker 02

  You should grant it because it's a fact that she presented.

• 22:57Speaker 01

  So now, so now it's granted, so what?

• 23:01Speaker 02

  What do you mean, so what?

• 23:01Speaker 01

  Yeah, so what? What does that prove?

• 23:03Speaker 02

  It proves that if his prints were the most degraded amongst five of them, you're gonna have to explain how that's possible if he's the one that recently fired the weapon.

• 23:14Speaker 01

  Yeah, so, wait a second. You're saying that it's an impossibility that if his fingerprints are the most degraded?

• 23:19Speaker 02

  I'm telling you to explain it. You're the gunsmith, so explain it.

• 23:22Speaker 01

  Well, wait a second. How would a gunsmith give an analysis on fingerprints or DNA? Do you think that I work in a DNA laboratory with fingerprints?

• 23:29Speaker 02

  So your answer is, I don't know. You can just say you don't know, you don't have to.

• 23:32Speaker 01

  But I did, but I did.

• 23:33Speaker 02

  No, you said, so what? So say, I don't know. I actually don't have an explanation for that, Candace.

• 23:37Speaker 01

  What would that prove, though, is my question?

• 23:38Speaker 02

  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.

• 23:47Speaker 01

  Did they tell, did they say who else had fingerprints on the gun?

• 23:50Speaker 02

  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, elimination samples from the home of Amber Robinson, Matt Robinson, and Lance Twiggs. Those were the three names they named.

• 24:06Speaker 01

  So are you saying that Twiggs' fingerprints?

• 24:08Speaker 02

  Would you like me to finish my statement?

• 24:09Speaker 01

  I just want to make sure I'm clarifying.

• 24:10Speaker 02

  I'm trying to finish the answer, but it can't be clarified until the answer comes out of my mouth.

• 24:14Speaker 01

  Okay, go ahead.

• 24:15Speaker 02

  So 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 Twiggs as the elimination samples that she was using. And so she explicitly said, she said some of them, some, so we can assume two out of the three, were, their prints were found on the gun. She explicitly named Matt Robinson 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, which came from the FBI forensics analyst, I believe it was on day two, where she said that when you're using

• 24:58Speaker 02

  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 patsy.

• 25:21Speaker 01

  That wouldn't prove anything about him being a patsy.

• 25:24Speaker 02

  It said it's evidence to support the claim that he could have been set up as a patsy.

• 25:29Speaker 01

  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 patsy.

• 25:39Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 25:39Speaker 01

  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 Robinson being a patsy. Are you claiming that these fingerprints were Lance Twiggs, or that he had any DNA there?

• 25:52Speaker 02

  I'm saying that it could be Matt Robinson, it could be Amber Robinson, that sort of information is gonna come out during the trial.

• 25:58Speaker 01

  How would that tie into the idea that he's a patsy, though?

• 26:01Speaker 02

  Yes, because if his is the most degraded prints, 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, Twiggs family, both of them, you know, like I said, we're not just dreaming, 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, 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. 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...

• 26:43Speaker 01

  How do we get to the patsy part?

• 26:45Speaker 02

  You don't let me ever get to the end of the sentence, so how could we get to the patsy part?

• 26:48Speaker 01

  Okay, I'll wait patiently till we get to the patsy part.

• 26:50Speaker 02

  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, and it could also be a reasonable explanation for why we have Matt Robinson's prints on this, obviously Lance Twiggs, 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'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, various places.

• 27:21Speaker 01

  But it also could demonstrate nothing. So the problem, the problem that you have here is that this is pure conjecture.

• 27:25Speaker 02

  No.

• 27:26Speaker 01

  This is, hang on, this is not evidence that Tyler Robinson is a patsy, it's only evidence that you have conjectured up that, well, if it's the case that these are the more degraded prints, then therefore that means must be patsy 'cause parents, dad's fingerprints on gun?

• 27:46Speaker 02

  I didn't say must be patsy.

• 27:46Speaker 01

  Describe how this actually links in to Robinson being a patsy.

• 27:51Speaker 02

  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 gonna move on from that. But to just go back to your point about this is not evidence, you can't make that claim because the entire basis for why you think that there's 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 hearing?

• 28:17Speaker 01

  No, I didn't say I was here to represent the state.

• 28:18Speaker 02

  The state's position you think is strong and convincing, okay?

• 28:21Speaker 01

  No, what I'm here to do is represent my own opinion, which is that, based on the, based on the evidence presented so far by the state.

• 28:28Speaker 02

  The state has presented evidence under Utah's 1102 rule.

• 28:33Speaker 01

  But this doesn't demonstrate any patsy behavior.

• 28:34Speaker 02

  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 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 not going to be allowed at the trial. They're allowed to present when it's this approbative hearing.

• 28:59Speaker 01

  I don't think all the evidence that was, that was put in was hearsay.

• 29:02Speaker 02

  Okay, you didn't watch this case.

• 29:04Speaker 01

  But not only that, no.

• 29:05Speaker 02

  No, no, no, this is a huge point. This is crazy that you don't know this.

• 29:08Speaker 01

  Well, hey, we can call for a fact check if all the evidence was put in.

• 29:10Speaker 02

  This was every single day, Utah rule 1102.

• 29:13Speaker 00

  They 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, so we can show it. And in the interim, can, is that it?

• 29:31Speaker 01

  Yeah. So I'll read this.

• 29:33Speaker 02

  Just what are we looking at, just so we know?

• 29:35Speaker 01

  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. "Left common cartoid 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 dramatically absent. Mr. Kirk suffered from other severe injuries, including bilateral, apical, and posterior intercostal hemorrhages, pulmonary apical hemorrhages, multiple disruptions

• 30:15Speaker 01

  to the thyroid, etc., etc. So, the summary of the examinations that he was shot, that was what they were pulling that up for."

• 30:23Speaker 02

  Okay, and I don't, I'm not disputing that. He could have been hit with a projectile. We're not disputing that, so I don't know why this was brought up as a fact check. 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.

• 30:37Speaker 01

  You can infer. I'm trying to follow the inference.

• 30:39Speaker 02

  But your entire reason, like 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.

• 30:51Speaker 01

  Yeah, I'm fine with your inferences.

• 30:52Speaker 02

  But no, you just literally said I couldn't do that. Yes, I can.

• 30:55Speaker 01

  No, I didn't. I'm just saying, from your inference, how do we get to Patsy?

• 30:59Speaker 02

  This is how you got to shoot her. Tyler Robinson did it.

• 31:01Speaker 01

  No, no, no, I didn't get to just shoot her from that.

• 31:04Speaker 02

  Yes, you did. You, again, this is something important, so we should pull up a 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 trials where they're meant.

• 31:19Speaker 01

  I agree, they don't have to.

• 31:20Speaker 02

  But no, that's why the entire hearing was basically hearsay. Officer Bagley was saying...

• 31:23Speaker 01

  But not all of it, like I said.

• 31:24Speaker 02

  The overwhelming majority, I mean, outside of the one that you don't, that you don't want to give, please don't come to me off.

• 31:32Speaker 01

  That's not what's in dispute, though.

• 31:33Speaker 02

  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 hearsay. 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." 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, 1102, 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 just can't willy-nilly say..."

• 32:12Speaker 01

  But you're arguing things I'm not disputing.

• 32:13Speaker 02

  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.

• 32:19Speaker 01

  No, it's not.

• 32:20Speaker 02

  When you say, Candace, you can't talk about the degraded prints, which is a fact, and then infer off of that, that Tyler could have been a Patsy.

• 32:27Speaker 01

  You're just, you're just literally making stuff up. So, here's what the position is.

• 32:30Speaker 02

  I'm not making stuff up. I'm not making stuff up. I'm saying, I think you, let's pull that up, let's pull that up.

• 32:35Speaker 01

  I'm just asking about how you get there from the inference.

• 32:36Speaker 02

  I am doing exactly what the state did. I'm looking at a piece of evidence, and I am saying...

• 32:40Speaker 01

  But you're not showing me how you get there from the inference.

• 32:41Speaker 00

  Can you describe to the audience what 1102 means?

• 32:43Speaker 02

  Yes, so this, just so everybody who's watching us 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...

• 32:53Speaker 01

  He's making it up. Just purely making it up. I'm asking, based on your inference...

• 32:59Speaker 02

  Andrew, can I show my evidence? You just showed yours. Reliable hearsay.

• 33:02Speaker 00

  You'll get a chance.

• 33:03Speaker 02

  Reliable hearsay in criminal preliminary examinations. The entire 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," and that is, they can allow that into the hearing. That's just, because it's just meant to be probative. 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 prints were the most degraded off of Tyler Robinson." And

• 33:46Speaker 02

  from that, what I am inferring is that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson was set up.

• 33:50Speaker 01

  That doesn't, that's the point in contention.

• 33:52Speaker 02

  That's not a point in contention. That's...

• 33:53Speaker 01

  That's the point in contention.

• 33:55Speaker 02

  It's not a point in contention. If you're saying it's a point in...

• 33:56Speaker 01

  It is the point in contention.

• 33:57Speaker 02

  It's not the point in contention. I'm telling you, that was what the entire hearing allowed for. So, the evidence that he is describing...

• 34:02Speaker 01

  Great, but we're asking you now.

• 34:03Speaker 02

  That he is using to argue his case is all based on inference, not fact.

• 34:09Speaker 01

  Great.

• 34:10Speaker 02

  Inference, not fact. So, what they are inferring off of the facts.

• 34:12Speaker 01

  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 Patsy? I'm looking for the logical chain for how you get to that inference.

• 34:29Speaker 02

  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.

• 34:45Speaker 01

  Can you walk, walk me through the inference, so that I understand?

• 34:48Speaker 02

  It's not a fact. It's not a fact. When you show a blurry image, which you kept citing that we have images...

• 34:53Speaker 01

  No, no, I'm talking about your inference that the fingerprints, even if they're degraded, equals Patsy. How do you get that inference?

• 34:59Speaker 02

  I didn't say it equals Patsy. I think it is enough evidence that it should be explored, which is exactly what this preliminary was in the inverse.

• 35:06Speaker 01

  There's no, but that's not, well, in dispute. What's in dispute is when you said, "I'm using this as evidence that he could have been a Patsy." I'm asking, how do you get the inference to Patsy from that?

• 35:15Speaker 02

  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.

• 35:31Speaker 01

  There's equally a...

• 35:32Speaker 02

  That's how it works.

• 35:33Speaker 01

  And is there equally 100 other plausible explanations?

• 35:36Speaker 02

  I think that's the reason why most people are exploring when things don't make sense.

• 35:39Speaker 01

  Got it.

• 35:40Speaker 02

  So, yes, at the beginning of, that, this is how, this is how the court process works, just so we're clear.

• 35:44Speaker 01

  If there's 100 other plausible explanations in Candace, why is it that we should go with this idea that it was a Patsy?

• 35:50Speaker 02

  I, I'm not saying that we should go with the idea that it was a Patsy. I am saying that there is...

• 35:56Speaker 01

  Oh, I thought that was the whole defense, your whole claim today.

• 35:59Speaker 02

  No, my whole claim was that there is more evidence that he is set up, that he is set up as a Patsy.

• 36:04Speaker 01

  How does that equal evidence of Patsy?

• 36:05Speaker 02

  I don't know how many times I can say this. Like, I'm saying that I am using the exact same mechanism that you are accepting, for some reason, in the Utah courtroom, 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.

• 36:30Speaker 01

  No, I didn't.

• 36:31Speaker 02

  A standard white guy coming up the steps that could literally be anyone.

• 36:34Speaker 01

  This never happened.

• 36:35Speaker 02

  Can we get a fact check on that? Can we pull up his tweet where he goes over the floor?

• 36:39Speaker 01

  I didn't say that's what convinced me.

• 36:40Speaker 02

  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. You said it was...

• 36:50Speaker 01

  Well, there's multitudes of things that I find to be compelling evidence.

• 36:53Speaker 02

  You just said you didn't say it, so we're going to get a fact check on that. You did.

• 36:55Speaker 01

  Go ahead.

• 36:56Speaker 02

  You said the blurry images coming up the steps. Quite literally, when Officer Bagley 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 Hall, David Hall. 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."

• 37:19Speaker 01

  Why is that absurd?

• 37:21Speaker 02

  That's how you decided these two are the same people? Oh, wow, what a scientific, "They're both wearing Converse's." Okay, that, that's an absurd thing to say. That is not evidence that these are the same people, if we're both wearing Converse's. That was what he said. That's what flew on the stand.

• 37:36Speaker 01

  But I still don't understand how that would be absurd if somebody...

• 37:39Speaker 02

  It's an absurd thing.

• 37:40Speaker 01

  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 they were changing their clothes?

• 37:47Speaker 02

  The idea that on a college campus, two people wearing this totally different outfits but both wearing Converse's 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 an absurd thing to say.

• 38:00Speaker 01

  I don't, I'm not, I'm not sure.

• 38:01Speaker 02

  I know these are the same people because they're both wearing Converse.

• 38:04Speaker 01

  Yeah, I'm not sure if in context that's what happened, but even if it is...

• 38:06Speaker 02

  You can get a fact check on it.

• 38:07Speaker 01

  But even if it is, again, if we're utilizing inferences, whenever we're dealing with logic and 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.

• 38:25Speaker 02

  You just told me I couldn't do that.

• 38:27Speaker 01

  So, when we're, I never, that never happened. 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 a Patsy, based on the totality of evidence that you have.

• 38:40Speaker 02

  We can keep going through your other evidence, but we should find his tweet where he please, where he lists the reasons that he was convinced.

• 38:45Speaker 01

  So, let's start with the 30 out of six. I think that that's fine.

• 38:48Speaker 00

  Your team's looking for, do you, do you remember how long ago that was?

• 38:51Speaker 02

  The tweets of the five, did you delete it? Or no?

• 38:55Speaker 01

  No, I don't delete tweets.

• 38:56Speaker 02

  Okay, cool. Just look for, he said, "The, it was his car, it was his, it was the car, and it was definitely the staircase photos, and it was when the trial was going on."

• 39:08Speaker 01

  Okay, she has it. Perfect. If you got, Skylar has it. If you want to pull it up so we can see it.

• 39:12Speaker 02

  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, 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.

• 39:44Speaker 01

  Yeah, but that's not an exhaustive list.

• 39:46Speaker 02

  Just so we're clear, you did tweet it.

• 39:47Speaker 01

  But it's not an exhaustive.

• 39:48Speaker 02

  Yeah, but just by a second ago, you should concede.

• 39:50Speaker 01

  You said, I only said this one thing and said that that was overwhelming, actually.

• 39:55Speaker 02

  That's not what I said.

• 39:55Speaker 01

  It is. You could even pull your own clip.

• 39:58Speaker 00

  Can you, can you fact check if that was said or not? I did not hear her say this.

• 40:01Speaker 01

  So the thing is funny here is like, we still aren't getting to any of these inferences. So these.

• 40:06Speaker 02

  Why are you pivoting? But just say you were wrong. It's cool to just say I was wrong. I can say it.

• 40:09Speaker 01

  I'm not wrong. So back to the tweet, the tweet aspect here, it was really funny. That's not an exhaustive list of why I find it overwhelming.

• 40:16Speaker 02

  I didn't say it was exhaustive. I just said you said it.

• 40:17Speaker 01

  And on top of the, 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 of these other things. You'd never mentioned any of that. So, no, you're actually incorrect there. But on top of that, moving over to the actual evidence itself.

• 40:35Speaker 02

  Are you?

• 40:37Speaker 01

  Yes, I'm okay. Anyway, back to the evidence itself.

• 40:40Speaker 02

  I was gonna ask if you're okay. Actually, I'm glad you're 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. We got a fact check, and now you're like, just gonna gaslight me and pretend that I said.

• 40:48Speaker 01

  There's no gaslighting.

• 40:49Speaker 02

  It wasn't exhaustive. I never said that. I just said you did say this.

• 40:52Speaker 01

  Zero gaslighting.

• 40:52Speaker 02

  I didn't say you couldn't have said more, but I would like to address what you said in that tweet.

• 40:56Speaker 01

  If this is how you want to spend it, interrogating my position, you can do it that way.

• 41:00Speaker 02

  I'm just addressing what you asserted on your Twitter was like, the hard evidence that convinced you it was overwhelming. That's literally your debate claim.

• 41:06Speaker 01

  That's not what you said. That's not actually, in fact, what happened in that exchange.

• 41:12Speaker 01

  I was here for it.

• 41:14Speaker 00

  So what's your position here?

• 41:16Speaker 01

  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 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 as evidence. That's, that's my position, if that's what you're asking me.

• 41:38Speaker 02

  So just going back to what you did actually tweet, is it fair to like, to, for me to ask questions about that?

• 41:43Speaker 01

  Is that the only tweet you're gonna ask me about?

• 41:45Speaker 02

  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.

• 41:50Speaker 01

  But not, sure, but not exhaustive, just so you know.

• 41:53Speaker 02

  And I never said it was exhaustive, even though you said I did.

• 41:55Speaker 01

  Sure, whatever you want.

• 41:56Speaker 02

  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?

• 42:05Speaker 01

  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.

• 42:11Speaker 02

  Okay, so I would like to know how you got to the conclusion, and I'm just gonna throw it right back at you, because 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?

• 42:23Speaker 01

  No.

• 42:24Speaker 02

  How are you able to infer off of blurry staircase images that that is Tyler Robinson?

• 42:29Speaker 01

  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.

• 42:39Speaker 02

  Why are you calling him Tyler Robinson in the staircase? That's what I want to get to.

• 42:41Speaker 01

  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.

• 42:49Speaker 02

  But why do you think it is? Because you make everybody, you call them conspiracy theorists.

• 42:52Speaker 01

  That's literally what I'm trying to explain to you. 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.

• 43:09Speaker 02

  Yeah, I would. 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 gonna see me in.

• 43:14Speaker 01

  I'm paraphrasing, but it was.

• 43:15Speaker 00

  Can we pull that up? If you may have it.

• 43:16Speaker 01

  And by the way, Twigs himself said that he had some.

• 43:20Speaker 02

  You're gonna see me on the staircase.

• 43:21Speaker 01

  That he had some, maybe a tiny bit of doubt, but it sure looked like Tyler Robinson inside of this various surveillance footage that he saw.

• 43:31Speaker 02

  So Lance, sorry.

• 43:32Speaker 01

  Hang on, hang on. So there's multiple, there's multiple reasons why it is that I believe that that's Tyler Robinson, not just because of blurry footage.

• 43:40Speaker 02

  Did you have a dream? Just kidding.

• 43:42Speaker 01

  No, it's because I combined multitudes of evidences.

• 43:45Speaker 02

  Okay, 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 texting. Texting that that's me in the staircase. I think that I.

• 43:58Speaker 01

  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.

• 44:10Speaker 02

  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%.

• 44:17Speaker 01

  I agree.

• 44:18Speaker 02

  But in terms of what he wears, again, me pointing out the absurdity, he wears Converse's, 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 that 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 asked, 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.

• 44:49Speaker 01

  I understand.

• 44:49Speaker 02

  Which means like.

• 44:50Speaker 01

  That happens, by the way, all the time in these cases.

• 44:52Speaker 02

  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 letting us know. I think more is gonna 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.

• 45:33Speaker 02

  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 gonna get in trouble. He could literally get up there and lie about anything, and he's not gonna get in trouble, because the use immunity was given to him in April, I believe, April 28th is when they 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.

• 46:03Speaker 01

  That's not what he said.

• 46:04Speaker 02

  He did, actually, you can get a fact check on that.

• 46:06Speaker 00

  Skyler, I think you pulled it up. If you wanna, 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 put that up on the screen. Thank you.

• 46:25Speaker 02

  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 happy to have a fact check on that, okay? I thought, I, I didn't call for the fact check saying you're wrong. I literally said, I don't remember that from the time messages.

• 46:36Speaker 01

  Well, I'm just saying to you, like, I'm trying to be concise for you.

• 46:38Speaker 02

  And then also bring the 801 that you just said. What was the other one?

• 46:41Speaker 00

  Yep, the 801 Tyler messages saying it's not hearsay, if you have that as well.

• 46:52Speaker 00

  There you go.

• 46:55Speaker 02

  Wait, what are we saying is not hearsay?

• 46:56Speaker 01

  Statements that are not hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay.

• 47:01Speaker 02

  It was hearsay. They said it in the trial.

• 47:02Speaker 01

  Hang on, hang on.

• 47:04Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 47:04Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 47:07Speaker 01

  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 has offered to rebut the 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?

• 47:27Speaker 02

  So the issue with his.

• 47:28Speaker 01

  I just wanna make sure. Would that make, would that mean that a bunch of this wasn't hearsay?

• 47:32Speaker 02

  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 of 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.

• 48:03Speaker 01

  No, you didn't say that. You said, most of it was hearsay, actually.

• 48:06Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 48:07Speaker 01

  The overwhelming majority.

• 48:08Speaker 02

  Well, I mean, and that's, 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 scientific.

• 48:18Speaker 01

  Sounds like you're backtracking quite a bit.

• 48:20Speaker 02

  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 1102.

• 48:25Speaker 01

  Yeah, nobody disputed that. What the dispute was is whether or not most of it was overwhelmingly hearsay.

• 48:30Speaker 02

  Yes, it was. Yes, that's a fact. I'm not backtracking on that at all.

• 48:33Speaker 01

  And what are the things?

• 48:33Speaker 02

  How many times, if you watch the people here, it's like, they constantly, I'm 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102. 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.

• 48:56Speaker 01

  Yes, there's going to be hearsay.

• 48:57Speaker 02

  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 to tell the truth, the whole truth. Did you, you know, write this statement?

• 49:09Speaker 01

  These things are not in dispute.

• 49:09Speaker 02

  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.

• 49:21Speaker 01

  But even a lot of that stuff may not fall under hearsay, under what we just read, right?

• 49:26Speaker 02

  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.

• 49:42Speaker 01

  Well, overwhelming just means convincing.

• 49:43Speaker 02

  You can't consider another option that there could have been another white guy wearing Converse's on campus.

• 49:47Speaker 01

  Yeah, do you agree with me that I said that what overwhelming means to me is that it's just very convincing to me?

• 49:53Speaker 02

  Yeah, and I find it to be completely unconvincing.

• 49:56Speaker 01

  And that's fair. I understand that you can find.

• 49:57Speaker 02

  Because I looked at those blurry photos that they presented and said, your, your statement on, right now is that he's wearing Converse's and he also, that's just crazy to me.

• 50:07Speaker 01

  But these aren't the evidences that I find the most convincing.

• 50:08Speaker 02

  Well, you said that in your Twitter.

• 50:11Speaker 01

  That's not the only thing I've ever said on my Twitter about this case.

• 50:14Speaker 02

  Right, but the question that was asked of you was pretty direct, right? What, what did you find to be?

• 50:18Speaker 01

  And this is not an exhaustive list of all the things that I find convincing.

• 50:21Speaker 02

  Well, 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 anymore.

• 50:25Speaker 01

  So, 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?

• 50:33Speaker 02

  Well, they wanted.

• 50:33Speaker 01

  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.

• 50:42Speaker 02

  I feel like this is Andrew versus Andrew. Somebody asked you a question, what are the points that you find to be, you know, the most overwhelming and you answered?

• 50:49Speaker 01

  You mean from that day, from that particular day of the hearing that I was responding to?

• 50:54Speaker 02

  Do you, okay, is this something you have, you find to be more overwhelming?

• 50:57Speaker 01

  Yes, that's what I was saying, yes.

• 50:59Speaker 02

  Okay, go on, go on. What do you find to be more overwhelming? Yeah, yeah.

• 51:01Speaker 00

  Can we do this? Do we want to get into it or do we, do we want to do a quick ad break?

• 51:05Speaker 02

  I'm.

• 51:06Speaker 00

  Are you guys good to keep going or?

• 51:08Speaker 02

  I'm, I'm fine to keep going, but we, we can also.

• 51:10Speaker 00

  Would you like to take a quick break?

• 51:11Speaker 01

  Doesn't matter to me either way.

• 51:12Speaker 00

  If we're going into a different topic, that may be another 30 minutes, 40 minutes, I don't want to stop you guys in the middle of it.

• 51:16Speaker 02

  Yeah, let's end it on what you find to be more overwhelming.

• 51:19Speaker 01

  Yeah, yeah. So if we're, for me, it's the confessions, the text messages, all of that is what I consider to be, from my opinion, that's the most convincing for me.

• 51:30Speaker 02

  Okay, we should discuss the text message confessions when we get back, if you'd like to.

• 51:35Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 51:35Speaker 00

  I think that's a good idea. Folks, we're going to take a quick ad break. We will be back in three and a half minutes. Thank you.

• 51:41Speaker 02

  All right, you guys, nearly 2,000 years Christians have lived continuously in a small village just outside of Jerusalem called.

• 51:46Speaker 00

  ... function and luxury. We had the choice to make it fast. We had the choice to make it cheap. We chose neither. Instead, we chose Tuscanyero. We chose true Italian craftsmanship. Each pair touched by 50 skilled painters. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail, and we chose the finest quality at every step. Introducing the Future Looks Bright collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary, rather intentional, luxurious, timeless.

• 52:31Speaker 00

  The beautiful thing about these events.

• 52:35Speaker 00

  You know how quickly it goes?

• 52:39Speaker 00

  Like this.

• 52:42Speaker 00

  Is everybody ready to get started?

• 52:46Speaker 03

  I've helped over 10,000 business owners grow and scale their companies. I'm just passionate about watching entrepreneurs create great business.

• 52:54Speaker 04

  When you get guys like Jerry Rice, that was his work ethic. We were able to do some great things on the football field.

• 53:03Speaker 05

  The single most important trait I had was a healthy dose of delusion. And that delusion is sometimes also referred to as self-belief.

• 53:11Speaker 06

  When I can do something that I love, that is good for business, and I can make content out of, that's my trifecta.

• 53:36Speaker 00

  Okay, we're back. Fantastic. I think we're back. By the way, just FYI, for those of you that are watching, The Crucible, there's 30,000 concurrent they're watching. Support 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 300, 400,000 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 for all. This is what's best

• 54:18Speaker 00

  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?

• 54:24Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 54:24Speaker 00

  Let's state, and then we'll go into the cross-examination stuff in about 30 minutes.

• 54:28Speaker 01

  Okay, that sounds fair. Okay, so yeah, my, I, I used 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 the testimony with the text messages and 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 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, 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

• 55:13Speaker 01

  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.

• 55:30Speaker 02

  Okay, so first, let's just go over legally what the point is of a probative 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.

• 55:48Speaker 01

  Agreed.

• 55:48Speaker 02

  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. 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, 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

• 56:28Speaker 02

  Robinson. He wanted to get away. I think the text messages almost run head to head 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, down to what I didn't even remember, saying, yeah, and that's also me in the surveillance footage.

• 56:47Speaker 02

  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 burned 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 to carve expressions. Catch fascist, but then suddenly he's writing like a

• 57:11Speaker 01

  Also, as a Helldivers player, he did, he did actually get the 500K code correct.

• 57:17Speaker 02

  Yeah, I'm not a gamer, so we'll say that. If we start debating that, you'll be way over my head.

• 57:21Speaker 01

  But yes.

• 57:22Speaker 02

  But my point being is just that, just first, it's a general sense of why people had a reaction to these messages. That seemed like they were written by Jane Austen rather than like a kid who games and writes catch.

• 57:32Speaker 01

  Do you see how that's intuition?

• 57:34Speaker 02

  That is. I am. I just said that. I said, just putting, parking aside the intuition of just something feels wrong here, which you should follow your intuition. You should actually do that. If you say, the COVID 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 are allowed to do that. I believe in intuition. Now.

• 57:52Speaker 01

  But hang on, 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. And mass and things like this.

• 58:18Speaker 02

  The science they kept telling us was 100%.

• 58:19Speaker 01

  Now, when you're talking 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 it has to be tempered with logic, reason, explanatory power, and evidence, not just intuition.

• 58:35Speaker 02

  That's why we're parking it aside. Intuition's the first step. Something feels off, right?

• 58:39Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 58:39Speaker 02

  That was my first step with COVID. 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 saying things? It's over. Why are you guys all using the same adjective? Can you switch it up? I'm overwhelmed. I'm overwhelmed. Like chill? Like, you could say, I found some parts compelling. I think this should go.

• 58:59Speaker 01

  Like Fed slop?

• 59:00Speaker 02

  I found some parts compelling. Maybe we should, you know, see at the trial. That would be kind of.

• 59:05Speaker 01

  Don't you think Fed slop's a buzzword for the other, for the counter industry?

• 59:08Speaker 02

  But 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, but I do think it's enough to go to trial. They all came in like they were passing away and were going to die from being overwhelmed.

• 59:25Speaker 01

  Well, they're trusting their intuition.

• 59:26Speaker 02

  Okay, well, actually, in that scenario, they're, we'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, some of my 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 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, giving these text messages to review. Crucially, Kathy Nester said, I have not even been given access to my client's

• 1:00:09Speaker 02

  phone during this hearing. She said, I have me because it's 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, Candace, I just got a text message from Candace, and I say, I didn't send that text message. Maybe that's what our 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 sow 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

• 1:00:51Speaker 02

  my Apple ID and my iCloud, sending messages. I know that we have the capability because my husband does it. He has 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

• 1:01:35Speaker 02

  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 it got to preliminary hearing. So I remain unconvinced by these text messages. Just as you feel convinced by them, I feel unconvinced by them.

• 1:01:50Speaker 01

  Okay, so then the idea here is, the reason that you don't think that these are valid text messages, and you don't, right?

• 1:01:58Speaker 02

  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, I don't know, pot on the corner, would be smarter than to write a full-fledged confession. He even writes, I thought I would 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, 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 this surveillance footage, and I'm here, and I'm wearing my Converse, you know, I'm being a little facetious here, but it was a little ridiculous. It didn't, it didn't pass a sniff test for me.

• 1:02:43Speaker 01

  You have kids, and you love them more than anything.

• 1:02:46Speaker 02

  I do.

• 1:02:46Speaker 01

  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 state is presenting it. What would have prevented the parents from testifying at that preliminary?

• 1:03:09Speaker 02

  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, 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. What happens next is that they started thinking that the feds were maybe gonna, like, maybe not as honest as they thought. And

• 1:03:42Speaker 01

  How do you know all, any of that?

• 1:03:44Speaker 02

  You gotta, you gotta watch the show, right?

• 1:03:46Speaker 01

  Yeah, no, how do you know that?

• 1:03:47Speaker 02

  I, I had a source within the Robinson family.

• 1:03:49Speaker 01

  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, is it?

• 1:03:56Speaker 02

  Do you find it to be reliable hearsay?

• 1:03:58Speaker 01

  No, I don't find it to be reliable at all. It's just a source.

• 1:04:00Speaker 02

  I'm just doing what the prosecution did.

• 1:04:02Speaker 01

  What you're doing is a cool story.

• 1:04:03Speaker 02

  It's not cool. Well, you must have hated watching preliminary hearing.

• 1:04:07Speaker 01

  You're giving us a cool, cool story. You're saying that according to your sources, that the reason that the parents haven't recanted any of this.

• 1:04:14Speaker 02

  Recanted what? They have no statement from the parents?

• 1:04:16Speaker 01

  Wait, I just want to make sure that I, if, if it was the case, it 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 buddies took you in where you turned yourself in, you wouldn't go out and be like, no, that's not what happened.

• 1:04:34Speaker 02

  That isn't what happened, though. You're just wrong on this.

• 1:04:35Speaker 01

  Okay, maybe I'm paraphrasing. What am I wrong on?

• 1:04:37Speaker 02

  So what is your, sorry, just so I'm clear, what, where is your evidence that the parents turned him in?

• 1:04:43Speaker 01

  Well, no, no, I didn't say that.

• 1:04:45Speaker 02

  You said this in mainstream media?

• 1:04:46Speaker 01

  I said with a sheriff friend.

• 1:04:49Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:04:49Speaker 01

  But the father did confront him.

• 1:04:51Speaker 02

  The, the father confronted what?

• 1:04:53Speaker 01

  Tyler Robinson.

• 1:04:54Speaker 02

  And where did you learn this? That the Tyler confronted him?

• 1:04:57Speaker 01

  That's part of the official documents. Our fact checkers can pull that up, but yes.

• 1:04:59Speaker 02

  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?

• 1:05:04Speaker 01

  No, this was one of the things that I went through and fact checked pre-debate.

• 1:05:07Speaker 02

  Are you talking about like the charging documents?

• 1:05:09Speaker 01

  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.

• 1:05:14Speaker 02

  No.

• 1:05:14Speaker 01

  And that, and yes, are you disputing this? Do we have that on the back to pull it up?

• 1:05:18Speaker 02

  And 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 on 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 probative, 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, 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. 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

• 1:06:00Speaker 02

  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, after they transported Tyler Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's County Office up to, I think it's Salt Lake City, I think it was 4:00 AM in the morning that they got up there, he then writes the 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-

• 1:06:35Speaker 01

  I don't know how this negates the point though.

• 1:06:37Speaker 02

  It truly negates the point because you don't have a statement from the parents. You are, you are going-

• 1:06:41Speaker 01

  Why wouldn't they just correct the misinformation?

• 1:06:45Speaker 02

  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."

• 1:06:53Speaker 01

  I didn't say they turned him in.

• 1:06:54Speaker 02

  Yeah, 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 essentially peer pressured him, and we can get a fact check on this. We can find Sheriff Brooksby's press conference. And he said, "You know, they, they know it's you and you're gonna come in peaceably or people are gonna 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 Mike Mitchell, but he worked with them for 20-plus years, the police officers. The reason why Tyler Robinson knew him was because he lived nearby and he was also his Boy Scout leader.

• 1:07:39Speaker 01

  How does this negate that the parents could write this second? And by the way, if you, if you had the evidence-

• 1:07:43Speaker 02

  I'm just saying that your, your first point, which is that the parents did this. We don't know that the parents-

• 1:07:48Speaker 01

  I never, I didn't say that they did, ever. Never happened.

• 1:07:50Speaker 02

  You're quoting the parents as having said, you said that Matt Robinson said that his kid was, you say, involved. I don't want to misquote you.

• 1:07:57Speaker 01

  Confronted him about it.

• 1:07:58Speaker 02

  Confronted him.

• 1:07:58Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 1:07:59Speaker 02

  And I'm telling you that we have not seen any evidence that that is true.

• 1:08:01Speaker 01

  We can fact check that. Okay. Because we do have evidence.

• 1:08:03Speaker 02

  And I'm saying it's the charging doc, which could have been derived from a statement Mike Mitchell said.

• 1:08:07Speaker 00

  Two things I have already in the back. One is the charging doc and the other one is the video of Kathy Nestor saying she hasn't seen Tyler's phone.

• 1:08:14Speaker 02

  Okay, we can run Kathy to go back and then just to go backwards 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.

• 1:08:23Speaker 01

  A thing not in dispute. These are all things that I'm not even disputing.

• 1:08:27Speaker 02

  Okay, so we don't have to show it.

• 1:08:28Speaker 01

  We never get to the thing that I am disputing.

• 1:08:30Speaker 02

  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, 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 her client's phone. So that's effectively, again, the state's saying these messages are real. You don't get the discovery on these messages just yet. She will during trial. They will actually get the discovery.

• 1:08:51Speaker 01

  Don't you think 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?

• 1:09:00Speaker 02

  It's called, it's called winners and losers. They may not be fabricated. But by the way, as, 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.

• 1:09:10Speaker 01

  So let's get to the, let's get to the parents, the parents' fact check.

• 1:09:14Speaker 02

  Yeah, so I was saying, I believe what you're talking about was derived from the charging doc, which was signed off by Brian Davis.

• 1:09:19Speaker 01

  Let's pull it up.

• 1:09:20Speaker 02

  Let's see if that's correct.

• 1:09:26Speaker 02

  What are we looking at here?

• 1:09:27Speaker 01

  Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, I'm sorry.

• 1:09:32Speaker 00

  Can you zoom in a little bit?

• 1:09:33Speaker 02

  Is this the charging doc?

• 1:09:34Speaker 01

  Yeah, I can 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.

• 1:10:05Speaker 02

  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-

• 1:10:30Speaker 01

  But why aren't the parents disputing that?

• 1:10:32Speaker 02

  Well, first off-

• 1:10:33Speaker 01

  That's the question I've been asking.

• 1:10:34Speaker 02

  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 forever.

• 1:10:45Speaker 01

  But they're playing to somebody else who's your source?

• 1:10:46Speaker 02

  I, I'm, I, I'm not gonna address that.

• 1:10:49Speaker 01

  They're playing to someone else who's your source but won't go publicly tell the media this is not true?

• 1:10:53Speaker 02

  Well, what 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 is involved and permanently sued. 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-

• 1:11:08Speaker 01

  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."

• 1:11:14Speaker 02

  I, I am telling you that you would nary find a lawyer who would advise you to go to the media.

• 1:11:20Speaker 01

  Oh, this, this mother-

• 1:11:21Speaker 02

  Especially when your son is up for-

• 1:11:23Speaker 01

  If I thought that my kid-

• 1:11:24Speaker 02

  Was up for death.

• 1:11:25Speaker 01

  If I thought that my kid was in any way, shape or form gonna be, 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. They'd be public whether you like it or not."

• 1:11:40Speaker 02

  Yeah, I, 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, but if you say anything, you could blow the case, you would have a more responsible consideration.

• 1:11:53Speaker 01

  I see.

• 1:11:53Speaker 02

  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."

• 1:11:59Speaker 01

  But if you have a source, it seems like they're violating it with them.

• 1:12:02Speaker 02

  I didn't, I, I'm not speaking to a source, but what 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's saying, oh-

• 1:12:21Speaker 01

  Based on the statements of the parents.

• 1:12:25Speaker 02

  Saying, "The parents told me this." The parents could dispute that. That's gonna come down the line, right? They're gonna 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 five-day preliminary hearing would be a good time to say, "We have enough evidence and I can tell you why Matt Robinson made this statement and here is his statement that he signed." That would've been a good time to present that evidence in the public on your side.

• 1:12:52Speaker 01

  That would also be a good time for the defense to say that's just totally fabricated.

• 1:12:54Speaker 02

  No, it's not. It's the wrong time.

• 1:12:55Speaker 01

  Why couldn't they?

• 1:12:56Speaker 02

  That is completely the wrong time.

• 1:12:57Speaker 01

  Why couldn't they?

• 1:12:57Speaker 02

  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 discovery.

• 1:13:04Speaker 01

  They didn't receive that information?

• 1:13:05Speaker 02

  No, no, they just received the text messages, but in order to-

• 1:13:08Speaker 01

  That's not the text messages.

• 1:13:10Speaker 02

  The probative information.

• 1:13:12Speaker 01

  Yeah, we're talking about the information that we just reviewed. That's not the text messages.

• 1:13:15Speaker 02

  They never presented it. The, the state never, never put it on.

• 1:13:17Speaker 01

  Yet, they didn't, the defense could easily still, still have presented this, yeah?

• 1:13:22Speaker 02

  No.

• 1:13:23Speaker 01

  They could've said they're, no, no, they're not allowed to, are you sure?

• 1:13:26Speaker 02

  In a preliminary hearing, the, 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.

• 1:13:36Speaker 01

  So they're not allowed to present anything?

• 1:13:38Speaker 02

  They're responding to the state's evidence.

• 1:13:40Speaker 01

  I'm asking, are they allowed to present anything?

• 1:13:41Speaker 02

  They are allowed to say-

• 1:13:42Speaker 01

  Like, if there was a conspiracy that they could prove right then and there, would they present that in one of these hearings?

• 1:13:46Speaker 02

  No, it wouldn't be the right time for that.

• 1:13:48Speaker 01

  I disagree. I think that they, 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."

• 1:14:02Speaker 02

  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 for 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? And, okay, I disagree with that in general when somebody's running in prison, but whatever. 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, you know what the laws are on the books

• 1:14:46Speaker 02

  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 based on the 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.

• 1:15:00Speaker 01

  Well, yeah, they're engaging as though, as, as it's a hypothetical. If this is hypothetically true, then X.

• 1:15:06Speaker 02

  So they're saying all of these charges-

• 1:15:07Speaker 01

  I'm not disputing any of that.

• 1:15:08Speaker 02

  So that's where you're asking why you're saying, could they just put up-

• 1:15:10Speaker 01

  No, what I'm asking specifically is like, who could shut, 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, 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.

• 1:15:47Speaker 02

  Well, you didn't do that. There's no reason we're here.

• 1:15:49Speaker 01

  Wait a second. I just, I just want to make sure that I got this right. That's your argument to me, right?

• 1:15:55Speaker 02

  My argument to you is what? Sorry.

• 1:15:56Speaker 01

  My argument, your argument to me is that, "Hey, wait a second, Andrew. There's not enough here that convinces me," right?

• 1:16:04Speaker 02

  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 by the way, I want to be clear-

• 1:16:29Speaker 01

  That which convinces me.

• 1:16:30Speaker 02

  What, yeah, well, but thus far, every, every point that you've brought up, every point that you've brought up, would you, did you feel like this is beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, you, you realize he's-

• 1:16:41Speaker 01

  I remember what I said in my opening.

• 1:16:42Speaker 02

  He's going to be-

• 1:16:42Speaker 01

  It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just what I find convincing is what I find overwhelming.

• 1:16:48Speaker 02

  So why are you so upset when people say they don't find it convincing?

• 1:16:51Speaker 01

  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'd 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,

• 1:17:34Speaker 01

  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 wackadoo stuff, or 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,

• 1:18:16Speaker 01

  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.

• 1:18:31Speaker 02

  Okay. Um, I'm 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. But beyond that, what I'm 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 still legal, you actually, you can, you are allowed to do that. So, 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.

• 1:19:05Speaker 01

  That's not the case. In fact,

• 1:19:07Speaker 02

  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.

• 1:19:19Speaker 01

  That's propositionally false. And I'll explain, I'll 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 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.

• 1:19:53Speaker 02

  That you felt like you were convinced.

• 1:19:54Speaker 01

  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.

• 1:20:23Speaker 00

  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.

• 1:20:34Speaker 02

  They did not. That's not true.

• 1:20:36Speaker 01

  Wait a second.

• 1:20:37Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:20:37Speaker 01

  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.

• 1:20:49Speaker 02

  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 entire, and we can pull this up, like, we should now play the Kathy Nester clip, because that's from there. So, and they were basically saying, you don't need it at this stage, meaning it's, 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, things of that nature. But of course, by the time a trial comes, you're going to get all the discovery documents. Yes. So that's what they're saying.

• 1:21:16Speaker 01

  Yeah, I understand.

• 1:21:16Speaker 02

  Okay, so that's not.

• 1:21:17Speaker 01

  And I'm even, and I'm even fine with it.

• 1:21:18Speaker 02

  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, um, I don't remember how much it was. It was an absurd amount of stuff that they gave to them right after the preliminary 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? Because I feel like you, it's like, I want to hear what they have to say about the tech messages. I want, why can't you just give them what they're asking for, so that they can actually engage you? And 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,

• 1:22:03Speaker 01

  Because it's a show cause.

• 1:22:05Speaker 02

  The preliminary, yeah.

• 1:22:05Speaker 00

  Would you like to play the Kathy video?

• 1:22:07Speaker 02

  Uh, well, he's saying he's not disagreeing, so I don't think we need to.

• 1:22:10Speaker 01

  There's no, 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.

• 1:22:24Speaker 02

  Why are we having a transcendental conversation now? Because, I mean, first, because your, 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.

• 1:22:39Speaker 01

  You told me that I could take as much time as I wanted to question you on these things.

• 1:22:42Speaker 02

  I'm just asking you to, just to lay the groundwork of what you're saying is problematic, that you decide 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,

• 1:22:53Speaker 01

  And you can hold me to those things, but I would like to get into the things that you've said.

• 1:22:56Speaker 02

  The screwdriver as well.

• 1:22:57Speaker 01

  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.

• 1:23:32Speaker 02

  Well, just to be clear, and I'm happy 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,

• 1:23:41Speaker 01

  This is the major substance.

• 1:23:42Speaker 02

  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.

• 1:23:51Speaker 01

  You don't find convincing. I get it.

• 1:23:53Speaker 02

  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 prints was, I don't know. Okay, well, there, then, there lies my ability to process that.

• 1:24:05Speaker 01

  It's just fine for you to not be convinced up to this point, all of your viewers, everybody watching, nobody's giving,

• 1:24:14Speaker 02

  You're conceding.

• 1:24:15Speaker 01

  Nobody's giving a dispute that if all your claims ever were, 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.

• 1:24:39Speaker 02

  Okay, yeah, I mean, sure. I do doubt, I do 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,

• 1:24:51Speaker 01

  Like to talk about all of it.

• 1:24:52Speaker 02

  And get into it. I'm totally happy to do that. But I just want to say that, like, I do not feel, because 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.

• 1:25:07Speaker 00

  Candace, question for you.

• 1:25:08Speaker 01

  What I am sorry, you feel that way.

• 1:25:11Speaker 00

  Candace, one question. What, what evidence do you need to see for you to say Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk?

• 1:25:17Speaker 02

  That's a great question. Um, so I actually expected in this preliminary hearing, actually, the, almost the 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 him on camera taking the shot. We, at least, we have him 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, because I had reported early on, that, uh, the source was saying that

• 1:25:58Speaker 02

  Tyler did not step foot on campus that day. It is my perspective that he had something to do with something. I do believe he was putting, like, disposing clothes 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 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 Twiggs'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

• 1:26:42Speaker 02

  was waiting for that. A photo, I mean, anything. Would it maybe go, all right, I think this, this could be the guy. Uh, if they had handed over the discovery on the tech messages, since that was their big, ta-da, 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. Because 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

• 1:27:26Speaker 02

  wasn't a band, we know, 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.

• 1:28:07Speaker 02

  And by the way, that's not an acceptable answer for why you just gave it back. That's not, that's 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 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 know, 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.

• 1:28:48Speaker 02

  When you learn that the car that they carried Charlie in to go to the hospital, they had immediately towed, cleaned and backed up for resale, that's absurd. That should be sitting in evidence and any police officer that you speak to will say, or a person that's been involved in a crime will say, I didn't get my stuff back for years. It 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 crucifix. That's, that should be in evidence. Irrespective if you feel bad for her and think she should have, you know, have it and it's sweet, that should be in evidence.

• 1:29:33Speaker 02

  Immediately paving over the crime scene? Is this like the craziest thing ever? It's like defines 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 paver emergency. And I don't, I've never in my entire career heard of a paver 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 washed their hands of it. And what he's saying sounds true because we heard during the testimony, one person described the regions of who was in control of everything.

• 1:30:18Speaker 02

  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 in 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, you know, the various decoys, I did it, I did it. It just doesn't look right.

• 1:30:46Speaker 00

  Okay. So go back to the question. So what would you need to see for you to say?

• 1:30:51Speaker 02

  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 where I'm like, that's definitively Tyler Robinson and he was on campus. We got nothing. We got literally nothing but hearsay of people saying.

• 1:31:04Speaker 01

  But you basically get in no case.

• 1:31:06Speaker 02

  What?

• 1:31:07Speaker 01

  Basically no case on planet earth. You get the, oh, we got a picture. Here's him with the murder weapon. Here's him taking the shot.

• 1:31:12Speaker 02

  Most, most of this doesn't take place on a college campus that has surveillance everywhere.

• 1:31:16Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:31:17Speaker 02

  One clear image of his.

• 1:31:18Speaker 01

  But I understand when you're asked.

• 1:31:19Speaker 02

  His car plates.

• 1:31:20Speaker 01

  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 take to convince you that the oppositionals?

• 1:31:29Speaker 00

  Patsy.

• 1:31:30Speaker 01

  Right? That he's a patsy 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 patsy. That's what it would take for me.

• 1:31:45Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:31:46Speaker 01

  Just a good.

• 1:31:47Speaker 02

  I don't disagree with that. We haven't heard the defense respond.

• 1:31:49Speaker 01

  Just a good evidentiary standard. And then of course I would change my mind.

• 1:31:52Speaker 00

  So, so 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 yesterday.

• 1:32:01Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:32:02Speaker 00

  I think it's very important for the audience here that for you.

• 1:32:03Speaker 02

  Without question.

• 1:32:04Speaker 00

  For you, is there anything that you could see for you to say, yeah, this guy was a patsy?

• 1:32:07Speaker 01

  Of course, 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 if, answer 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 legitimate investigation. Now, I'm not even saying anybody here is purposely flooding the zone. That's not even the claim.

• 1:32:47Speaker 01

  All I'm saying is, is that the claims made absent, absent, oh, 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?

• 1:33:06Speaker 00

  You want to get into it? Would you guys like to take an ad break?

• 1:33:08Speaker 02

  We'll take an ad break.

• 1:33:09Speaker 00

  And then we'll talk Erica Kirk and TPUSA.

• 1:33:11Speaker 01

  And, and the conspiracies that have been conjectured by Candace Owens in regards to this case and the Charlie Kirk assassination.

• 1:33:18Speaker 00

  Perfect. Folks, we'll take a three and a half minute break and we'll be back soon.

• 1:33:21Speaker 02

  All right, you guys, you have probably seen all the buzz around.

• 1:33:24Speaker 00

  To create a shoe that blends comfort, function and luxury. We had the choice to make it fast. We had the choice to make it cheap. We chose neither. Instead, we chose Tuscanyero. We chose true Italian craftsmanship. Each pair touched by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail, and we chose the finest quality at every step. Introducing the Future Looks Bright Collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary, rather intentional, luxurious, timeless.

• 1:34:03Speaker 00

  The beautiful thing about these events, you know how quickly it goes? Like this. Is everybody ready to get started?

• 1:34:25Speaker 03

  I've helped over 10,000 business owners grow and scale their companies. I'm just passionate about watching entrepreneurs create great business.

• 1:34:36Speaker 04

  When you get guys like Jerry Rice, that was his work ethic. We were able to do some great things on the football field.

• 1:34:44Speaker 05

  The single most important trait I had was a healthy dose of delusion. And that delusion is sometimes also referred to as self-belief.

• 1:34:50Speaker 06

  When I can do something that I love, that is good for business and that I can make content out of, that's my trifecta.

• 1:35:00Speaker 07

  Hey, guys and gals, Vincent O'Shaughnessy here. My Faith Over Fear line is taking off and it's all thanks to you. We've got hats, shirts, hoodies, you name it. We also got branded designs and new apparel dropping all the time. So if you want to rock some Faith Over Fear gear, hit the QR code on the screen or click

• 1:35:45Speaker 07

  on the link in the description. And remember guys, if you have true faith in God, you have absolutely nothing to fear. God bless and the future looks bright.

• 1:35:52Speaker 00

  Many times when people think about Valuetainment, all they think about is a podcast, but it's a lot more than that. It's nine companies working together on an 11 acre campus. If I was to give you a virtual tour here, you'll see the HR department hiring, talent acquisition. We have full stack developers that are working on Manac and HireMetrix. We have a full fledged events team that puts together events with thousands of people. We have a merch department designing the latest product. We just launched the FLB shoes made in Italy. We have a marketing department. And if you go to the complete opposite side of the building, 50, 60 people making calls, working for Bedivin Consulting, sales, setters. And then on the complete opposite side of the campus, there's a full on production company with editors, shooters, creating content, doing podcasts.

• 1:36:34Speaker 00

  Then you can drive down a couple of miles and go to our private boardroom cigar lounge with members only. Regardless of what it is, working at Valuetainment, every day is a surprise. You could be walking into work and right next to you is a governor, is a billionaire, is an athlete. We are hiring aggressively, but Valuetainment isn't for everybody. For the right person, this could be the last company you ever work for. So if you're watching this and you want to learn more, go to vt.com/curious and apply now.

• 1:37:06Speaker 00

  Okay, so we're officially back. 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?

• 1:37:15Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:37:16Speaker 00

  Okay, beautiful. You take the lead. Go for it.

• 1:37:18Speaker 01

  Yeah, so I have a bunch of questions for you, and I want to make it super painless, right? So, no traps, no gotchas. I'm just gonna 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.

• 1:37:42Speaker 02

  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.

• 1:38:07Speaker 01

  I'm not deposing you, I just want to ask you some questions.

• 1:38:09Speaker 02

  But you literally said that I want to be able to question you.

• 1:38:12Speaker 01

  Well, this is a meta-conversation.

• 1:38:14Speaker 02

  Right, but, okay, so now we're transcending, like, I was 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 of a-

• 1:38:23Speaker 01

  So, am I allowed to ask the questions?

• 1:38:25Speaker 02

  I'm go, I've already said, you can ask questions, but I made it very clear to you via email and with you in conversation, that we should be speaking. This isn't like you get to sit-

• 1:38:36Speaker 01

  Yeah, I know, but I want to, I want to ask you some questions.

• 1:38:37Speaker 02

  If you want to depose me, you should join Brigitte Macron's defense team, but you're like, I'm just gonna ask questions, can you answer it? Blah, blah. It's like, I don't know what you're going to ask, I'm going to answer as I see fit, because I'm not-

• 1:38:48Speaker 01

  I get it. I get it.

• 1:38:49Speaker 02

  Yeah, okay, just so we're clear.

• 1:38:50Speaker 01

  Usually in the debate, if something's not loaded, I'm just direct with the question.

• 1:38:54Speaker 02

  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 transcendentals.

• 1:38:59Speaker 01

  Yeah, okay, anyway, so, direct question, super easy. Was Lance Twiggs DNA on the rifle, as far as you know?

• 1:39:05Speaker 02

  We can't say that for certainty.

• 1:39:07Speaker 01

  As far as you know?

• 1:39:08Speaker 02

  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.

• 1:39:13Speaker 01

  So, no, as far as you know?

• 1:39:15Speaker 02

  We can't say that for certainty until we know what other the five sets of prints were on there.

• 1:39:19Speaker 01

  So, that would be no, as far as you know?

• 1:39:20Speaker 02

  We can't say that for certainty.

• 1:39:22Speaker 01

  You can say no, as far as I know, for certain?

• 1:39:24Speaker 02

  Uh, we can't say that for certainty. Actually, I have, just so you know, if you're, 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 gonna come up against the wall. I'm familiar with this debate strategy.

• 1:39:37Speaker 01

  But I am just telling you.

• 1:39:38Speaker 02

  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-

• 1:39:44Speaker 01

  No, we're still definitely debating. This is still-

• 1:39:46Speaker 02

  No, it's not a debate. Now, 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 gonna go, like, you're, you're sitting and I'm on trial, I'm not on trial.

• 1:39:58Speaker 01

  Okay, great. So, let's talk about the, um, let's talk about the French, let's talk about the Foreign Legion.

• 1:40:04Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 1:40:05Speaker 01

  Was the Foreign Legion, do you believe, trying to kill you?

• 1:40:06Speaker 02

  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.

• 1:40:16Speaker 01

  What's your best piece of evidence for that?

• 1:40:17Speaker 02

  Well, it was-

• 1:40:19Speaker 01

  Positive evidence?

• 1:40:20Speaker 02

  It was told to me by somebody who was 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. And that's all I can tell you. I wouldn't be able to probe any evidence because I don't have the power to do that, I'm not 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 Emmanuel Macron's bank accounts and say whether or not the information-

• 1:40:55Speaker 01

  I agree.

• 1:40:56Speaker 02

  But then you go, well, where's your evidence? It's like, well, my evidence is that I reported it. I did the right thing that you're gonna 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 gonna do now is I'm gonna 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.

• 1:41:19Speaker 01

  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.

• 1:41:23Speaker 02

  And that's why I say I want 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 gonna go and bring up everything that I think can try to embarrass her. I reported exactly as I received it.

• 1:41:35Speaker 01

  I'm not trying to embarrass you, I just want to make sure that I get your positions clear.

• 1:41:38Speaker 02

  I have not said, yeah, go ahead.

• 1:41:39Speaker 01

  Now, you have stated multiple times that you believe that Israel's involved in the death of Charlie Kirk.

• 1:41:44Speaker 02

  Can you give me-

• 1:41:45Speaker 01

  Yes, we can pull up the clip. I'm sorry, I'm just saying.

• 1:41:48Speaker 02

  Can I finish the sentence?

• 1:41:49Speaker 01

  Go ahead.

• 1:41:50Speaker 02

  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's involved? Okay, where's your question?

• 1:41:59Speaker 01

  Yeah, do you have any positive evidence whatsoever that Israel killed Charlie Kirk?

• 1:42:03Speaker 02

  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 is a convincing motive, 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, because, you know-

• 1:42:40Speaker 01

  Yeah, but do you have positive evidence?

• 1:42:42Speaker 02

  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, pepper questions and tell me-

• 1:42:47Speaker 01

  But the question I'm asking is about positive evidence.

• 1:42:48Speaker 02

  I'm 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.

• 1:43:03Speaker 01

  Sure.

• 1:43:04Speaker 02

  And he was starting to realize how much pressure was being put on not just our government to constantly fight their wars, but also being put on his organization personally. If people had come out and been honest about that, 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.

• 1:43:27Speaker 01

  I understand.

• 1:43:28Speaker 02

  And then there was the rabid, I mean, not even that, it's like, everything was about trying to convince the public how much he liked, he loved Israel.

• 1:43:33Speaker 01

  So, then other than intuition, how you feel about things, do you have any evidence Israel was involved in killing Charlie Kirk?

• 1:43:38Speaker 02

  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 Israelis, there were also, you know, obviously Joe Kent-

• 1:43:50Speaker 01

  I mean, Ian Carroll made the claim.

• 1:43:51Speaker 02

  Well, Joe Kent, who I think would have the right to assert it, 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, kind of denying that he did it, which wasn't really necessary, he was quite busy, the phone call that happened, which no one wants to discuss, in the Hamptons, the week prior, or not the week prior, I think it was 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

• 1:44:34Speaker 02

  Israeli angle in this. 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 pulled.

• 1:44:45Speaker 01

  There's no positive evidence.

• 1:44:46Speaker 02

  I, whatever you want to say, however, positive, negative, however you want to say it, I don't need to, I can just have a conversation.

• 1:44:52Speaker 01

  Well, like, positive evidence would be material evidence and other evidences which would point you to it.

• 1:44:56Speaker 02

  What we've said is, on our show is what we've said, which is, we, this feels like a conspiracy building, there's no reason to lie about these things, and yet people are lying, BBA ain't acting right, the Hamptons thing was weird, and the way they tried to shove the Israel narrative down our throat immediately, I mean, the day he died, posting a picture of him with an American and Israeli AI'd photo on the president's feed, doesn't feel right, so.

• 1:45:21Speaker 01

  Do you have any evidence that Erica Kirk or TPUSA participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?

• 1:45:26Speaker 02

  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?

• 1:45:32Speaker 01

  Okay, so then you don't believe that they did?

• 1:45:35Speaker 02

  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.

• 1:45:42Speaker 01

  Okay, fair.

• 1:45:43Speaker 00

  Your team is sending messages in the back saying they have a video they want to play.

• 1:45:47Speaker 01

  Okay, go ahead.

• 1:45:48Speaker 00

  I don't know what the video is.

• 1:45:54Speaker 00

  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?

• 1:46:04Speaker 01

  Yep.

• 1:46:05Speaker 02

  Yeah. He said evidence that they killed him. I said there This is why people think there involvement.

• 1:46:11Speaker 00

  If they have the clip, they can play the clip. They're referring to a clip.

• 1:46:14Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:46:19Speaker 02

  Via who?

• 1:46:21Speaker 02

  My guess is Pierre. Erica. 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 I'm going to put that out there with full confidence. I also

• 1:46:42Speaker 01

  I understand.

• 1:46:42Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:46:43Speaker 01

  So you think you with full confidence, you think that

• 1:46:46Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think Israel's involved. Yeah, I mean, the person that gave me that thing that I reported said that 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 the United States government.

• 1:47:03Speaker 01

  Positive evidence of that.

• 1:47:04Speaker 02

  I don't, can you just stop? It's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying positive evidence. I've just asked me what I think. I've just tell you, yes, I think they are involved. No, I said, here's what, here's what I think.

• 1:47:16Speaker 01

  I have every right to ask you about your claim.

• 1:47:18Speaker 02

  Yeah, but I said In this statement, I literally just said, I think, and I am allowed to think.

• 1:47:24Speaker 01

  Yeah, you're allowed to think, but you're making a claim.

• 1:47:26Speaker 02

  I have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think.

• 1:47:29Speaker 01

  I agree, you're allowed to think.

• 1:47:30Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 1:47:31Speaker 01

  Nobody's disputing whether or not Candace Owens is allowed to think. What I'm asking is if you have positive

• 1:47:35Speaker 02

  What is your issue with the statement? I think that Israel is involved.

• 1:47:40Speaker 01

  That's not what, that's not just what you said. You said

• 1:47:43Speaker 02

  I did say I think.

• 1:47:44Speaker 01

  It's with full confidence.

• 1:47:46Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:47:47Speaker 01

  You would think that if you had full confidence.

• 1:47:49Speaker 02

  To think when you think.

• 1:47:50Speaker 01

  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 five.

• 1:48:00Speaker 02

  Andrew, Andrew.

• 1:48:01Speaker 01

  That's how you would know whether or not you had full confidence.

• 1:48:03Speaker 02

  Something.

• 1:48:04Speaker 01

  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 evidence?

• 1:48:31Speaker 02

  I actually don't have to walk you through why I think. 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 allowed to think that.

• 1:48:44Speaker 01

  This debate.

• 1:48:45Speaker 02

  It's not exactly pertinent to this debate. It's not pertinent because our debate claims

• 1:48:49Speaker 01

  Claims made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. That's the complete substance of the debate.

• 1:48:54Speaker 02

  No, actually, would you like to remind him of what our debate claims actually were?

• 1:48:57Speaker 01

  Would you like to remind that you said, I could ask you about any of these things to my heart's content?

• 1:49:01Speaker 02

  But you didn't, you do not get to structure how I'm allowed to reply or ask me, why are you allowed to think?

• 1:49:06Speaker 01

  You're allowed to reply. I'm just asking you direct questions.

• 1:49:08Speaker 02

  My, I have full confidence that you do not feel that you represented your claim well. And so now what you came prepared to do is to present yourself like a professor of fallacies.

• 1:49:19Speaker 01

  Want to know.

• 1:49:20Speaker 02

  And to say, you are not allowed to say that. You can't.

• 1:49:22Speaker 01

  You can say whatever you want.

• 1:49:24Speaker 02

  Well.

• 1:49:24Speaker 01

  Nobody's disputing that. I'm asking.

• 1:49:26Speaker 02

  You are disputing it.

• 1:49:27Speaker 01

  I'm asking specifically why you think that.

• 1:49:29Speaker 02

  I've already explained to you, I explained at the beginning of this, why I think Israel is ultimately going to be proven to have involvement in this. 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.

• 1:49:51Speaker 01

  Don't you think that like tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people would want to know what Candace Owens positive evidence for why it is?

• 1:49:59Speaker 02

  No.

• 1:49:59Speaker 01

  That Israel and France were involved in the most traumatic public assassination of Gen Z's lifetime is?

• 1:50:06Speaker 02

  That's why they watch my podcast.

• 1:50:07Speaker 01

  So you're just going to drip to them? Like, here's why I think that?

• 1:50:11Speaker 02

  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 Candace, where's your evidence for France doing this? I just told you someone who was high ranking in the French government, right?

• 1:50:25Speaker 01

  Who's nameless.

• 1:50:26Speaker 02

  Of course.

• 1:50:27Speaker 01

  Of course.

• 1:50:28Speaker 02

  Of course.

• 1:50:28Speaker 01

  Of course. So there's good reason to doubt this.

• 1:50:31Speaker 02

  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'd 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 to me.

• 1:50:42Speaker 01

  Well, that's not what I'm probing specifically.

• 1:50:44Speaker 02

  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 gonna, what, regulate what I, how I'm allowed to say?

• 1:50:53Speaker 01

  Nope, I'm not trying to regulate anything. I'm asking very pertinent questions.

• 1:50:56Speaker 02

  A bit like a professor trying to regulate and say, Candace.

• 1:50:59Speaker 01

  You sound very defensive and like you just don't want to answer questions.

• 1:51:02Speaker 02

  I did answer your question three times. I just didn't say it in the way that you wanted me to say it.

• 1:51:06Speaker 01

  Officate and you run away from it, but I would like for you to actually focus on it.

• 1:51:09Speaker 02

  Every clip that you guys have prepared because I, it's pretty, 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.

• 1:51:19Speaker 01

  Sure. They can pull up whatever clips they want.

• 1:51:21Speaker 02

  Whatever it is that you guys have prepared.

• 1:51:22Speaker 01

  But there, but 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.

• 1:51:30Speaker 02

  I think in the end.

• 1:51:31Speaker 01

  And you have no evidence for it at all that you'll give us.

• 1:51:33Speaker 02

  Well, the high, I already did tell you where it came from. Like I said, I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

• 1:51:40Speaker 01

  Did that same higher up tell you that he was going to kill, that France killed Charlie Kirk or just that you were in danger?

• 1:51:45Speaker 02

  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.

• 1:51:51Speaker 00

  Candace, just out of curiosity, when you passed down that message to a Tulsi or Trump?

• 1:51:56Speaker 02

  Tulsi's office, yes.

• 1:51:57Speaker 00

  Tulsi's office. Are you giving them who told you that? Or you're just saying, here's what I heard from somebody?

• 1:52:04Speaker 02

  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, maybe they're not the correct office too. I did receive a response From Tulsi Gabbard's office, but I, I don't think there was ever any investigation into what I said.

• 1:52:24Speaker 00

  So the call was, hey, I've been told some, the email.

• 1:52:28Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:52:28Speaker 00

  Email was, I've been told.

• 1:52:30Speaker 02

  I have information, yeah, that, that, that the French Foreign Legion was on the ground during Charlie's assassination.

• 1:52:38Speaker 02

  And that, I mean, it was a lot of information, but like

• 1:52:42Speaker 00

  Well, you didn't give specifics who it was from.

• 1:52:44Speaker 02

  Not in the first email, because I figured they would like, yeah.

• 1:52:46Speaker 00

  So if they do contact you, are you comfortable giving 100% who it is?

• 1:52:51Speaker 02

  I would absolutely give them as much information as possible.

• 1:52:54Speaker 00

  If whoever's the US government, why are you not?

• 1:52:57Speaker 02

  Yes, it's very strange to me.

• 1:52:58Speaker 00

  You know, so if that's the case, now they may respond back and say, we did, you know, that's their position.

• 1:53:04Speaker 02

  That's why I did it in writing.

• 1:53:05Speaker 00

  And so I'm glad that's the case because, so, so if they do ask you.

• 1:53:10Speaker 02

  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

• 1:53:15Speaker 00

  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?

• 1:53:27Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:53:27Speaker 00

  Okay. I mean, that's

• 1:53:28Speaker 02

  It seems reasonable. And so why he's asking me to defend that is like

• 1:53:31Speaker 01

  I'm not, never did.

• 1:53:33Speaker 00

  I think those are two different things. That's more something I was interested in. Why are they not reaching out to you?

• 1:53:37Speaker 02

  I've asked that many times on my podcast.

• 1:53:40Speaker 00

  What do you think about that, Andrew?

• 1:53:42Speaker 01

  What?

• 1:53:43Speaker 00

  The fact that she emailed, she gave it, and nobody reached out to want to contact the source that she's willing to share.

• 1:53:48Speaker 01

  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.

• 1:53:57Speaker 00

  Is it fair to say that this is maybe a different individual? Because this is a person that was involved? With TPUSA had a relationship with Charlie? No, no, her. Relationship. Like, this isn't just anybody. So if an average person sends it, yes.

• 1:54:11Speaker 01

  Yeah, but I mean, we don't know who the source is. We don't know any of this.

• 1:54:15Speaker 00

  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?

• 1:54:21Speaker 01

  There's no guarantee they didn't look into it. How do we know?

• 1:54:24Speaker 02

  How could they? They didn't come get the information, more of the information, because it was a long file.

• 1:54:30Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:54:30Speaker 00

  This is a separate, this has got nothing to do with the debate. This is more on, on

• 1:54:34Speaker 02

  Well, I just, I sent the email, assuming that's, you're 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 information? We're investigating this. And that didn't happen, which is what I raised.

• 1:54:44Speaker 01

  No, I'm asking, did you send the source of the claim?

• 1:54:46Speaker 02

  At a time where they were saying that they wanted to explore every possible lead with, I even texted Dan Bongino. So actually, it was three, it was three offices.

• 1:54:54Speaker 00

  Let me ask one question.

• 1:54:55Speaker 02

  Executive office, Dan Bongino, and the, and Tulsi Gabbard's office.

• 1:55:01Speaker 00

  Okay, so a follow up to that is the following. If they contact you to say, is that specifically to the French government or Israel's involvement in the killing of Charlie Kirk?

• 1:55:11Speaker 02

  That wasn't about Israel.

• 1:55:12Speaker 00

  Those are two separate things.

• 1:55:13Speaker 02

  That wasn't about Israel. It was, they were saying the French Foreign, that person as a part of it was saying that it was the French Foreign Legion that was on the ground that day.

• 1:55:19Speaker 00

  I'm surprised that I'm called you.

• 1:55:20Speaker 02

  Then I find that to be very strange too.

• 1:55:21Speaker 00

  I do as well.

• 1:55:22Speaker 02

  Because who would want to make a report? Like, I mean, I've never made a report with the federal government.

• 1:55:26Speaker 00

  Let me ask one question.

• 1:55:27Speaker 01

  But when he did send it.

• 1:55:28Speaker 00

  Let me just ask one question and I'm, I'm going to bring it to you.

• 1:55:31Speaker 01

  Sure.

• 1:55:31Speaker 00

  The question is, in regards to, I've not seen that clip, so I'm seeing it now. The full, I'm full confidence, I believe that Israel, French was involved. Is that also based on a source that somebody told you that Israel was involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk? Or is that a gut feeling?

• 1:55:49Speaker 02

  So in terms of Israel, I mean, what I've said is what I publicly have said here. I do think that At the end of this, we are going to find that Israel was involved. I do. Now, when, in terms of any of the hard evidence that's been presented, I think this has been a huge problem that a lot of us have had, has have had, is that They won't even explore anything else that was going on in Charlie's, Charlie's life personally. So if we're not satisfied that Tyler Robinson did this in any way, Then every alternative theory should be explored. Other evidence should be brought forward. We've done that in our, in our capacity. Like when people keep saying she has no evidence, it's kind of crazy. I think we've broken like more stories than any news source in the world. I mean, down to pictures, Details, police officers, what the dog's name was, because we're not, we're not the only people that believe there's a conspiracy here.

• 1:56:34Speaker 02

  The police officers that are, were involved, the many police sheriff's offices That were departments that were involved that day, all believed there was a conspiracy, down to the US Marshals believed there was a conspiracy. They were, My sources at the US Marshals were saying they were basically sent on a wild goose chase that day.

• 1:56:50Speaker 01

  But do you see how you say my sources?

• 1:56:53Speaker 02

  You're not allowed to have sources?

• 1:56:54Speaker 01

  Well, the thing is funny.

• 1:56:55Speaker 02

  So is CNN allowed to have sources?

• 1:56:56Speaker 01

  Well, hang on, I have sources. If I said, I have sources that claim none of that's true. In fact, my sources claim that her sources are lying. My sources claim that there is, none of them believe that there's a conspiracy. My sources claim, all of them really think that Tyler Robinson was a lone gunman. If I just said that as hypothetical, wouldn't you say, what?

• 1:57:14Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think what probably adds weight is like then when I drop photos of the car that no one was supposed to see, people go, okay, her sources are legit. So, um, and then when what I say is then proven in court and nobody knew those things, uh, people are recognizing that my sources are legit. When I say Charlie, uh, was scared in the, in the last days, and then I dropped the text message, which you've just learned about a couple of weeks ago, of him saying he was leaving, leaving the pro Israel cause when everyone was lying about that, then they say, I think Candace's sources are legit. So I think what's happened is I've actually built up a rapport with my audience that it's not vibes and dreams. And that's why they keep watching my content because I, like, for example, when I just the other day released the content of the shooter on the roof, uh, doing the lateral crawl, then they're going, I don't think these are just vibes. It seems like Candace's sources are legit.

• 1:57:59Speaker 02

  So I've proven myself in the market.

• 1:58:01Speaker 01

  Yeah, I'm not sure that that would legitimize your sources as being legitimate when it comes to the idea that, oh, they all believe that there's a conspiracy going on, which is actually what your claim is now. How would that actually? Hang on, hang on, I'm almost done.

• 1:58:14Speaker 02

  I'm not, I'm talking to PBD.

• 1:58:15Speaker 01

  How would that legitimize? Well, it's not his debate. How would he, how would it legitimize these sources that even if it's the case that you get some court footage or some things like this, why would it legitimize that your sources are telling you all the marshals believe it's a conspiracy, all the police believe it's a conspiracy, everybody believes it? How would that legitimize any of that?

• 1:58:33Speaker 02

  Well, what I am saying to you, and you are not, you are not forced to believe it. So let me just explain what I was answering here, and I think that you understood what I was saying, um, is I have, because people trust me, uh, compiled a lot of information and presented it to the public, and this information has been, uh, proven true. We've presented photos, we have presented videos, never before seen stuff, the public has never seen it. And so what that does is your audience goes, okay, when she says that she has these sources, clearly she's telling the truth. Now, whether you would then go, well, I'm going to believe her when she says they don't believe, they think that there's a conspiracy, that's up to you. You cannot watch my content. I'm, I'm not here to tell you that you have to watch my content or believe everything I'm saying.

• 1:59:13Speaker 01

  Well, don't you think questioners should get questioned as well?

• 1:59:19Speaker 02

  By who? I'm not committing a crime, am I? Am I just like saying what I think and collecting evidence?

• 1:59:23Speaker 01

  Well, I mean, aren't most of the people you ask questions of not actually committing crimes?

• 1:59:25Speaker 02

  But what do you mean they should answer questions where? Like at a police station?

• 1:59:28Speaker 01

  No, just like if you're, if you want people to come in and answer questions for you. I have questions about this and the investigation. I have questions about this, I have questions about that. You want them to answer your questions. Doesn't it seem totally fair that you answer back the questions people have for you?

• 1:59:43Speaker 02

  Well, they're not answering our questions, so it's also fair that they don't answer them.

• 1:59:47Speaker 01

  So yours, okay.

• 1:59:48Speaker 02

  That's why I said Andrew Colvett should be in this chair. He's not, that's his prerogative.

• 1:59:51Speaker 01

  But isn't that a double standard?

• 1:59:52Speaker 02

  No, it's not, because he's not doing it.

• 1:59:53Speaker 01

  Yeah, but what, that would still be a double standard. If you're, if you're requesting that he does do it, then that seems to infer that you think he owes you answers.

• 2:00:00Speaker 02

  Oh, so inferences are allowed again?

• 2:00:01Speaker 01

  And they never weren't. So that seems to infer that you think that he owes you answers. If that's the case, then don't you owe answers?

• 2:00:08Speaker 02

  Yeah, well, I feel like I'm answering your questions and his questions about, I mean, I'm, I'm talking about Andrew Colvett. He is, his position is he's a spokesperson for Turning Point USA. So when the crowd turns against Turning Point USA on the basis of a lack of information or because there has been, I don't know, seeds sown of distrust, I would imagine, uh, and forget answering my questions, because I, it doesn't need to be me.

• 2:00:32Speaker 01

  Aren't you sowing a lot of those seeds of distrust?

• 2:00:34Speaker 02

  Well, I, I think they're doing a pretty good job themselves, if I'm being honest. Uh, you can blame it on Candace all you want.

• 2:00:39Speaker 01

  Well, you know, the thing is funny is like.

• 2:00:41Speaker 02

  People act like I'm, I'm ground zero.

• 2:00:42Speaker 01

  I'll be fair with you.

• 2:00:43Speaker 02

  Ground zero of people not trusting Turning Point USA.

• 2:00:46Speaker 01

  I think that there was some PR there. I think there was some PR there, sure, they could have done better. Absolutely, I'm not disputing any of that. One thing though, that I am, I, I want to just directly ask you is, do you actually believe that anybody in TPUSA or Erica Kirk or Erica actually participated, had foreknowledge of, or facilitated the murder of Charlie Kirk?

• 2:01:09Speaker 02

  I'm not going to get myself into a legal pickle here. Everything I've said is on my podcast. I think, I think firmly that if I was the investigating officers, I would, I would seat them all and I would ask questions. I would, at this phase, I would.

• 2:01:27Speaker 01

  Okay, well, what does that mean? Does that mean that you do think so?

• 2:01:31Speaker 02

  I, I think it was not a sufficient investigation into what is, what we know to be true of 80% of homicides. It's usually conducted by someone you know, right? And the fact that that was never even considered, that the, like I said earlier, the backpack was returned.

• 2:01:47Speaker 01

  How do you know that was never considered?

• 2:01:49Speaker 02

  Because they gave back the backpack, as, as just one example, uh, they gave back the backpack, they gave back the, um.

• 2:01:57Speaker 01

  That doesn't show a conspiracy.

• 2:01:59Speaker 02

  Well, I mean, it shows that the police trusted everybody and didn't just hold things up for a second.

• 2:02:04Speaker 01

  Yeah, they ruled them out as suspects.

• 2:02:06Speaker 02

  That quickly? I, I, I'm not comfortable with that investigation. It's a pretty big organization. There's a hundred million dollar incentive, people, this is.

• 2:02:12Speaker 01

  What hundred million dollar incentive?

• 2:02:13Speaker 02

  What I'm saying is his organization, like it had grown to, I think it was a hundred and a hundred.

• 2:02:17Speaker 00

  Plus per year.

• 2:02:18Speaker 02

  Yeah, per year, if that's something you want to add.

• 2:02:20Speaker 00

  Yeah, but what was the? Your team wants to play video, if you don't mind. There's a, there's a video they want to play of, uh, Candace said it's impossible to not believe Erica's complicit, if you guys want to play that video.

• 2:02:31Speaker 02

  And so right now, their guys are going out and they're going to look for evidence, and then by May, which is fortunately around the corner, then she'll see what they found. So what the F is that performance? How could you sit up there and say, I, I, yes, I 100% believe Tyler Robinson did it?

• 2:02:54Speaker 02

  That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erica Kirk is not complicit somehow, because what?

• 2:03:02Speaker 01

  That, those two thoughts actually don't even follow. How would it be the case that even if Erica Kirk did believe that Tyler Robinson was 100% responsible for the death of Charlie Kirk? Let's just say she believed it with every fiber of her being, believed all the evidence, because she did, she just actually did. Would it then follow that somehow she's complicit in his death?

• 2:03:24Speaker 02

  I didn't say implicit in death. You added those two words.

• 2:03:27Speaker 01

  Okay, it's what she complicit in?

• 2:03:29Speaker 02

  Yes, so sowing this narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty. So you're chopping up clips, like I said, you didn't have the confidence coming into debate, so now you're chopping it up.

• 2:03:36Speaker 01

  Okay, well, tell me, what does that mean?

• 2:03:37Speaker 02

  We are showing a clip of her on Barry Weiss, which I can't remember the date that she did that interview. Uh, and Erica, when she is asked, are you, you know, do you, do you feel with 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson did, did this? And she says, I do. Then, again, context matters, I sit down with Erica for four hours, under the assumption that she had some evidence, right? Like, like, I'm like, I actually, this is why I did not engage in any, like, Erica, everyone's questioning what she's wearing and all this stuff. I was like, I'm going to wait here because, I don't know, just it feels weird to think that, do I, did I think that some of her mannerisms were weird and stuff like that? Yeah, but that's not, you can't convict somebody on weird mannerisms.

• 2:04:17Speaker 02

  And then when I sat down with her, and I was expecting for her to say, well, you know, I'm obviously the victim on the case, and we got to see the shot, you know, taken or this or that, whatever it is, great, you know, that's why she's being, that's why she has that much confidence two months ago. And when I sat down with her, it was nothing. It was nothing. Okay, so this is a conversation.

• 2:04:39Speaker 01

  How would that make her complicit?

• 2:04:42Speaker 02

  Complicit? Again, you said complicit in the death of Charlie Kirk.

• 2:04:46Speaker 01

  Complicit in what?

• 2:04:47Speaker 02

  Well, if you let me finish my sentence, I could tell you that, but my point being is that then you take a look at this and you go, okay, well, this is weird. Uh, why, why would you have this confidence? And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, okay, great, I want to go out there and defend you now. I want people to know that you can't say this stuff publicly, but you know more things. And she just blanks, and then she says, well, I'm going to call the lawyer. And she called the lawyer. Again, all of this is on my show, so out of context, clips is not going to work because I know what I say on my show. So we call her lawyer and her lawyer says to us, uh, she calls him on the phone, pardon me, and, uh, it's me, her and Justin Strife, and he's, I'm like, okay, great. What do you guys have? He goes, well, we don't have anything yet. That's not, we're not at that phase yet. And I'm like, well, what do you mean, you don't have anything? And he says, well, don't you know how it works? It's a probable cause hearing.

• 2:05:31Speaker 02

  So basically, the state says that they're going to bring this forward, and now our people go out and they look for the evidence to, uh, assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty. And so I asked her directly, her lawyer directly, the phone's in between us. I'm like, wait, so just so I'm clear. You haven't seen anything that the public hasn't seen? And he says, no. So I'm going back in my head and I'm going, okay. So why is Erica saying with such a degree of certainty? Like she was sent out to convince the public and, and people bit, by the way. I remember even Megyn Kelly was like, uh, you know, let's wait. She's going to have access to things. I did think she had access to things that we didn't have. Why express that confidence to the public as opposed to just being like, we don't know yet. I'm, I feel confident he's probably, he's involved.

• 2:06:16Speaker 01

  But I don't understand how would any of this make her complicit?

• 2:06:19Speaker 02

  Complicit? Well, I've already told you, she was, she's complicit in, in trying to fool the public into thinking this is some open and shut case.

• 2:06:25Speaker 01

  How's she trying to fool the public into this? If she believes it, if she believes that Charlie, that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk? If she believes that, how would that be complicit in anything?

• 2:06:37Speaker 02

  I, I, I do believe.

• 2:06:38Speaker 01

  Are you saying that you think she doesn't believe it?

• 2:06:40Speaker 02

  I, I don't believe that at that stage she sat down with Barry Weiss, that that's what she believes. No, but that's my opinion.

• 2:06:45Speaker 01

  Right, but so when you just say complicit, you just mean she believes that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk? That's it?

• 2:06:52Speaker 02

  That's what we were talking about. That's why I said, if your strategy was to dice up clips and take it out of context and make it seem like I said she was complicit. Yeah, but then why not just play the full thing? Like why?

• 2:07:02Speaker 01

  Because we don't have like infinite amounts of time, I'm guessing? You probably don't want to watch.

• 2:07:07Speaker 02

  I'm going to go back to my theory that you didn't feel confident that you could defend your, your claim that it was overwhelming evidence. So now you're trying to move towards doctored clips and getting me to respond to it.

• 2:07:16Speaker 01

  There's no doctored anything. I'm just making sure that we got this right. That what you're actually saying is that Erica is just complicit in believing it.

• 2:07:22Speaker 02

  When I reexamine her actions backward, because I did not have this perspective of her at the beginning, which is why it's so funny to me that you guys make it seem like I'm ground zero. People thought Erica was sus from day I forgive him. And I was not a part of that. I did not lean into that. I did not contribute to that. I was getting actually terrible messages from my fans being like Candace, you and Charlie always say to go with your intuition. You won't address this, how we all feel about her. Things changed for me when I saw that Zoom call. I will tell you that, um, for sure. And the fact that she lied to me. So I sat across from her and you know, got to, I wanted to have that conversation publicly, but they're probably grateful they didn't do it publicly. She told me some lies.

• 2:08:06Speaker 02

  And so the next thing that happens naturally, when somebody lies to you, you go, when any person lies to you, whether it's a toddler, people only lie when they're trying to obscure something else.

• 2:08:17Speaker 01

  Have you addressed what that lie was?

• 2:08:19Speaker 02

  Yeah, I've talked about, we have a list of lies that we've been told by, we can find that, I'm sure.

• 2:08:23Speaker 01

  In the meeting with her?

• 2:08:24Speaker 02

  Uh, well, no, I, I didn't want her to cage up. I didn't, I didn't want to do this. And because I, I didn't know what I to expect. Like I, I didn't, I didn't know if she was going to be like, I'm so overwhelmed with everything, you know? And I don't know who to trust at the organization and I, I don't know what I'm doing. I didn't know, I didn't want to.

• 2:08:40Speaker 01

  Just out of curiosity, before anything happened with Charlie, how close were you and Erica?

• 2:08:46Speaker 02

  Not very close.

• 2:08:47Speaker 01

  So there's not a relationship?

• 2:08:48Speaker 02

  No, there, I mean, there, I like, I would say it's totally normal. Like it's not like there was any issues at all. Uh, she was always, we were always nice to each other. It just is, our life went to a different phase, right? So Charlie and I hitting the ground, running around, traveling four days a week. Now I get married, I, I find love in my life. I get married and I get pregnant. I've been pregnant, I haven't stopped being pregnant. And what you want out of life change is you don't want to be running around for four days a week and traveling on a plane nonstop. You suddenly want to start building at home and live, I was desiring that suburban life.

• 2:09:21Speaker 01

  Did you guys ever do the double dates, you, George, her and Charlie? Was there ever double dates between the four of you?

• 2:09:26Speaker 02

  I was, uh, you know, engaged to George quickly. We were planning our wedding. I was kind of in my bubble with George. George traveled with me and Charlie, but Erica and him were just starting to date at the beginning of 2019. George and I were planning our marriage. So George really got to know Charlie. I wouldn't say that I really got to know Erica. I was just rooting for them because I knew how much Charlie wanted to, you know, find love. And so I was kind of his wing woman throughout that phase. And I was just happy and I never was under the impression, obviously, that they were going to get married when they were dating. So it wasn't like I would have, was conscious, I didn't really need to get to know this person. And so it was just kind of normal that by that time, because of where I was in my life, that I wasn't spending any time getting to know Erica, per se.

• 2:10:09Speaker 01

  So the complicit part about Erica to you, is that a gut feeling? You think?

• 2:10:13Speaker 02

  It transformed when she lied.

• 2:10:16Speaker 01

  You can take the lead, I'm just asking questions. Yeah, well, I don't, I actually don't, I still don't understand what she's, you think she's complicit in?

• 2:10:23Speaker 02

  Yeah, so when I say Erica's complicit, and that's my opinion, when you tweeted Erica's too retarded to kill her husband?

• 2:10:31Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 2:10:31Speaker 02

  Would you like to explain how you developed your evidence, your positive evidence for the fact that Erica was retarded?

• 2:10:38Speaker 01

  Um, yeah, sure. So I just think all women are retarded.

• 2:10:41Speaker 02

  Oh, so you're allowed to just say stuff. Who knew? So, and by the way, and what, and what dramatically transformed your opinion of Erica after, uh, going to the headquarters? Because you were pretty hostile about.

• 2:10:54Speaker 01

  I wasn't hostile towards him.

• 2:10:55Speaker 02

  You don't think calling somebody too retarded?

• 2:10:57Speaker 01

  No, come on. That's like normal tongue in cheek stuff for me online.

• 2:11:01Speaker 02

  Oh, you're being tongue, tongue in cheek?

• 2:11:03Speaker 01

  Usually when I call someone retarded, I'm being tongue in cheek, yeah. Like for instance, you got supporters, I mean, if you were, if you want to use the same exact argument, you would take a supporter like Owen Benjamin. He called you bad names and, and called your husband bad names. Are you, you're just like, well, that's no biggie?

• 2:11:22Speaker 02

  I've never answered him on anything that he said. I'm saying that you now are her, her biggest defender. So do you still think she's?

• 2:11:27Speaker 01

  I'm not her biggest defender.

• 2:11:28Speaker 02

  Do you think, still think she's too retarded?

• 2:11:30Speaker 01

  No, no, no, no. I didn't know Erica Kirk. I'd never met her before.

• 2:11:34Speaker 02

  Okay, but you had an issue with Turning Point being led, uh, by a bunch of fem bots saying, talking about the feminist angle.

• 2:11:41Speaker 01

  Still do.

• 2:11:41Speaker 02

  And then suddenly you go to the headquarters.

• 2:11:43Speaker 01

  It's a terrible idea.

• 2:11:44Speaker 02

  You go into the headquarters, now all of a sudden you've got text messages that you're sharing with them. You say that you're, you and your wife are getting involved with management.

• 2:11:53Speaker 01

  No, no, no, I'm not involved in any management at Turning Point USA.

• 2:11:55Speaker 02

  I'm pretty sure there is a clip of you where you say that your wife went to their recent conference and sat down. And then when you were on Joe Rogan.

• 2:12:02Speaker 01

  No, no, no, no, hang on, I'll explain what happened, just so that you understand.

• 2:12:05Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:12:05Speaker 01

  So I was invited there to do some debate training. That's literally what I was invited there to do, uh, on recommendation. So I went down and did some debate. That's the first time I ever met anybody at TP USA.

• 2:12:16Speaker 02

  Okay, and then you said you sat down with Erica?

• 2:12:20Speaker 01

  Well, I didn't sit down to her, I talked to her in a hallway.

• 2:12:24Speaker 02

  So you didn't sit down and speak with Erica?

• 2:12:25Speaker 01

  No, I didn't have like some sit down long conversation. We, we talked in a hallway.

• 2:12:29Speaker 02

  Okay, is that when you gave her the hug?

• 2:12:32Speaker 01

  Yeah, gave her the hug right there. My, my wife did too. We were both very sorry for what happened.

• 2:12:35Speaker 02

  Okay, so at what point did you start receiving text messages from, that you cited in your opening statement?

• 2:12:43Speaker 01

  Oh, I just reached out to TP USA and said, I'm prepping for a debate. Is there anything that's pertinent that I can use here?

• 2:12:49Speaker 02

  Do you find it interesting that people have been asking for, you know, basic answers to questions? And you're saying that you walked into their headquarters and reached out and they instantly?

• 2:12:58Speaker 01

  It's amazing, isn't it? If you reach out in good faith and you're not demonizing them and saying that they're complicit in the murder of people's deaths, that, that perhaps they're actually willing to release things to you that are pertinent, other than thinking that, you know, may, perhaps you're diabolical.

• 2:13:12Speaker 02

  Well, I don't know, I feel like if I was going to release that information, I didn't, I didn't demand that it be released to me. Um, I actually never demanded that it be released. I just simply said that this is what was going on in the last 48 hours. Maybe to the media, they could release it, they could release it to PBD. They decide to release it to a guy that called Erica too retarded in June.

• 2:13:31Speaker 01

  To what?

• 2:13:31Speaker 02

  Yeah, I just think it kind of shows that Turning Point is sending you as their horse.

• 2:13:36Speaker 01

  Well, I don't know where you.

• 2:13:37Speaker 02

  They don't have, they don't have the courage to have the conversation.

• 2:13:40Speaker 01

  Like, I don't.

• 2:13:40Speaker 02

  If they were just releasing something in good faith to answer questions.

• 2:13:43Speaker 01

  Do you have any evidence of that claim?

• 2:13:46Speaker 02

  It's not evidence, you're sharing your opinion that she's too retarded. I can't share my opinion that I think it's going to register as really obvious to the public? That rather than presenting that throughout the course of everybody wanting to know what Charlie was going through, through his last days, they decided to give it to you to come to my house as some sort of a surprise? Do you think the public's not smart enough to see through that?

• 2:14:06Speaker 01

  Do you think that if you know?

• 2:14:07Speaker 02

  Talking about terrible PR?

• 2:14:08Speaker 01

  If you know that there's a huge debate that's coming up, that's going to be probably one of the most viewed that year. And one of the debaters calls you and says, I'm taking this position. This is the position that I feel like there's the most evidence for. And Candace also agreed to answer many of my questions in regards to this. So if you got pertinent evidence here that I can use, I'd definitely like to take a look. It was actually amazing to me. It really was actually amazing to me how if you approach people in good faith and just say, hey, I'd actually like to know what the facts and details are around this. They actually do talk to you. It's amazing.

• 2:14:41Speaker 02

  Yeah, I, I, I just do not believe, A, that you, that they are doing this in good faith. I don't believe that anything you have done as an administrator that's in good faith. It demonstrates that you walked into Turning Point USA headquarters and came out a different man because you were critical of the organization.

• 2:14:53Speaker 01

  Still am.

• 2:14:54Speaker 02

  Were critical of Erica. And now you're sitting here going, Candace, I want to interrogate you for an hour and a half about everything you've ever said about Erica.

• 2:15:00Speaker 01

  Have you ever been critical of somebody that you hadn't met and then you meet them and you're less critical of them?

• 2:15:04Speaker 02

  Uh, and the inverse has happened too. I was less critical about Erica and now I'm more critical about her.

• 2:15:09Speaker 01

  But I'm asking you, isn't it the case that there's people you've been critical of? And then you've met them and you're less critical after you meet them?

• 2:15:14Speaker 02

  Uh, too retarded? I, I, I feel like if you think that she's dumb and you, let's just talk about your record. I mean, you're a person that has spent time in what most people would term to be the manosphere, talking about feminist, well, yeah.

• 2:15:28Speaker 01

  I debate against the, the.

• 2:15:29Speaker 02

  Against feminists.

• 2:15:30Speaker 01

  And, and red pillars. And a lot of the actual, so I'm a Christian ethicist.

• 2:15:35Speaker 02

  And then you go on to Joe Rogan and you're like, like soft explaining away why Erica had to take over Charlie's company when they don't have a parent at home. So now you're a feminist icon? Like you just go into the headquarters and you just shift all of your perspectives?

• 2:15:47Speaker 01

  That's a bizarre criticism. Like nobody's in the bigger girl boss position than you.

• 2:15:51Speaker 02

  Yeah, I'm actually, no.

• 2:15:53Speaker 01

  You're in the biggest of the girl boss positions. Like you don't have to do this. You just do do this. You could definitely not do it at all and be fine, right? But you still do.

• 2:16:02Speaker 02

  I, I, I would say that you are making a comparison that cannot be compared because, because Erica's husband was just assassinated in front of the world.

• 2:16:11Speaker 01

  Which makes sense, why should we take the organization over?

• 2:16:14Speaker 02

  It makes sense why you would go home to your kids, just so you know.

• 2:16:16Speaker 01

  Wait a second, that's, that's bizarre.

• 2:16:17Speaker 02

  They don't have a parent, they don't have a parent and they have just suffered a trauma. You don't go into the office six days later.

• 2:16:22Speaker 01

  You want to protect your husband's legacy, right? And you're trying to find some new normal.

• 2:16:26Speaker 02

  Legacy is his children, not the organization.

• 2:16:28Speaker 01

  It's, it's both.

• 2:16:28Speaker 02

  No, it, it.

• 2:16:29Speaker 01

  Yes, it is both. It's totally rational and reasonable to believe that it would be both Turning Point USA that is part of Charlie Kirk's legacy. He worked his whole life for it.

• 2:16:38Speaker 02

  This is why people think she's sus.

• 2:16:39Speaker 01

  And, and his children. Now, for you though, to say that anybody's a girl boss, right? That's like the pot calling the kettle black.

• 2:16:46Speaker 02

  That came out of your mouth.

• 2:16:47Speaker 01

  No, that was you. You brought up girl boss.

• 2:16:50Speaker 02

  Girl boss came out of your mouth.

• 2:16:51Speaker 01

  Yeah, I'm just saying, I'm telling you that you brought up this idea that I'm defending some feminist nonsense. I'm not. I'm pointing out that they're, they're, by the way,

• 2:17:01Speaker 02

  She's not qualified to take over his company.

• 2:17:03Speaker 01

  There's always objective outliers to each situation. In fact, it's the exception that proves the rule. And the interesting thing here is like, I'm still just as critical of feminism inside TPUSA as I've always been. And I'm just as critical of any pro Zionist position as I've ever been. None of that's ever changed. By the way, I would think it's the most rational, reasonable thing on planet earth to do. If you wanted to actually see an organization change, to try to work with leadership or reach out to leadership to try to do so. Doesn't that make the most amount of sense?

• 2:17:35Speaker 02

  I would like to state for the record that I think Erica is underqualified from, uh, to run that, to run the organization. And on, on the more emotional aspects, I agree with the, what seems to be a majority opinion. Cause I'm not gonna say it's scientific, that any woman that would leave her kids and go right into the office after their husband was publicly assassinated, uh, does not have their priority straight.

• 2:18:00Speaker 01

  Okay. Well, I understand that you can have those criticisms, but I'm not understanding still how that would make her complicit.

• 2:18:07Speaker 02

  Yeah, I don't, I don't have to keep answering the same question.

• 2:18:10Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 2:18:10Speaker 00

  You feel like you got an answer to how it's complicit? Your team is asking to play clips. So if we want to play this clip to just finish this segment on the Erica Kirk topic, we can spend some time on that as well. So if you guys are ready in the back, we're ready.

• 2:18:25Speaker 02

  And causing that 30 odd six diameter as would happen with a pet and explosives as, as we've demonstrated to you in the past. It accidentally, because of how Charlie was crouched, went up and hit his neck. And that ruined everything. That ruined everything. It was problematic. It's the reason why Terrell then had to scramble to get the cameras down because they were never supposed to see it. They, they could have said reasonably that a 30 odd six got eaten by Charlie, much more reasonably, obviously, than saying that the chicken bones in his neck stopped it because he ate vegetables.

• 2:19:07Speaker 02

  They panicked. That was what then, that's why Terrell's nervous on the phone with me. Again, this is my theory and I am now very much sticking to it. Okay. They panicked. It's the reason Erica had to step out once. That's why she would have got, gotten on the phone with Terrell so quickly. Cause I was going, why is Terrell saying, well, I didn't want Erica to relive. Oh, that's why I did it. He didn't have an answer. He was nervous. It was crazy. And but he acknowledged that he spoke to Erica immediately. Why'd you speak to Erica immediately?

• 2:19:35Speaker 01

  So do you believe that there was a shape charge that killed Charlie?

• 2:19:39Speaker 02

  Hey, can I ask you why you keep starting clips mid-sentence?

• 2:19:42Speaker 01

  Probably to get to where the clip is.

• 2:19:44Speaker 02

  Uh, no, it doesn't seem that way. Cause you can always start a clip with the beginning of a sentence. Like you're just started, like it's completely out of context.

• 2:19:50Speaker 01

  Wait, I didn't, I didn't prepare the clips, but I didn't, but it's fine to ask it to back it up.

• 2:19:55Speaker 02

  Like I said, this, this, the, I don't need to say what's happening here, cause the internet will clock it. But, uh, in this episode, we are now going, and that's why I said, we're now going to look at some alternative theories. I made it very clear that this was a theory that I didn't want to look at. This is, I believe, like, cause I don't have every episode on my head and, but I'm pretty sure this is an episode where we presented the evidence that was in the car, the photos of what was in the car, right? And so we are now inferring off of what we see in the car, that this very much does look like, uh, that we are, see a bunch of shattered road microphone, which was an early theory that I was actually interested in, but couldn't really wrap my head around what was, uh, the shape charge explosive.

• 2:20:40Speaker 02

  As I say at the beginning of the episode, like I just, it was just not my expertise. And I was concerning myself with timelines and stories and same as it didn't make sense without question. Terrell Farnsworth, uh, is, is someone who made me think that we were missing a big part of the story. So I'm walking them through, uh, John Bray's theory. If we started to insert what we are actually observing with the evidence that we're taking a look at and what took place that day. So we're completely in the hypothetical right here, uh, and you're now introducing this.

• 2:21:11Speaker 01

  If that's the case, if you're just hypothetically exploring it, that's why I'm just asking directly.

• 2:21:15Speaker 02

  Yes, but if you, but that's obvious when you watch this episode. So that's why it feels like I'm in the middle of an interview with CNN when they like pull up random clips and they're like, what's this? What's this? You watch the episode, you know what it is.

• 2:21:28Speaker 01

  Sure. Do you think that your alternative theory, do you believe?

• 2:21:32Speaker 02

  Theory should be explored. Yes.

• 2:21:33Speaker 01

  Okay. Do you, do you think that Charlie Kirk was killed with an explosive?

• 2:21:37Speaker 02

  I think, I think that that is a possibility. Yes.

• 2:21:40Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 2:21:41Speaker 02

  And it should be explored. He's done a lot of work on it. John Bray has done good work. And I think that that's why that, uh, theory is now starting to gain steam. Since we released the second set of the photos of what was in the car, I think it's viable.

• 2:21:54Speaker 01

  So this was the big thing I wanted to get into with you on the explosives too. What, what is it about that theory that's actually compelling to you? So I looked into the explosive mic theory multiple times. And the biggest thing that stood out to me is there's no explosion. There's, there's literally no explosion. In fact, there's videos when the shot rings out, um, that kills Charlie. At least it sounds like a shot to me. People are actually like looking up towards where the, uh, the gun is being fired. They're looking away for where the sound is. I, like, where's the actual explosion?

• 2:22:29Speaker 02

  Well, for every person that you say looks away, there's going to be a person that was looking forward. Uh, we have former Marines that have gotten on and said, uh, it looks to me like there's an explosion under his shirt, right? You obviously saw, um, uh, Rob O'Neil go on to, I'm forgetting which platform it was where he said, it's the first thing I thought was.

• 2:22:51Speaker 00

  Rob O'Neil is the man that killed Osama Bin Laden.

• 2:22:53Speaker 02

  Yeah. And I think he's qualified to say what he believes he saw. Uh, we, we should actually, since they're pulling clips, we should run that clip of Rob O'Neil and what he said and what he observed and his experience. So I'm gonna take that. And also there were people who test, like immediately spoke to the media that day, who said the same thing, that they thought that something happened under his shirt. That was actually, if you go back to like my first episode, when I was just observing what I saw with my eyes, I was asking the serious question, I was seriously saying, why is it like somebody shot him from underneath? Why is his shirt moving first? That doesn't make sense to me. And, uh, I'm not.

• 2:23:24Speaker 01

  Cause of air dispersal from the bullet.

• 2:23:27Speaker 01

  So when a, when, whenever a bullet is shot, a projectile shot, you can actually run this experiment yourself if you have a rifle. Take like an empty box of ammunition and put it on the table and then fire it near the muzzle. And that box will actually blow off the table.

• 2:23:41Speaker 02

  Okay. So question for you. Does that box go sideways off the table?

• 2:23:46Speaker 01

  It can.

• 2:23:47Speaker 02

  It, it can.

• 2:23:47Speaker 01

  Yeah, you can. It depends on the dispersal.

• 2:23:49Speaker 02

  You, 3,000 pounds of energy or 2,000 pounds of energy coming at you. That's how much it carries.

• 2:23:54Speaker 01

  Well, it's not 2,000 pounds of energy.

• 2:23:56Speaker 02

  Uh, well, we can fact check that. How many, how many, how many pounds of energy is it a 30 odd six, uh, being shot 150 yards away? That's a great question for Grok. I'm going to say, when we looked at it, it was between 1,500 and 2,000. I'm pretty sure pounds of energy coming at you and you just go upward into the side. I don't really buy that. I mean, and I'm going to just say, I just think that that's not.

• 2:24:16Speaker 01

  Yeah, right. But.

• 2:24:17Speaker 02

  Possible. Doesn't go through on top of that. So there's another miracle. You didn't get blown backwards. You didn't, it didn't go through. But I also want to say that you're saying this can happen and Rob O'Neil is infinitely more qualified, I think, to speak on that. And, uh, well, because he's actually shot and killed people.

• 2:24:31Speaker 01

  Why would that have anything do with anything?

• 2:24:33Speaker 02

  Well, because.

• 2:24:34Speaker 01

  Did he slow down all the videos of the people he shot to see if their clothes moved?

• 2:24:38Speaker 02

  Well, why are you able to assert your position as a fact?

• 2:24:41Speaker 01

  I'm gonna, I'm gonna tell you how projectiles work. He's not even gonna just, I guarantee you, this guy's not even gonna disagree with what I'm about to say. If it is the case that you have energy and you have mass and the mass is moving in the air, the air has to go somewhere. It doesn't have a choice.

• 2:24:56Speaker 02

  I think you're like totally BSing right now, man. I'm sorry.

• 2:25:01Speaker 01

  Not BSing, I'm telling you the truth. If a bullet is moving in air, air has to move out of way of bullet.

• 2:25:07Speaker 02

  But maybe not at the bottom of a shirt here. I don't know. I, I just, I disagree with that. I'd like to say for the record, I've watched some of you do these sorts of things where you assert something with a lot of confidence and.

• 2:25:16Speaker 01

  You can fact check it. Fact check if bullets displace air.

• 2:25:20Speaker 02

  Not about whether it displays air, it's where it dispersed the air, underneath his shirt here.

• 2:25:24Speaker 01

  It's not underneath the shirt.

• 2:25:25Speaker 02

  But bullets this big and you're telling me it's gonna hit his neck and then it is beneath his shirt.

• 2:25:29Speaker 01

  It starts up here and the collar's moving and then you see the wave here as he's moving backwards.

• 2:25:34Speaker 02

  No.

• 2:25:35Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 2:25:35Speaker 02

  That's not true.

• 2:25:36Speaker 01

  It's not.

• 2:25:36Speaker 02

  And we obviously can't show that clip. I disagree with you.

• 2:25:39Speaker 01

  Okay. I understand you can't show it for TOS purposes. That's fine.

• 2:25:42Speaker 02

  I disagree with you. People can go watch and make up their own minds. We don't need to debate it. Whether or not, it, that was the first thing I said was why is his shirt moving first? That didn't make sense to me. It, it, it almost looks just like this. It goes across his necklace breaks first before Charlie even reacts. If you watch it in slow, his necklace breaks first, which I thought was very odd. And then you see a puff here and then the next thing you know, there's a, there's the, uh, entry wound on his neck. I, I would not confidently assert that I see smoke. I've never said it on my platform.

• 2:26:09Speaker 01

  Do you think that an explosion generally has smoke?

• 2:26:13Speaker 02

  I don't think that there's any quality version of video that would get us to be able to answer that question other than Terrell's 4K footage that he has from the front. So.

• 2:26:21Speaker 01

  There's a lot of, um, if you look at the Israeli pagers, it's assumed that they, it's a similar, if not the same type of explosive that was used inside the pagers, that would have been used inside of this road mic.

• 2:26:32Speaker 02

  I think that you should, since you love debating, you should debate someone like John Bray, who's worked on that theory for 11 months and ask those sorts of questions of how a shape charge would work. I presented the evidence of what was in the car and I also, at that episode that you're clipping, said John Bray has done an unbelievable amount of work on this. And I think he has debated a ton of people actually regarding this topic. So that's the route that I would send you on. For the purposes of my, yeah, for the purposes of my show, I, I do believe to answer your, your question that it is a hypothetical. I mean, that it is a, a theory that should be thoroughly explored.

• 2:27:06Speaker 00

  There's two clips, uh, your team wants to show. One of them is the Rob O'Neil clip since we're on it. So if you guys are ready in the back before we go to ad break, if you want to pull it up, this is a good time to do so.

• 2:27:21Speaker 08

  Good to see General Holt. A lot of things bother me about this. Nothing in particular. It's not like I'm out there saying big lie or conspiracy or someone did it. I'm just saying, I've been in a lot of shootings. I've killed more than a handful of people and this thing looked shady off the bat. I mean, just, I've killed people closer than I saw the camera and I've never seen a shirt move like that. That looks like an explosion to me. The, uh, just the fact that no one started doing, uh, first aid to Charlie Kirk. They were more concerned about getting SIM cards out of cameras, removing cameras and then, uh, getting him off the X somehow. There didn't seem a lot of concern for it for his life. It seemed like just clean it up. And then, I mean, I've been told they paved it over a couple of days later. And then you get Erica Kirk,

• 2:28:04Speaker 08

  uh, behind all the razzle dazzle and she's really quick to forgive the alleged shooter, which technically says, uh, that was him because I forgive him, but then you can't forgive Candace Owens for having an opinion or asking questions. And they mock people by saying, oh, I'm just asking questions. Yeah, I'm a SEAL Team Six sniper. I'm asking a lot of questions. No one wants to answer them. And you're able to ask.

• 2:28:26Speaker 01

  He's actually said very little about the explosive there. So he starts-

• 2:28:29Speaker 02

  He said he shot people up close and he's never seen a shirt move like that and it looked to him like an explosive. That's what he just said.

• 2:28:36Speaker 01

  But when I play that video at full speed, I can't see a shirt moving. I can only see a shirt moving when we slow it way down. So if I'm in real time, I'm just assuming this, right? I mean, if I was in real time and I was in like a close quarters combat, you kill somebody situation and I shot them, would you even see the shirt move?

• 2:28:57Speaker 02

  Well, I just feel like five minutes ago, you were arguing that it was because the bullet carried air. Now you're saying you don't see the shirt move at all.

• 2:29:03Speaker 01

  Yeah, but that's, if you slow it down, the dispersment of air, that's where you're going to see it, right? It's going to be very quick, very, very, very, very fast.

• 2:29:12Speaker 02

  Yeah, that's not what I saw. And clearly it's not what he saw and he thinks that there could be an explosive. So I'm just saying to you, people disagree with you. Your opinion's not a fact. That's all. I understand. That's a good place for us to, if you, if we have another ad break and then we can keep answer, answering your questions.

• 2:29:27Speaker 01

  Yeah. I mean, I think, um, yeah, sounds good.

• 2:29:31Speaker 00

  Perfect. We'll do a quick three and a half minute ad break. We'll be back for the last segment.

• 2:29:35Speaker 01

  Cool. All right. Thank you.

• 2:29:37Speaker 00

  When we set out to create a shoe that blends comfort, function and luxury, we had the choice to make it fast. We had the choice to make it cheap. We chose neither. Instead, we chose Tuscany Italy. We chose true Italian craftsmanship. Each pair touched by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail, and we chose the finest quality at every step. Introducing the Future Looks Bright collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary, rather intentional, luxurious, timeless.

• 2:30:25Speaker 00

  The beautiful thing about these events,

• 2:30:29Speaker 00

  you know how quickly it goes?

• 2:30:33Speaker 00

  Like this.

• 2:30:36Speaker 00

  Is everybody ready to get started?

• 2:30:40Speaker 03

  I've helped over 10,000 business owners grow and scale their companies. I'm just passionate about watching entrepreneurs create great business. When you get guys like Jerry Rice, that was his work ethic. We were able to do some great things on a football field.

• 2:30:57Speaker 05

  The single most important trait I had was a healthy dose of delusion. And that delusion is sometimes also referred to as self-belief.

• 2:31:05Speaker 06

  When I can do something that I love, that is good for business and I can make content out of, that's my trifecta.

• 2:31:41Speaker 07

  Hey guys and gals, Vincent O'Shaughnessy here. My faith over fear line is taking off and it's all thanks to you. We've got hats, shirts, hoodies, you name it. We also got brand new designs and new apparel dropping all the time. So if you want to rock some faith over fear gear, hit the QR code on the screen or click on the link in the description. And remember guys, if you have true faith in God, you have absolutely nothing to fear. God bless and the future looks bright.

• 2:32:05Speaker 00

  Many times when people think about value attainment, all they think about is a podcast, but it's a lot more than that. It's nine companies working together on an 11 acre campus. If I was to give you a virtual tour here, you'll see the HR department hiring, talent acquisition. We have full stack developers that are working on Manac and higher metrics. We have a full-fledged events team that puts together events with thousands of people. We have a merch department designing the latest product. We just launched the F L B shoes made in Italy. We have a marketing department. And if you go to the complete opposite side of the building, 50, 60 people making calls, working for Bedivin Consulting, sales, setters. And then on the complete opposite side of the campus, there's a full-on production company with editors, shooters, creating content, doing podcasts. Then you can drive down a couple of miles and go to our private boardroom cigar lounge

• 2:32:50Speaker 00

  with members only. Regardless of what it is, working at value attainment, every day is a surprise. You could be walking into work and right next to you is a governor, is a billionaire, is an athlete. We are hiring aggressively, but value attainment isn't for everybody. For the right person, this could be the last company you ever work for. So if you're watching this and you want to learn more, go to vt.com/ careers and apply now.

• 2:33:18Speaker 00

  All right. Fantastic. So Andrew, if you want to go with your last couple of thoughts?

• 2:33:22Speaker 01

  Yeah. So I just have two, two more clips to play. Okay. Right. And then I, uh, we can do final thoughts, I'm guessing. Um, I, yeah, I feel like, uh, we got where we were trying to go, or at least for the most part. So, um, the two other clips, I do want to play the Twigs clip. That one is important to me, the Twigs DNA clip. Yeah. And they're going to pull it up just to have you respond to it.

• 2:33:46Speaker 02

  Well, you don't have to play it because like if you're saying that when I initially watched it, I thought that Lance Twigs' DNA, like he was directly responding to that because the testimony was a bit confusing. They started by saying that they were going to, um, uh, like explaining how they got the samples and they said Lance, Matt and Amberson, uh, sorry, Lance, Matt and Amber Robinson, how they got their, uh, DNA samples. And then they started speaking about the gun and said, you know, multiple prints were found on them. And then they moved and they said Lance Twigs' DNA was found on the screwdriver. Uh, when I went back and re-watched it, I realized, well, they haven't officially said that Lance or Amber are on the gun. So I think I've already conceded that we don't know that. So I think like, but if you're, if you want to play the clip to-

• 2:34:27Speaker 01

  This is directly you saying it is on the gun. Twigs' DNA is on the gun.

• 2:34:33Speaker 02

  I feel like I've already said to you, like I've made that concession. But just to be clear, whenever I make a mistake, I just correct it. So that's why when you were asking me three times, I've already said, we don't know yet. And I've corrected that mistake. So if the purpose of you showing this is to demonstrate that Candace makes mistakes sometimes, uh, when she's taking in a lot of information and she's reading through legal documents and she's trying to remember nine hour testimony.

• 2:34:58Speaker 01

  It's to demonstrate something else. It is in fact the case, we're all going to make mistakes. I'm going to make mistakes on the case. You're going to make mistakes on the case.

• 2:35:05Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:35:05Speaker 01

  But in this case, you were very adamant that his DNA was on the gun itself.

• 2:35:11Speaker 02

  Yeah. So I'm just saying that it's not ruled out. We know that there's five plus prints. I've said this so many times. I had to re-watch the testimony. It's like nine hours a day. It got very scientific when they were speaking about this. And I think I wrongly extrapolated that they meant all three of them were on the prints when the only person they officially named was Matt Robinson. So we don't know yet if, um, Lance Twigs has his DNA on the prints, official, uh, DNA on the gun officially just yet. Okay. I've already conceded that. So-

• 2:35:39Speaker 01

  That's fine. And then the last one is one with Erica Kirk.

• 2:35:41Speaker 02

  Sure. This is like the Erica Kirk. All right, Erica, you could just sit down with me, Erica, but we can do it this way.

• 2:35:49Speaker 01

  This goes back to a previous claim that you made. Yeah, sure.

• 2:35:53Speaker 02

  Straight to jail, straight to jail. We're questioning at least Erica. I don't care who's mad. I really do not care who wants to be upset after this episode. Really, you'll be wasting your breath. You can spend a billion dollars on influencers because this is all becoming increasingly inexplicable. You are asking me to be an idiot, actually, and I cannot do that for you. Someone once commented beneath this show that if the situations were reversed and there were this many verifiable lies.

• 2:36:27Speaker 01

  Straight to jail?

• 2:36:29Speaker 02

  Yeah, so that's the show intro and straight to jail is a monopoly term.

• 2:36:32Speaker 01

  Okay, so do not pass go.

• 2:36:34Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:36:35Speaker 01

  Do not collect $200.

• 2:36:36Speaker 02

  Yes, it's obviously tongue in cheek and then we explain that actually I think that she should be brought in for questioning because of inconsistencies. So this is the exact episode when I started to think that she should be sat down and questioned. And I still believe that. I still hold the perspective that Erica should be sat down and she should be properly questioned.

• 2:36:54Speaker 01

  Do you know that she hasn't been?

• 2:36:56Speaker 02

  No, actually, that would be a great thing for the spokesperson of Turning Point USA to say that she's already sat through. I mean, my guess would be she hasn't because they returned everything to her, but I-

• 2:37:05Speaker 01

  Why do they owe you that, though?

• 2:37:06Speaker 02

  They don't owe me anything. That's my show you're watching. Just, you know, the clips that you're pulling are from my show. So if I want to say something on my show, I can say that. I didn't say they owe me something. I don't think that's ever-

• 2:37:16Speaker 01

  You can, but if you say like, you need to be sat down for questioning and you don't even know if they haven't been. That's strange, right?

• 2:37:22Speaker 02

  Do you know if they have been?

• 2:37:24Speaker 01

  No, I have no idea.

• 2:37:25Speaker 02

  So you're just saying, what if they haven't been?

• 2:37:28Speaker 01

  Yeah, if you're, if your entire-

• 2:37:29Speaker 02

  You're just kind of filling the air with-

• 2:37:30Speaker 01

  If your entire thing is-

• 2:37:31Speaker 02

  Junk.

• 2:37:32Speaker 01

  If you're, no, it's not junk. If, if the query is, why is it that Erica Kirk's not being sat down for questioning? But you have absolutely no knowledge whether or not she's been sat down for questioning or not. What that does is it creates an innuendo. It creates an inference. It creates out to the ethos that this should be happening because something's wrong here, when you actually don't have the knowledge that anything's wrong at all.

• 2:37:54Speaker 02

  I just think that my opinion is that she should be sat down and questioned.

• 2:37:59Speaker 01

  But you're not sure if she hasn't been?

• 2:38:00Speaker 02

  Yeah, and you're not sure if she has been either. So, like I said, I feel like now you're just kind of filling the air with nonsense. Because Turning Point's like, we want-

• 2:38:08Speaker 01

  To my knowledge, nobody-

• 2:38:10Speaker 02

  You go in there and you defend Erica, and I have to say, I don't think you've done an extraordinary job with that.

• 2:38:13Speaker 01

  But I'm not here to defend Erica. The thing is, though, it's like-

• 2:38:16Speaker 02

  I would say that since four out of five of the clips that you had on the ready when we asked you guys ahead of time. I mean, I want to just assert how professionally we have dealt with this debate. As you can see, we have not planned any gotcha clips for Andrew. I expressed to him that what we were going to do was just to use people for fact checks and because I might not remember something, or I do remember something and you're saying no, and that is what I think will register to people as very fair. We did not take out of context clips of Andrew-

• 2:38:43Speaker 01

  But I expressly said that I was going to bring claims, right?

• 2:38:47Speaker 02

  No, when you said you were going to bring claims that you want me to speak to, you didn't say, I intend on sitting you down with out of contexted clips to, which we said to you before in an email, any clips that you want to share with us, send it over. Let's assert a debate claim so that we can both be ready to respond to it. This just-

• 2:39:04Speaker 01

  That's not really what happened.

• 2:39:05Speaker 02

  Well, that, what's not, what didn't happen?

• 2:39:07Speaker 01

  Yeah, this, this, the way that you're framing the exchange, that's not, that's not actually what happened. We were negotiating. It is true, we negotiated out the claim itself, right? Which one's going to take which position? I wanted to make sure that I had at least an hour and a half on mine, and you got the time for yours to question me. We did. We got through your hour and a half on mine, roughly an hour and a half now on mine. That's basically how this went.

• 2:39:30Speaker 02

  But in the beginning, I did not take an hour and a half to just pull out of context this with Andrew. I actually debated the substance of what's going on in this trial and this hearing. And I do think that you fell, I think you fell sort of that.

• 2:39:39Speaker 01

  There's nothing out of, hang on. There's nothing here except holding you to account for your claims.

• 2:39:44Speaker 02

  Yes or no? Well, we were supposed to be debating the case and whether or not there was overwhelming evidence.

• 2:39:51Speaker 01

  These are your claims about the case.

• 2:39:53Speaker 02

  No, you then admitted that now you're getting into another sphere and you're, you want to talk about the transcendentals and things that I've said. And like, four out of five of your clips are about Erica Kirk. So the general perception-

• 2:40:04Speaker 01

  I don't think four out of five even were.

• 2:40:05Speaker 02

  Is your Turning Point's horse. I think quite a few of them were. Was there three?

• 2:40:09Speaker 01

  Just made it up.

• 2:40:10Speaker 02

  Erica's or four?

• 2:40:10Speaker 01

  So you're just making stuff up?

• 2:40:12Speaker 02

  Can we get a count of how many were about Erica? I feel like-

• 2:40:14Speaker 00

  I think it was three.

• 2:40:14Speaker 02

  Three, okay. Three, I said four.

• 2:40:16Speaker 01

  But those are extraordinary claims. That's why you were asked about them.

• 2:40:19Speaker 02

  Okay, well, okay, but the point being is now you're veering into trying to get me to defend my opinions and then you completely shirk responsibility when I point out yours. No, they're not claims. When you tweet Erica is too retarded, you go, that's just whatever, and then you move on.

• 2:40:33Speaker 01

  That's a claim, and I'm responsible for the claim.

• 2:40:36Speaker 02

  Well, earlier when I brought it up, you said that it was tongue in cheek.

• 2:40:39Speaker 01

  Yes, sure. That's me responding to your criticism of the claim. That's all I'm doing here.

• 2:40:46Speaker 02

  I was interested and-

• 2:40:48Speaker 01

  And I'm happy to get into also the patsy stuff now, if you would like to.

• 2:40:52Speaker 00

  Your team has one more clip they want to play for you.

• 2:40:54Speaker 01

  They want seven days ago.

• 2:40:55Speaker 00

  They got one more clip.

• 2:40:55Speaker 02

  We were getting into the patsy stuff and you stopped it and I was explaining to you, oh, they have one more clip. Okay, let's go.

• 2:41:02Speaker 00

  They want to hit the minimum of four clips you were saying with Erica, so.

• 2:41:05Speaker 01

  Hundred percent.

• 2:41:06Speaker 02

  This is absurd.

• 2:41:11Speaker 00

  Okay. And this is the one you're saying from seven days ago?

• 2:41:25Speaker 00

  Okay, while they're looking for that, do you want to continue?

• 2:41:28Speaker 02

  Yeah, I mean, can I ask a question? I know it's been, or like, can I ask a question? Are we just in the-

• 2:41:33Speaker 01

  We're, I'm just gonna, we're gonna hold to the actual contract itself.

• 2:41:38Speaker 02

  The contract does not say that you are allowed to just question me without me being able to respond to you.

• 2:41:44Speaker 01

  I've never said you can't respond.

• 2:41:46Speaker 02

  Or have a conversation.

• 2:41:47Speaker 01

  You've been able to respond to every question I've asked you. And by the way, the, the other thing is, is like-

• 2:41:52Speaker 02

  Let's have it your way. I wanted to look like-

• 2:41:53Speaker 01

  Still happy to have the debate.

• 2:41:54Speaker 02

  We've done everything Andrew wanted to so that people can fairly assess the situation. So you have it your way. I will not ask a question.

• 2:42:00Speaker 01

  Totally fair with me.

• 2:42:02Speaker 00

  So are you good with her asking a question or no?

• 2:42:04Speaker 02

  He said no.

• 2:42:04Speaker 01

  Waiting for the clip?

• 2:42:05Speaker 00

  Okay, so you want to wait for the clip first? Okay. You guys have it in the back?

• 2:42:12Speaker 00

  Okay, beautiful.

• 2:42:28Speaker 01

  You need the jeopardy thing.

• 2:42:29Speaker 00

  Your team told me they had it, so.

• 2:42:30Speaker 01

  That's what I heard. Okay.

• 2:42:32Speaker 00

  Come on, guys.

• 2:42:33Speaker 02

  Did this crime. Okay? Because Lance Twigs has his DNA on the towel. Lance Twigs has his DNA on the rifle. And to be clear, Lance Twigs's DNA was not as degraded as Tyler Robinson's DNA was on Tyler's rifle. It's Tyler's rifle, but Lance's-

• 2:42:54Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's not as degraded on the rifle.

• 2:42:57Speaker 02

  Yeah, because I thought he was one of the things. But I've already, that's what I mean when I say that, like, it just seems like you're not actually here trying to engage. Because I, even before you got to this, and I knew that you had some secret clip planned, I said to you, when I rewatched the testimony, I realized that they didn't explicitly say Lance Twigs. They said five other profiles were on it, and that his was the most degraded. So I hope your team feels fulfilled in playing that. Is there any more? I'm happy to play every clip that he has on the ready, anybody?

• 2:43:26Speaker 00

  You said, you said you had some new evidence at the beginning of the debate?

• 2:43:29Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah, we should show that text message that you read, just because I think that's important for the public. You shared it out of context.

• 2:43:35Speaker 01

  I'll do it on my show. I'll share the text message.

• 2:43:37Speaker 02

  So you're going to read it on my show but not show it?

• 2:43:39Speaker 01

  Correct. I'll show it on my show, but that's, that's what I'll do. I'll show it on my-

• 2:43:44Speaker 02

  Can I ask why?

• 2:43:46Speaker 01

  Well, because I want to drip out the evidence, you know? It's, it's, got to drip out that evidence, keep people coming back for the show, right?

• 2:43:54Speaker 02

  I don't know if snark serves you so well.

• 2:43:56Speaker 01

  I'm just saying, like, yeah, I'll, I'll, I'll release it there. Yeah, that's, that's my intention. But yeah, I'm fine with closings if you want to do closings.

• 2:44:06Speaker 02

  I also would just, if, if I may ask a question, is that permitted?

• 2:44:10Speaker 01

  Go ahead.

• 2:44:11Speaker 02

  Just so I also have clarity, since your basis has been evidentiary, you keep saying that you have evidence or like you are following evidence. Which one of the charges against, or all of them, do you think Tyler Robinson is guilty of?

• 2:44:28Speaker 01

  The specific charge?

• 2:44:30Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 2:44:30Speaker 01

  Yeah, so I think, what I think is that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.

• 2:44:37Speaker 02

  Yeah, but of the seven charges that he's, he's being charged.

• 2:44:40Speaker 01

  Yeah, can we list them real quick? I'll tell you exactly which ones. We'll pull them up.

• 2:44:44Speaker 02

  Well, do you know any of the charges that he's up for right now?

• 2:44:47Speaker 01

  Yeah, of course, but I want to make sure that we have them listed.

• 2:44:50Speaker 02

  Yeah, but, but like, that's, can you name one? Because my, my general perspective is that you don't actually care about this case. You're not following the case.

• 2:44:56Speaker 01

  That's the, that's the question? You're just not following it enough?

• 2:44:59Speaker 02

  It seems pretty, like, if you're going to engage and you're going to say the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson is guilty, I just think that you should, like, can you tell me one?

• 2:45:07Speaker 01

  Then let's do the counter. You can really, hang on, this is a great gotcha.

• 2:45:11Speaker 02

  No, no, no, you just got to ask me, play clips out of context, put me in the hot seat. So please just answer the question.

• 2:45:15Speaker 01

  This is fair. Name all seven since you've been following the case.

• 2:45:18Speaker 02

  Okay, sure. You name, you name one.

• 2:45:20Speaker 01

  Yeah, you named all seven.

• 2:45:21Speaker 02

  I'm happy to do that, but can you name one?

• 2:45:23Speaker 01

  I think he's, I think he's been charged with murder.

• 2:45:26Speaker 02

  That's actually incorrect.

• 2:45:27Speaker 01

  Okay, great. Now name all seven.

• 2:45:28Speaker 02

  He doesn't even, this is like-

• 2:45:30Speaker 01

  Name all seven.

• 2:45:30Speaker 02

  And, and, and I-

• 2:45:31Speaker 01

  Can you name all seven?

• 2:45:33Speaker 02

  I can.

• 2:45:33Speaker 01

  Then do it.

• 2:45:34Speaker 02

  Sure, you don't have to put it-

• 2:45:36Speaker 01

  No, do it. I'll count them. Go ahead.

• 2:45:38Speaker 02

  You don't have to put your fingers up. I can do that.

• 2:45:39Speaker 01

  Name them.

• 2:45:40Speaker 02

  Yeah, sure.

• 2:45:40Speaker 01

  Name them.

• 2:45:41Speaker 02

  The first charge is aggravated murder, because that's what carries a death sentence to the state of you. No, that's not, that is literally not murder.

• 2:45:47Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 2:45:48Speaker 02

  And so just for people, no, don't, I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on. And just to explain to people the difference of why that really matters and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all, is because aggravated murder, it's narrowly defined and because it carries a death sentence. I'm not, I'm going to answer the question.

• 2:46:02Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 2:46:03Speaker 02

  You're just going to recognize that your strategy of thinking that people are intimidated when you try to put a time constraint doesn't work, and you'll be better the next time you debate someone.

• 2:46:09Speaker 01

  I got it, I got it. Give me, give me the other ones.

• 2:46:11Speaker 02

  The more you cut me off, the longer I'll take. Do you want to just wait for me to finish of why that's a big difference so that people don't walk away?

• 2:46:17Speaker 01

  I just want you to list the charges.

• 2:46:18Speaker 02

  Yeah, I'm gonna do that. You just don't get to pretend that there's a time constraint for me to do that.

• 2:46:22Speaker 01

  Well, how, how long does it take you to list seven charges?

• 2:46:24Speaker 02

  Because I'm speaking, you just got to-

• 2:46:25Speaker 01

  It sounds like you're just delaying it because you don't know them.

• 2:46:27Speaker 02

  I, I know all seven of them, and I'm going to say again, because you're going to get embarrassed. You don't have to rush this. I'm also showing an example of a very flawed debate strategy. I actually am under no time constraint.

• 2:46:39Speaker 01

  I got one.

• 2:46:40Speaker 02

  Great. The second charge is the felony discharge of a weapon. The next two charges are for obstruction of justice.

• 2:46:49Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 2:46:49Speaker 02

  The next two charges are for witness tampering.

• 2:46:52Speaker 01

  And what's the specific charges, though?

• 2:46:55Speaker 02

  That is them. Obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, witness tampering.

• 2:46:59Speaker 01

  Okay, and there's no other specifics to them?

• 2:47:01Speaker 02

  Well, I can tell you why he's being charged with it.

• 2:47:03Speaker 01

  No, no, just the, the charges and then seven?

• 2:47:04Speaker 02

  Yeah, see, the bad thing is when you try to be an a-hole and it doesn't work.

• 2:47:08Speaker 01

  What's the seventh?

• 2:47:08Speaker 02

  The last charge is violence in front of a minor.

• 2:47:12Speaker 01

  Okay, got it. So then, he's being charged with murder. You just say aggravated murder?

• 2:47:18Speaker 01

  That's the distinction? You just want to-

• 2:47:20Speaker 02

  It's a massive, it's like, you can't even, you cannot say murder versus aggravated murder.

• 2:47:24Speaker 01

  Massive distinction.

• 2:47:24Speaker 02

  This gets to the entire crux of why him being up for the death sentence. And I actually find the defense's filing about why this is not aggravated to be-

• 2:47:37Speaker 02

  Very compelling of why it's not aggravated murder. I actually think that the state was going to even try to pull this off. They should have charged him with just murder. And then I do also, again, want to stress to audiences that that debate strategy of thinking that you have to speak faster, or somebody puts your hand up and they try to pretend like it's some sport. I think he thinks it's a blood sport. It's not. It's about being right and being principled when you're engaging. And you can make mistakes. I make mistakes all the time. But at least be genuine in pretending that you care about this case enough to know one of the seven charges that are up against Tyler Robinson, when you say the evidence is overwhelming that he's guilty. If you would like to move to final statements, I'm fine. I want to make sure Andrew has had the time that he has requested.

• 2:48:19Speaker 00

  I think your team would like to pull up the seven charges that he just asked you about. If you guys want to pull that up, just to confirm the seven you went through. Can you guys zoom in a little bit?

• 2:48:30Speaker 02

  Aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, obstruction of justice, which is counts three and four, five and six, tampering with a witness, and count seven.

• 2:48:41Speaker 01

  Seven violent offense.

• 2:48:42Speaker 02

  In the presence of a minor.

• 2:48:43Speaker 00

  In front of a child.

• 2:48:44Speaker 01

  Yeah. So five, six, tampering witness, third degree felony. Now, I did notice something I just was curious about, if I'm just wondering. When you pulled out your phone, just before you asked that question, did somebody by chance text you that question?

• 2:48:56Speaker 02

  You can check my phone.

• 2:48:57Speaker 01

  I'm just curious.

• 2:48:58Speaker 02

  No, you can absolutely not. I didn't. I have not had one communication with a single person, not even my producers who are in there this whole time we were here. You want to check my phone? I'm happy to do it, because you're just gonna get double embarrassed. Where's my phone?

• 2:49:09Speaker 00

  Do you want to see it?

• 2:49:10Speaker 01

  I'm just curious.

• 2:49:11Speaker 02

  You can literally do that. Here you go. PBD, you're the moderator. Take it.

• 2:49:16Speaker 00

  Let's see.

• 2:49:16Speaker 02

  See if anyone was texted at all during this debate.

• 2:49:20Speaker 00

  All right.

• 2:49:20Speaker 02

  About the violent charges or anything.

• 2:49:24Speaker 00

  I'm looking through this. You give me permission.

• 2:49:26Speaker 02

  You have full permission to go through my phone. I don't need to cheat.

• 2:49:29Speaker 00

  The last one has nothing to do with it. It's just a compliment.

• 2:49:33Speaker 02

  I haven't even read my text messages.

• 2:49:34Speaker 00

  That's a compliment.

• 2:49:35Speaker 02

  He's reading them.

• 2:49:37Speaker 00

  You're okay. You'll give me permission. I'm just gonna read three of them. See 1132, because after that, I don't need to read it.

• 2:49:41Speaker 01

  And you know their texts. Could have been Telegram, could have been something like that.

• 2:49:44Speaker 02

  Oh, I have a Signal. You can check that, too. I only have Signal. Telegram I used in Russia. That was a download.

• 2:49:51Speaker 01

  I'll take your word for it.

• 2:49:52Speaker 02

  Yeah. I don't. I don't need to, like, I deeply care about this case. I don't need to pretend to know stuff, but I don't know.

• 2:49:57Speaker 01

  If you deeply care about the case, I just, you know, I have, my other question is about steakhouse receipt.

• 2:50:02Speaker 02

  You just said that you were done asking all your questions.

• 2:50:04Speaker 00

  Just so you know, nothing there.

• 2:50:06Speaker 01

  Yeah. Do you have the steakhouse receipts, my question?

• 2:50:08Speaker 02

  I have said several times that I have, I have never said I have the receipt for the steakhouse. I have said the person who's working on that story is gonna be forthcoming with the receipt. And that was what I was responding to. And he then dropped the receipt. He redacted elements of it. And I said, stay tuned. He's the one working on that story.

• 2:50:24Speaker 01

  Okay, so you haven't actually confirmed that Robinson was at that steakhouse?

• 2:50:28Speaker 02

  All I did, as I said earlier in this conversation, was I spoke to the owner when I broke that story. I think it was back in January. I spoke to the owner, understood what had happened, and that there was a receipt. That's it. That's the extent of what I shared is what happened.

• 2:50:43Speaker 01

  Okay, so to be clear, there's no receipt?

• 2:50:46Speaker 02

  No, I just said the opposite. I said there is a receipt.

• 2:50:48Speaker 01

  You don't have a copy of the receipt?

• 2:50:49Speaker 02

  I, the receipt was published online.

• 2:50:53Speaker 01

  Yeah, right, with blurred out.

• 2:50:54Speaker 02

  The person working on this story, that blurred that out, is what I was referring to when I said, stay tuned and keep following his stuff, because he went to go, which, do what I hadn't done, which was he interviewed the actual server.

• 2:51:05Speaker 01

  So there's no evidence that Tyler was at that steakhouse?

• 2:51:07Speaker 02

  I would say the receipt with his debit card number, it would be some hard evidence if that is...

• 2:51:12Speaker 01

  I agree with that.

• 2:51:13Speaker 02

  Yeah, so that's it. But you're questioning me.

• 2:51:14Speaker 01

  But is there, as of right now?

• 2:51:16Speaker 02

  He paid, if you're asking me, did he pay with a creditor debit card? The answer is yes.

• 2:51:19Speaker 01

  No, no. Is there proof that that was actually his debit card that he paid with?

• 2:51:24Speaker 02

  I think you should follow the person that is behind that story.

• 2:51:28Speaker 01

  Well, the reason I'm asking you is because you always include it in your timeline, that he traveled to the steakhouse.

• 2:51:32Speaker 02

  Yeah, we've been building a timeline with things that we feel are Utah 1102 approved. I think speaking to the owner, knowing that there's a receipt, seeing the receipt, is good enough to put on our timeline.

• 2:51:43Speaker 01

  But the receipt itself, the question I always had about it is, couldn't you just call the merchant? Like, if I've ever had a merchant account, I just call the merchant account processor and say, what's the name on this?

• 2:51:52Speaker 02

  Yeah, I would, I would stay tuned. I feel that the, having spoken to the owner, that the evidence is compelling enough to put onto my personal timeline of what took place on that day. That's where it's gonna stay. And if it gets debunked, I'm happy to take it off, if that's what you mean. That's how an investigation works. Like I said, I did more than enough. It would definitely pass the test by the Utah 1102 rule, for sure, for certain.

• 2:52:20Speaker 01

  To be submitted as hearsay.

• 2:52:22Speaker 02

  Yeah, beyond that, because they didn't even have receipts. They were like, Bob told me this.

• 2:52:26Speaker 01

  But the question, but the question is, the receipt itself, it has not been verified to have been Tyler Robinson's, right?

• 2:52:32Speaker 02

  Yeah, I just want to say you're holding me to a higher standard than you are.

• 2:52:34Speaker 01

  I'm not even holding you. I'm just asking specifically.

• 2:52:37Speaker 02

  Yeah, I've been very forthcoming. I've told exactly what happened. I spoke to the owner. I got the tip. And I chased it down.

• 2:52:43Speaker 01

  Should that be added in an official timeline that you give?

• 2:52:44Speaker 02

  It's in my timeline. It's my show. And we can add and subtract what we want. And we do, if we get something wrong.

• 2:52:50Speaker 01

  Sure, but I'm asking, should you include a thing that you know hasn't actually been verified to be Tyler Robinson's?

• 2:52:55Speaker 02

  Yes, you should. If we're trying to build a timeline, you should. Yeah.

• 2:52:58Speaker 01

  You don't think that that falls under?

• 2:52:59Speaker 02

  And then you should remove it if you, if someone somehow debunks it. But I think that the, there is very strong evidence that that is where he was, and that is...

• 2:53:07Speaker 01

  What's the strong evidence? Just the two people who said that they saw him?

• 2:53:10Speaker 02

  You know, I'm, I'm actually all good with be, I feel like I've sufficiently answered your question about how I got the information, what happened next, with the next stage of this investigation being somebody accessing his, knowing what his debit card was and confirming it, yes. And I do believe that that will happen. If it does not happen and it gets debunked, I'll remove it from my personal timeline that I share on my show.

• 2:53:30Speaker 01

  That officer, the first officer that was up on the roof, do you remember his name?

• 2:53:34Speaker 02

  Officer Bagley.

• 2:53:35Speaker 01

  Yeah, what was his first name?

• 2:53:36Speaker 02

  Christopher.

• 2:53:37Speaker 01

  Christopher. When Christopher got up on the roof, you talk a lot about how his camera died?

• 2:53:43Speaker 02

  Well, he talked a lot about that during preliminary hearing. Yeah.

• 2:53:46Speaker 01

  Do you think that he planted that screwdriver up there?

• 2:53:49Speaker 02

  No.

• 2:53:50Speaker 01

  No? Who do you think planted it?

• 2:53:52Speaker 02

  I, if we're just going on my, am I allowed to have an opinion?

• 2:53:55Speaker 01

  Of course.

• 2:53:56Speaker 02

  At this stage, I would say that I, I don't buy his assertion on the stand, that he didn't check to see if anybody went onto the rooftop before he got up there. I do think that it's possible, it's at least plausible, that the screwdriver was planted. I don't believe him. What I can say strongly is that his cam died at just the right time, his body cam died at just the right time. I think that, as you were just grilling me about whether or not I'd got the merchant receipt for a debit card, that kind of makes difficult, that we just have to sort of trust that a screwdriver was found, and we don't have any should be evidence of

• 2:54:37Speaker 02

  a police body cam. But like I said, you accept that stuff, and then are like, did you call the merchant and get, like, it just seems like you...

• 2:54:45Speaker 01

  No, I'm not adding.

• 2:54:46Speaker 02

  Hold, like I said, you hold the prosecution to a, the state to a bit, a higher standard than you do to people.

• 2:54:51Speaker 01

  I'm not adding unconfirmed evidence to an official timeline that I'm putting out either.

• 2:54:54Speaker 02

  What do you mean, official timeline? This is my timeline. I made it at home.

• 2:54:57Speaker 01

  So then it would be official to your show?

• 2:55:00Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 2:55:01Speaker 01

  Yeah. Okay, great. So then, your, your official timeline, Candace Owens' official timeline, includes a steakhouse stop that has not actually been confirmed at all?

• 2:55:10Speaker 02

  Well, yeah, it hasn't even been discussed by the prosecution. So it's, it's not like you're debunking that it happened.

• 2:55:16Speaker 01

  Well, there's no, there's no evidence for it. There's no good evidence for it at all. There's no camera there. And the steakhouse receipt itself has never been confirmed to be Tyler Robinson's.

• 2:55:26Speaker 02

  I'm assuming this is just like a talking point they gave you, and you gotta like, keep pushing this, or like?

• 2:55:30Speaker 01

  I've been following it very closely on X.

• 2:55:32Speaker 02

  The receipt? You didn't, you weren't even following the charges of Tyler Robinson, but you really wanted to know?

• 2:55:36Speaker 01

  You think that because, do you think that because?

• 2:55:38Speaker 02

  I'm calling owners of steakhouses and having a conversation. You're following convo on X.

• 2:55:43Speaker 01

  I literally followed the entire trial, or the preliminary live. I was live with an attorney. We covered all of it. You think because I have a momentary, or lapse, where I'm like, oh, it's murder? No, it's aggravated murder. Come on.

• 2:55:55Speaker 02

  You didn't know any of the charges.

• 2:55:56Speaker 01

  That's splitting hairs.

• 2:55:57Speaker 02

  That's not splitting, it means you didn't follow the preliminary hearing at all.

• 2:56:00Speaker 01

  No, it doesn't mean that at all. That's ridiculous.

• 2:56:03Speaker 02

  When this is like, the, this is like getting literally to the cross aggravated murder versus murder. It's a death sentence.

• 2:56:10Speaker 01

  And not only that, let's point this out. One of the major things here is that this is your official timeline.

• 2:56:17Speaker 02

  It's mine.

• 2:56:18Speaker 01

  Yes. Who else is it gonna be? Who else? There would be Candace Owens timeline.

• 2:56:23Speaker 02

  I just don't know what his issue is with my timeline.

• 2:56:24Speaker 00

  What's your issue with that?

• 2:56:26Speaker 01

  Well, so the issue is, is that the entirety of the evidence revolves around two people who claim that he was there and supposedly a receipt. There's supposedly a receipt where Tyler Robinson paid for his steak and his soft drink, no alcohol, right? No alcohol, right? Know nothing about the case. But, um, anyway, this particular receipt, they could have called the merchant account, confirmed it, this type of thing. To date, this receipt has only the blurred information on it that would actually give you the information to confirm whose receipt it is. We have to date, nobody has confirmed that this was actually Tyler Robinson's receipt.

• 2:57:08Speaker 01

  And yet, inside of Candace Owens' timeline, which she states over and over again, when she says, "This is the longest 13 hours, this is 13 and a half hours." The requirement for about, what, roughly five and a half or six hours of that is that he went to the steakhouse? And so, and that's not been confirmed at all, not even a little bit.

• 2:57:30Speaker 02

  I feel like saying that I spoke to the owner of the steakhouse is me, like, not just being on X looking at opinions, but actually doing the legwork. Um, and that's why, like I said, if you think this builds up a rapport with your audience and makes you seem like a serious person, we don't have to keep belaboring the point here. I feel like I've demonstrated that I did as much as I could to confirm this when it came in. I spoke to the owner of the restaurant, um, you know, obviously took down everything he said, noted that there was in fact a receipt that he pulled. Um, that receipt that was published is real. A debit card and a credit card was used. If for some reason, somebody misidentified something down the line, or we find out it's a different Tyler Robinson, uh, I'm happy to remove it from my timeline.

• 2:58:13Speaker 02

  But for right now, I, I think that there's enough under the Utah 1102 rule for me to keep it there. I don't really think we need to keep going into circles about this receipt. It's, it's my timeline.

• 2:58:21Speaker 01

  I don't, I don't know why the 1102 rule would apply here for your timeline.

• 2:58:25Speaker 02

  Because you constantly cite things that are said in that courtroom that have less evidentiary support than me contacting and speaking with the, um, the owner of the restaurant. It's not like I dreamed it, as to use your expression, so it's in my timeline and I'm gonna keep it there if that's cool.

• 2:58:42Speaker 01

  Sure, you can keep whatever you want there. I'm just saying that there's no evidence he was ever there.

• 2:58:46Speaker 02

  Okay, thank you.

• 2:58:47Speaker 01

  No hard evidence, anyway. Yeah, we're fine with closing.

• 2:58:49Speaker 00

  Okay, so the last thing we're gonna do before we go into ad break, right after this, will be final thoughts. I'll be asking both of you if anything, if, if anything on your opinion thoughts changed on the case, uh, and then we'll finish it up from there. So with that being said, a three and a half minute break, and we'll come back for final thoughts. When we set out to create a shoe that blends comfort, function, and luxury, we had the choice to make it fast, we had the choice to make it cheap, we chose neither. Instead, we chose Tuscanyero. We chose true Italian craftsmanship. Each pair touched by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail, and we chose the finest quality at every step.

• 2:59:34Speaker 00

  Introducing the Future Looks Bright Collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary, rather intentional, luxurious, timeless. The beautiful thing about these events, you know how quickly it goes? Like this. Is everybody ready to get started?

• 3:00:08Speaker 03

  I've helped over 10,000 business owners grow and scale their companies. I'm just passionate about watching entrepreneurs create great business.

• 3:00:18Speaker 04

  When you get guys like Jericho Rice, that was his work ethic. We were able to do some great things on the football field.

• 3:00:26Speaker 05

  The single most important trait I had was a healthy dose of delusion. And that delusion is sometimes also referred to as self-belief.

• 3:00:33Speaker 06

  When I can do something that I love, that is good for business, and that I can make content out of, that's my trifecta.

• 3:00:43Speaker 09

  It's on.

• 3:01:12Speaker 07

  Hey, guys and gals, Vincent O'Shaughnessy here. My Faith Over Fear line is taking off, and it's all thanks to you. We've got hats, shirts, hoodies, you name it. We also got brand new designs and new apparel dropping all the time. So if you wanna rock some Faith Over Fear gear, hit the QR code on the screen or click on the link in the description. And remember, guys, if you have true faith in God, you have absolutely nothing to fear. God bless, and the future looks bright.

• 3:01:35Speaker 00

  Many times when people think about value attainment, all they think about is a podcast, but it's a lot more than that. It's nine companies working together on an 11-acre campus. If I was to give you a virtual tour here, you'll see the HR department hiring, talent acquisition. We have full-stack developers that are working on Manac and HireMetrix. We have a full-fledged events team that puts together events with thousands of people. We have a merch department designing the latest product. We just launched the F L B shoes, made in Italy. We have a marketing department, and if you go to the complete opposite side of the building, 50, 60 people making calls, working for Bedivik Consulting, sales, setters. And then on the complete opposite side of the campus, there's a full-on production company with editors, shooters, creating content, doing podcasts. Then you can drive down a couple miles and go to our private boardroom cigar lounge

• 3:02:20Speaker 00

  with members only. Regardless of what it is, working at Valuetainment, every day is a surprise. You could be walking into work and right next to you is a governor, is a billionaire, is an athlete. We are hiring aggressively, but Valuetainment isn't for everybody. For the right person, this could be the last company you ever work for. So, if you're watching this and you wanna learn more, go to vt.com/careers and apply now. All right, we are finally at the end. For those of you that are watching it, maybe a good commentary for you would be the following on, if you're a Andrew fan, and you still are still saying, you know what, Andrew's

• 3:03:01Speaker 00

  arguments were solid, great, Candace, great, but did anything change your mind? Did you watch and say, you know what, I had this position over here, this would be an interesting commentary to hear? And of course, for all the people that are watching, I was just whispering to them here, uh, before we wrap it up, I think whether you're a fan of Andrew or not, whether you're a fan of Candace or not, nobody can dispute the fact that these guys agreed to sit down and talk live. Others were thinking this was pre-recorded. This is not pre-recorded, just so everybody knows. This is purely live. This is a little bit scarier than pre-recorded, because pre-recorded can do edits. So whether you agree with them or not, let's make sure we respect both of them for having to sit down. And before the final thoughts, I wanna make sure you guys hear that from me as well,

• 3:03:45Speaker 00

  for inviting, inviting me here as well.

• 3:03:47Speaker 01

  Of course.

• 3:03:48Speaker 00

  I do know one day, uh, I think it was last week, you sent a message on one of our accounts, you said, can I talk to Patrick? We got on the call, you said, Patrick, can you moderate this? And then I said, great, let's do this. And so before we wrap up, final thoughts, I'll come to you first.

• 3:04:02Speaker 01

  Yeah, she had nothing, just nothing. Any, for, all of her claims of Patsy, nothing. She didn't have a single claim, she didn't have a single solid piece of evidence, she had no positive evidence Israel's involved in anything, no positive evidence that, um, France is involved in anything, no positive evidence TPUSA is involved in anything, no positive evidence that Erica Kirk is involved in anything. When I ask her about her claims about Erica Kirk, eh, it's just fun, and, eh, it's just fun, and, you know? Or, yeah, I do think that she needs to sit down, ask some questions, but, or answer some questions, but you know what? Um, I don't even know if she has. Like, maybe she has, I have no idea.

• 3:04:46Speaker 01

  Yes, I'm gonna have an official timeline with unconfirmed evidence, that's just fine. Hey, it's, it's hearsay, if that's good enough for the state, it's good enough for me. But my biggest problem with the state is that they're admitting all this hearsay. It's like, it's, she's a contradiction machine. On top of all of this, the thing that I wanted to get out of this, more than anything else, was to just demonstrate one thing. Yes, it's true, I'm not perfect on the case, I'm not going to ever pretend that I am, and never did. But what has been very, made very clear to me is that there's nobody with an alternative theory that has any evidence for it at all. None, zero. And the continuous, uh, kind of expression, "We're running an investigation."

• 3:05:30Speaker 01

  What kind of investigation builds a timeline out on, on a receipt that they, they don't even confirm? What kind of investigation, uh, tries to make these bold claims that Israel's involved and France is involved and all these different players are involved and never shows any evidence? We're just asking questions. It's my, it's again, like I said in my opening, it's always intuition, my feelings, how I feel about things, how I think about things. Yeah, Andrew, how many times do you hear this today? Andrew, you can't tell me how I'm supposed to think. Yeah, nobody's trying to tell you how to think, but you should rationally come to your conclusions based on evidence and facts. And the truth is, is that 90% of what you're saying is simply intuition-based.

• 3:06:14Speaker 01

  It's, it did, it came to me in a dream, it's intuition. Almost none of it has any evidence at all, just, I'm skeptical because these people over here said things, and that makes me skeptical. It's like, but no evidence. Note this to the audience, to everybody watching, you might hate my guts, that's fair enough, I get that, I'm not the most likable man, I understand that too. But there was nothing, I mean, no evidence at all that Tyler Robinson was a Patsy that was ever, uh, put forward by Candace this entire debate. Now, maybe you could say that we stalemated when it came to whether or not Robinson did it. She says, I found the evidence convincing, or unconvincing, Andrew says he found the evidence convincing.

• 3:06:58Speaker 01

  Okay, fair enough, maybe you can't do too much about that, but there was nothing, she had nothing for Robinson being a Patsy, nothing for any of her conspiracies, not a zero zilch, and she backed away on a bunch of them. This is the first time I think she's ever really backed away from the Twigs thing. First time I've heard her back away from the Erica thing, back away from TPUSA, being very cautious about making any of those claims now, whereas on her show, much more likely to be making those claims. So she just had nothing, the entire debate, zero.

• 3:07:29Speaker 00

  Candace.

• 3:07:31Speaker 02

  Well, I think that is quite a conclusion, admitting somewhere, maybe we stalemated. It probably signifies what I've been saying from the beginning, that you didn't feel that you were strong on the actual facts and the evidence, which I was willing to engage with you. I wanted to go over the screwdriver. I wanted to go over the Taliban, the things that you've mentioned, and you wanted to then move the conversation into a defense of Erica Kirk and her character, and what I've said about Erica, which is my opinion, and I have not edited that opinion after discussing with you. I would like to extend a compliment to you for being willing to sit down and to have the conversation. I still walk away feeling that the people who are jumping on the bandwagon about this case

• 3:08:16Speaker 02

  don't care about this case. They don't care about Erica Kirk. It tends to be followed that they take a meeting with Turning Point USA, and they come out and suddenly have a lot of junk to say about Candace Owens. And I do want to also stress that Turning Point USA tried to pepper him with something as a surprise. He showed clips that were meant to be a surprise. I did no such thing. I stressed to PBD from the beginning that I was grateful he was taking Hassan, and that I wanted this to be a clean debate, because I believe I can win this on the merits, and I believe that I did win this fully on the merits by engaging the evidence of what has happened. I do still believe that there is more evidence which supports that there are more people involved, and that Tyler Robinson

• 3:08:59Speaker 02

  has been set up, and that none of the evidence that was presented was in any way overwhelming, which is why I think you wanted to move to end that discussion quickly, and to speak to me about France, and to talk about this Pangu which receipt and my timeline. I want to remind people that a lot of the at-home investigators, which you were open to, as you called them, internet sleuths, I think it was on a show that you did right after Charlie was assassinated, that internet sleuths would solve this. This is the reason why Charlie, a year on, is still a conversation every single day trending on Twitter. I knew Charlie. I cared about Charlie. I care about finding out what the truth is here. My heart is in the right place. I think anybody who watches my show, or even just watched this

• 3:09:44Speaker 02

  debate, knows that if I get something wrong, I'll instantly correct it and own it. I don't, I'm not arrogant. I don't need to sit here and pretend that I didn't misspeak on the Lance thing. It hasn't been ruled out. But you saw that he just really wanted to hammer that point. You know, part of being a well-meaning person is to concede when you are wrong, to take something off a timeline when you know it's not right. And I would like to think that that is why I have earned the audience that continues to follow me, because they know my heart's in the right place, that I deeply cared about Charlie, and I deeply care about the answers. I want to thank Andrew's team, who are providing the fact checks. It's a very small room that they're in. I want to, as always, thank my team, who worked really hard to make this happen and flip the set, and to you, PBD, just for being a

• 3:10:27Speaker 02

  great moderator. I think very fair, letting us both speak and making sure that Andrew got out of this what he wanted, which is a little more than what I wanted, but I'm very content with how I dealt with this. And I trust, I don't need to convince the audiences with the magic trick of what they need to think about this debate. They can watch it and draw their own conclusions.

• 3:10:45Speaker 00

  Beautiful. Fair from both of you. I think the audience won. And again, from the beginning, all of this is because of how much love and respect we have for Charlie Kirk, a great man that's no longer here with us. His one-year anniversary is coming up here. I can't believe it's that quick that it's here. The audience, I think you also won. If you did, support The Crucible, support The Candace Show, support the PBD Podcast, subscribe to the channel. This is how you help these voices get out even more, especially going into future when this happens. You want a lot of independent creators to have these types of discussions. And last but not least, the two of you, I respect you guys again for having this conversation. It is not easy to do so. Hopefully, this will lead to more discussions. A lot of different things we talked about. I'm sure there will

• 3:11:28Speaker 00

  be a lot of follow-up. With that being said, take care, everybody. God bless. Have a great weekend.