Candace Owens discusses compressed courtroom footage, the MS Now hit piece on her, and announces Patrick Bet-David as debate moderator
Candace Owens hosts a solo episode covering the Tyler Robinson assassination case, a media hit piece coordinated with Turning Point USA, and the upcoming debate with Andrew Wilson.
Summary
The episode opens with Owens addressing online criticism of her decision to share uncompressed still photos from the Tyler Robinson case, arguing that the courtroom footage was compressed in a way that made the suspect appear significantly thinner than he actually is. She presents a side-by-side comparison of compressed versus uncompressed images and calls out commentators — including Canadian lawyer David Frei (Viva Frei) — who accused her of AI-enhancing the photos, noting that he was community-noted for making the claim without evidence. She then turns to a 45-minute MS Now video piece by journalist Brandy Zadrozny, which she says was produced with the cooperation of Turning Point USA and Erika Kirk — a partnership she finds deeply contradictory given that Zadrozny is a vocal supporter of transgender healthcare for children and TPUSA has been claiming Charlie Kirk was killed by a trans activist. Finally, she announces that Patrick Bet-David will moderate her Friday debate with Andrew Wilson, explains the terms she has agreed to, and expresses confidence going into the debate. The episode also features extended discussion of Lance Twigs as a suspected federal asset, Candace's reading of his coached demeanor at the preliminary hearing, and a call for internet researchers to look into identifying marks on the left-handed individual seen in the parking garage footage. Andrew Wilson's alleged misrepresentation of his military service is also raised as a credibility concern.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Opening remarks and the compressed footage controversy
Candace Owens: Happy Tuesday, everybody. I hope everyone is wearing their second favorite shirt today because we are going to do some hood rat stuff with our friends.
People are deeply upset on the internet that we showed photos that were uncompressed — that's all we did. Because that compression sure makes the individual in the parking garage look a lot thinner. So people who are pushing the federal narrative aren't pleased. They're going, "Why did she do that?"
These sorts of individuals, I want to say, are what my husband would describe as dollar-a-day mindset people — the kind of people who, when presented with a large sum of money that they can have instantly, don't calculate how taking the cash upfront is going to impact them in the future. They think along these lines: "Oh, wow, $200,000 to become a full-time liar and spread the fed slop. That sounds fantastic. I've never seen that kind of money before." What they don't consider is the fact that everyone then knows you're a fed slopper. They will never trust you again. So your potential to earn in the future, to be listened to by people — that collapses. Unless the people who brought you that $200,000 are going to just say, "We'll do that for the rest of your life." Yeah, that's not good. Fast money is not a long-term strategy. So try to live your life with some honor, some decency. Tell the truth. It's all I'm saying.
Anyway, today we will be announcing the moderator of the debate between me and Andrew Wilson on Friday, because it's official — it's happening. We're also going to take a look at the attempted hit piece by MS Now against me, promoted and supported by Turning Point USA. Of course it backfired. Everything that Turning Coat USA does backfires, because the person that had the brains at that organization is no longer with us.
Reviewing the uncompressed parking garage footage
Candace Owens: You have to love when we win like we did yesterday. If you have not had time, please pivot over to X and experience the crash-out from the fed sloppers. We showed the public yesterday, for the first time, still photos of the maroon-shirted individual who allegedly was walking from the parking garage en route to the courtyard, showing off his favorite shirt, seeking — of all people — a Turning Point employee to ask whether or not the event was going to be held there.
Now, were I a 4.0-plus GPA student like Tyler Robinson — I was not — but if I was, I may have actually just asked a regular UVU student that question. Maybe don't go up to someone wearing an American Comeback Tour shirt. Maybe I would have even just used my context clues. "Oh, look, that's a big tent they're setting up which says American Comeback Tour. It looks like they're bringing in some stuff. I bet it's here." Tyler Robinson apparently was built different that day. He walked right up to a Turning Point USA employee and asked, "Is this going to be where the event is going to be held later today — your boss, who I plan to assassinate?"
And the next part of it is actually where it gets really fun, because he goes to Chick-fil-A. My producer pointed out to me the hilarity of that. Have you ever met a person who was radical about LGBTQ rights that would eat at Chick-fil-A? Chick-fil-A — the Christian company that has come under fire from virtually every LGBTQ rights organization in America because their CEO openly asserted that his perspective was that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. That's kind of their vibe, their brand. Again, Tyler Robinson was so fired up by LGBTQ issues that he went to go commit a murder, but also he went to Chick-fil-A.
And we're told that in Tyler Robinson's text confessions to Lance Twigs, Tyler wrote: "Some hate can't be negotiated." Oh, unless that hatred comes with a side of Chick-fil-A sauce, I guess — then he's ready to negotiate.
Responding to accusations of AI enhancement
Candace Owens: The point I'm making here is that even the fed sloppers could not pretend that the uncompressed images we released looked anything like Tyler Robinson. It sowed more than reasonable doubt. So they moved instead to extreme forms of coping.
David Frey, who goes by Viva Frey — a once-upon-a-time respected Canadian lawyer, he is no longer — tweeted this in the hopes that the images were just edited. He was responding to Village Crazy Lady, who said, "Yeah, that's not Tyler Robinson clearly." And he responded: "I agree. The person in this picture does not look like Tyler Robinson, but do you not understand that you are sharing what appears to be an AI-enhanced photo from the original video evidence? Do you not bother to do five minutes of research before sharing this information? I put together this very clear comparison so that you can understand what you just did."
He has no evidence. He's Mr. "Where's the evidence?" And he just flat-out accuses us of AI-enhancing the photo, of tampering with the video. No, we did no such thing. Which is why he was eventually community-noted, because you can't just say stuff and make it real. You can't wish that it's AI-enhanced and make it so. We were very clear when we shared it that we did not edit the photo in any way.
Then there came a user by the name of Melanie, who coped even harder than that. She was hoping that we were using rhetorical tricks when we said that we did not enhance the photo in any way. Melanie — by the way, one of the people in the now-famed 92-person group chat — wrote: "This is what you guys do. You abuse community notes. I noticed that your words are very specific here: 'not enhanced using AI technology.' Let's be clear, Candace. Was the original altered in any form whatsoever? You don't get to squeeze out on a technicality."
So I replied to her: "Yeah, let's be clear, Mel. We didn't alter it in any way. We didn't use a hammer, a screwdriver on a rooftop. We didn't use AI tools. We didn't use anything to alter, enhance, edit, or change the photo that we shared. No one's trying to squeeze out on a technicality."
We reached peak cope on the internet with a tweet from a user who claims he has evidence that we hired or colluded with another internet investigator — Diligent Dennis — who has actually been on the ground doing a lot of work, interviewing people regarding the assassination. And supposedly we colluded and the person in the footage is actually him. It's totally fake, a reenactment, a recreation of the moment. I'll just read his tweet. This user, who goes by Zero Hour, wrote: "Candace Owens tampering with evidence. The man on the right is Tyler Robinson. The man on the left is Diligent Dennis. I will explain it all soon." Please do. Please do explain it all soon.
It's just amazing. These are the people that call us conspiracy theorists. People that say we never have evidence. Look how quickly their brains melt and they come up with strange conspiracies and reject the evidence of their own eyes.
Presenting the side-by-side comparison
Candace Owens: I am sorry to say, guys, but no — we are not in fact editing or enhancing anything. The truth is that the court hearing footage was compressed and for whatever reason put into this sizzle reel — just a 20-minute sizzle reel moving very quickly of obviously compressed footage. You can see it. The cars all look like buggies. And when you compress footage, it does make people look a lot thinner than they are. That's why they're angry.
I'm going to show you what I mean when I say that compressed footage makes people look thinner. Just because you're wearing your second favorite shirt today, I'm going to treat you to another uncompressed still — never before seen by the public. Maybe never seen by the public. Certainly seen by the government employees, and the evidence is overwhelming.
Side by side, actually, I'll put for you: Tyler Robinson as they told us he was, as he was about to descend down that staircase onto campus. On the left is the uncompressed photo. On the right is what we were shown in the courtroom. The person we are told is Tyler Robinson looks a lot thicker. So who's playing with the footage? Who's playing with the photos? I would say the court, because they knew it was going to be public. Now, it could be their system — I shouldn't accuse them of intentionally doing it. It may just be some old court system and this is what they have to do and it has to get compressed. I don't know that. I'm not assigning any guilt to them. But I am saying that the compressed part is coming from the court. It is not coming from me.
The evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson did this, right? So why are you upset? It is starting to get pretty weird, because the build of Tyler Robinson in the footage presented from the police precinct when he quote-unquote turned himself in — which I've been telling you from the beginning is not what happened. He willingly agreed to go in. That's why when they even show it, it looks like they gave him a soft drink. He's in a room that has a love seat. He agreed to willingly come in because they told him he had no choice, which is exactly what Sheriff Brooksby shared — the truth. He was basically peer-pressured into going in. "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."
But anyway, when they showed a snippet of that police precinct footage, it does not appear to be as compressed. The camera is up top, so it's going to make him look a little bit thinner. But even if you look at the side-by-side of this — this is why they're angry — because people are going to go, "You know, that person looks bigger. Why did you want us to think that person was thinner?" I shouldn't assign motive. But that's what people are thinking.
What do I know, you guys? I'm just one of those rare crazy people who still believes her own eyes and her own ears. We're going out of fashion. I will say that.
Anyway, give all of the fed sloppers time to process their emotions. Please remember, everybody grieves differently, and it is hard to be exposed as an absolute shameless, immoral grifter who is rooting for a 22-year-old to be executed by the state without sufficient evidence — likely because someone's paying you to have that perspective.
Turning Point USA's silence on the new photos
Candace Owens: Speaking of which, you might imagine, as I did yesterday, that Turning Point USA execs and affiliates — the stewards of Charlie's legacy, his best friends, "I worked with him every day" — that's called a work colleague — the caretakers of what Charlie loved and didn't love, which seems so backward from the Charlie that we all knew publicly. It's basically the opposite of whatever Charlie said publicly.
You would assume that given these photos, they would have something to say, that they would weigh in immediately, since they have been radically asserting all over the place that Tyler Robinson is the person who killed Charlie Kirk. Blake Neff, by the way, has been the most vocal in his effort to get Tyler Robinson sentenced to death. They are calling for the death of a would-be innocent man — a man who is supposed to be assumed innocent. They don't have that assumption.
So I thought surely they would comment on these photos. We know Blake watches this show every day. I'm a part of his routine. I thought surely they would come out and say, "Wow, we are deeply upset to learn that the court footage was so compressed and now we do have some questions." And maybe they'd reach out to me. But nothing. Could you imagine Blake Neff quiet after an episode of our show? It was unimaginable. He completely ignored the photos. Why? I think because not even they were willing to venture toward that deep of an absurd attempt to tell people not to believe their own eyes.
We presented evidence that a seemingly left-handed individual with a bit more weight on him — someone who does not at first glance look like Tyler Robinson, or second glance, or third glance — and nothing. 4K crystal clear. I'm getting nothing.
You're probably wondering also where Erika's voice is in all this. You're probably wondering if she called me and thanked me and wanted to sit down and actually see all the evidence that we've gathered. Thanked me perhaps for delivering at least a small snippet of that transparency that she claims she so desperately wants. I got to be honest — she hasn't called me yet.
Now, to be fair, Erika never needed to see anything. She was convinced of Tyler Robinson's guilt before it was cool — before she saw any footage at all. Remember this?
Reporter: Do you believe that Tyler Robinson murdered your husband?
Erika Kirk: Yes, I do.
Candace Owens: I love that. The confidence. Unblinking, unflinchingly. "Yes, I do." Also, no mention of the footage or the stills on the Bibus and Butad show. Nothing. What are they busy doing over there? Still thinking that they can convince the world with trash PR. It's almost like the Pinky and the Brain show. "What are we gonna do today, Pinky?" "Try to convince the world that Tyler Robinson acted alone on that rooftop with the screwdriver, and we don't really know why."
The MS Now hit piece by Brandy Zadrozny
Candace Owens: Which brings us to a video you may have seen going around — a piece published by the left-wing MS Now, by journalist Brandy Zadrozny. I want to point out the absurdity. How is this not defamation per se — that they keep going "Who Killed Charlie Kirk?" and putting my face on it? There are only two people in that photo: it's Charlie Kirk and me. How is that not defamation per se? We know what they're doing and we know who's behind it.
Just to give everybody a background on who she is: shortly after Charlie died, this journalist contacted me and it made me physically sick, because I knew exactly who she was. She was so vicious and fundamentally dishonest. Charlie and I were very green when we first encountered her. We were excited that somebody in the press — I think at the time she was working for NBC — wanted to do a piece on us. We invited her. I think we were out in California. We went out to dinner with her, had a great day with her, and then she published a piece that was just the opposite of the experience we had with her. It was a wake-up call: "Oh, wow. Journalists lie. Their job is to smear us." And she kept up doing that throughout the years.
I have text messages. I'm so tired of having to tell people the truth about how Charlie Kirk felt about certain people. I have text messages with Don Trump Jr. regarding a different piece that Brandy was working on. I have text messages with Tyler Bowyer. I have text messages between Charlie and me about this woman. Charlie Kirk did not like this woman. And so it boggles my mind that she would have any association at all with Turning Point USA.
When she reached out to me after Charlie's death, I basically barked at her. My reaction was not, "Oh, she must be working with Turning Point USA." It was, "Obviously Turning Point USA would not work with this woman in the wake of Charlie's assassination." And lo and behold, I find out that they did work with her.
Anyway, I'm going to run a clip of what turned out to be a 45-minute episode of MS Now — a series they have — where she shared my response to her. I'm really proud of it. Take a listen.
Brandy Zadrozny: I first met Candace Owens in 2018. I'd come to Stanford University to see her speak with Charlie Kirk. Kirk was just 24 years old then. He'd worked social media on Trump's 2016 campaign and was back to building Turning Point USA, the group he'd started four years earlier to fight the left on college campuses and to recruit young Republicans.
Charlie Kirk: If you're asking me, do I think the black community has been crippled economically? The answer would be yes. It has been crippled economically by Democrat policies.
Brandy Zadrozny: Kirk was crisscrossing the country, owning the libs, and building a digital enterprise on the back of its college debate tapes.
Debate clip: What have I ever said that's racist? Name one thing.
Audience member: People racism and by enabling people and giving them a platform.
Debate clip: Like who?
Audience member: Like Candace Owens.
Debate clip: Oh, Candace Owens is a racist.
Brandy Zadrozny: Kirk had just hired Candace — technically as Turning Point's director of urban engagement, then promoted to communications manager — but really she was a sidekick in everything Charlie wasn't: a woman, Black, and to Charlie and his roster of old white donors, comparatively cool.
Charlie Kirk: Met Candace back in November, hired her five minutes after I met her, and as they say, the rest is the future.
Brandy Zadrozny: Before we go any further, I should note that Candace declined to be interviewed for this video. When I asked, she sent a statement through her rep. She called me slimy and said it made her skin crawl that I would reach out in the wake of Charlie's assassination.
Candace Owens: So proud. For the record, this is a weird thing to say since this was the text Candace sent after that story published — and inconsistent with how Kirk spoke publicly about me.
Charlie Kirk: We've dealt with Brandy Zadrozny before in some stories. She's very smart, a relatively fair person, but she still has that pepper in her insults.
Candace Owens: She shows an out-of-context message of Charlie thanking her after a story — not including my family members when she was going after them and sending them emails. And then she shows Charlie not complimenting her, just saying she's relatively smart. I'd agree with that. She's relatively smart. We thought that she was a decent person when we sat down with her and then saw that she peppered insults, and she kept this up throughout the years.
That was my response to her. And genuinely, when I sent the response, I was so grossed out that she reached out after he was assassinated, because I just knew the kind of pieces she would do on Charlie and how Charlie felt about her. Never in a million years did I think TPUSA would open the doors to this woman to assist with this piece.
Especially if you even just look at her history of what she published immediately in the aftermath of Charlie's death. This is just six days after Charlie died. To give you an idea of who this woman is, she published: "Charlie Kirk trafficked in conspiracy theories. In death, he became the main character in the ultimate one, spun by the White House. It's a tactic I imagine Kirk would have approved of." Snarky, mean, soulless — and he had just been publicly assassinated. She thought that it was fine to publish that.
And over the years, that was her entire vibe. This is what she published during the pandemic: "Turning Point USA spent the pandemic flouting public health guidelines, sowing distrust in the election, and bringing the so-called culture wars around CRT and LGBTQ issues off campus and into the mainstream. And what did it get them? A boatload of money."
The contradiction of partnering with a pro-trans journalist
Candace Owens: Suffice to say that never in a million years, when I penned that response to her, could I have fathomed that Erika Kirk — the dear widow — after Charlie's assassination would open the doors literally to Brandy, who Charlie could not stand.
This is only made crazier by the fact that TPUSA is trying to convince audiences in this moment that Charlie was murdered by a radical leftist over transgender issues. But guess what, you guys? Brandy is one of the biggest supporters of transgenderism. This is a real tweet from Brandy regarding trans issues. She wrote: "Spent weeks talking to doctors who treat trans kids — a vulnerable group of small people at ever more risk now as they're being targeted for cheap political points. Most of the reporting will never see the day because people are afraid. It makes me very sad."
And just to really highlight the point here: even amongst people who support transgenderism, the majority of them draw the line at transitioning children. Not Brandy. She also tweeted: "Doctors providing care are under increasing threat from far-right harassment campaigns." She also hyperlinked another article she wrote: "State lawmakers in Oklahoma holding hospitals' COVID money hostage unless they strip away healthcare for trans kids. Why? Because the unwokable podcast told them to."
So she is radical on the topic of support for transgenderism. Naturally, Erika Kirk and Turning Point USA partnered with her anyway, out of what we can only assume is their ever-increasing desperation to smear me and all of those who are researching the many flaws in the Charlie Kirk assassination story.
I want you to take a listen to Brandy discussing how she was welcomed into their headquarters.
Brandy Zadrozny: I asked Turning Point USA for an interview to find out what they were dealing with and what they saw as the path forward. They declined to go on the record, but they invited me to their Phoenix headquarters, where I sat down with Erika and other leadership. They spent hours with me. They answered all my questions. What I saw was an organization struggling — struggling to weather a storm that would have been unthinkable a year ago. Struggling to grieve, struggling to navigate near-constant threats and harassment, and wondering each day what false storyline Candace Owens will come up with next.
Candace Owens: It's perfect. And once again, people will blame me for the fact that this backfires and people then recognize that Turning Point USA is in entirely fraudulent positions. Why would they welcome her into the headquarters? Wouldn't they be like, "You support transgenderism and Charlie Kirk just got killed by a trans furry — come on in, hours of access"? "Oh, Candace, you're talking about Candace? Here are the talking points we want you to share." Yeah, that backfired. Maybe also because running to the left doesn't actually work after you spent eleven months accusing them of murdering Charlie. You don't just switch sides that quickly and expect them to be sympathetic to you.
Blake Neff's PR blunder with the Zadrozney quote
Candace Owens: Also because of the disturbing points she makes throughout this piece, I have to point out the ever-decreasing social IQ of Blake Neff. When we think we've gotten to the bottom of his social IQ, he unlocks another basement. He cannot read a room.
Blake thought it was a good PR idea — as they were promoting Brandy's piece — to highlight one of the darker quotations from her presentation. He tweeted this quote from her: "Tyler Robinson's arrest might have united a MAGA movement that had been tearing itself apart over the Epstein files and the war in Gaza. It might have provided a common enemy, a focus on the lefty posters who were joking about Kirk's death, or Antifa — the Trump administration had blamed for Kirk's murder. It might have — if not for Candace Owens."
That is the literal meme of the Scooby-Doo cartoon villain. People published that. Travis wrote on X: "And I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids." Like, how could you say that? It's almost like suggesting that Charlie had to die because things were getting crazy — MAGA was upset about the Iranian war and our involvement with Israel, but also Israel's guy Epstein and the files made people dislike Trump. So Charlie needed to die, and the plan was that was going to unite the party against the left and keep them focused on the go-slop. But Candace ruined that opportunity.
That, my friends, is what you call atrocious PR.
I actually loved this woman recapping this, and I shared it across X. She said: "I've watched Brandy Zadrozny's 'Who Killed Charlie Kirk' so that you don't have to. Here's the short version. If you still have questions, you are the problem. According to the film, you are a grifter, a conspiracy theorist, a cash artist, or someone unfortunate enough to be adjacent to a kombucha brewer, a Kremlin-loving model, or a far-right lawyer. Now, you might reasonably assume that a film called 'Who Killed Charlie Kirk' would spend a considerable amount of time examining the unresolved questions that have caused millions of people to distrust the official account. But I have unfortunate news. Forty-five minutes later, we've learned that Candace Owens makes money doing her job, Baron Coleman gets super chats doing his, and John Bray sells kombucha. By the end of 'Who Killed Charlie Kirk,' it feels like a slightly misleading title. 'Who Are All These Annoying People Who Keep Asking Questions?' would have been considerably more accurate. We're still asking."
Oh, and one more thing: "Andrew Kolvet, I owe you an apology. I previously thought that you were terrible at PR, but watching Brandy spend 45 minutes ridiculing the very people that TPUSA presumably wants to convince has made me realize that I dramatically underestimated you. You are spectacularly terrible at PR."
It is something — how bad he is at PR. It is something to be noticed. A sight to behold is Andrew Kolvet and Erika Kirk sitting in there going, "This is going to be good for PR." We're going to team up with a trans-loving reporter, and we're going to have her call everybody who they should be convincing to join their side a conspiracy theorist or in support of the Kremlin or wacky. And that's really going to turn people toward us. They're not going to think that we're total frauds.
Who is behind these PR decisions? Is it just Andrew? Is it a crisis PR team? I don't know. But people should probably be fired over it, and they probably won't be.
Announcing Patrick Bet-David-David as debate moderator
Candace Owens: Now it's time to announce the moderator of the debate between me and Andrew Wilson. You all know that his first pick was Michael Knowles. Michael Knowles politely declined on his own show, citing his own personal reasons. And so then we moved to Andrew Wilson's second option. Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, take a listen.
Andrew Wilson: Candace Owens — I offered her $300,000 to do a debate.
Commentator: Given the reaction, I think it probably would have been better for her to lay low for a little while.
Candace Owens: The going out with the sparklers was not a great idea.
Candace Owens: I'm seven months pregnant. So if you fancy a debate face to face, you're going to have to travel to me. It's common decency.
Commentator: After giving it serious consideration over the weekend, I will be declining the invitation. The good news is that we have secured a moderator — a good one — and the moderator is already stepping in to get this debate over the finish line.
Candace Owens: Patrick Bet-David-David was his second option. And I know that my fans are going to be very upset about this because they think that Patrick Bet-David-David and his crew over at Valuetainment have not been very kind to me — and no, you are correct. Certainly not Adam Sosnick. They've thrown a lot of digs my way. That's exactly why I think it's a good pick. I want to remove the idea that this is in any way slanted. I don't want people to even — with Michael Knowles, it could have been like, "Oh, well, he's the godfather to her child." Whatever it is, they could have pitched it as slanted. In this way, I'm actually literally outnumbered. This is his pick.
I do trust Patrick, despite the fact that I've always been able to compartmentalize. I'm a big girl. I can take people. He platformed people that said things that were not true about me after Charlie's assassination. The Eric Bowling thing drives me insane still to this day — that he lied so much and said I hadn't spoken to Charlie since 2019. And I could be bitter about that. I'm not. I'm actually not.
My main thing in doing this was wanting to have a moderator that I would trust to be in my home, who I don't think is a psychopath. I have been in Patrick Bet-David-David's home. I have met his children. I have met his wife. For whatever you think about what he thinks, and our many disagreements, I think that he will moderate fairly. I actually truly believe that he will moderate fairly, and that is my number one interest in this.
What I am going to do — just to make it clear — we had a call. There was another option that also came through, which was Joe Rogan, who reached out and said he would host down in Texas. I've already said my one thing is I'm not traveling for this. So I declined to accept having to travel down to Texas. And then PBD offered, and Andrew wanted to make that happen, and I said okay — I am fine, as long as the person comes here.
And I also have, just to make it clear to everyone: PBD is going to be in control. He's going to be deciding when we go to break. He is going to be the person that decides who talks and when. He is going to be the person that the producers are speaking to. I am hoping that this Andrew Wilson thing is going to be like me meeting the final boss of the Real House Bros of Candace County, because that's what this has become.
The consistent stream of men who are being platformed and pushed by Turning Point USA — who doesn't have the courage to admit that they're communicating with these people — they send them out to do their bidding as if they don't want to get their hands dirty. These are the Real House Bros of Candace County thus far: we've got Graham Allen, we've got Paramount Not-So-Tactical, we've got Blake Neff who's the leader — Slay Bay — we've got Jeremy Boring, Viva Frey nonstop tweeting, and then all of a sudden Andrew Wilson has appeared and he's their new horse. They're not going to claim him. We're not going to force them to. But we all saw how this went down — when he goes to TPUSA headquarters and suddenly he's got a lot of money to throw around to call Candace out on Piers Morgan and Joe Rogan. The public can take from that what they will.
Addressing Andrew Wilson's framing of the debate
Candace Owens: What is already annoying me — and I am bending over backward to address — is that he keeps seeding this narrative that he's the underdog somehow, or that this is somehow unfair. I'm also happy that it is PBD because he will assess and be, I believe, 100% straightforward with the audience about whether or not I slanted anything against him, whether anything happened in the control room, and he will be honest with audiences.
This tweet from Andrew that he shared this morning — he keeps framing it as if he's in the lion's den. He wrote: "This is hardly the first time I've been in territory with a hostile audience and a high-profile debate opponent and the cards against me, and it won't be the last time. For you, it's the Friday of all Fridays. For me, it's just another day taking on a terrible worldview."
What are you talking about? Hostile audiences? We're not — there's no audience in front of us. We're going to be in this little room. People will be watching it, but you're not going to be jeered or have anybody screaming at you. I responded: it's like he keeps pretending he's from England going into Aztec Stadium and being jeered. That's not what he is walking into. He has — we have allowed his moderator. We're giving him our studio, our producers. He will be in control. He picked the moderator. He established the debate claim. We conceded to that. He is officially bringing more people than I have on my team. So actually I will be underrepresented in my own home when he comes down, because I want this to be a clean victory.
I want it to be a final response to these people who have been insisting for months and months: "Oh, all of these conspiracy theorists don't believe what they believe. They're just saying it because it gives them an audience." No, that's not why we're saying it. We very much believe what we are saying.
And I am glad that the debate claim is — one of the claims is him saying the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson assassinated Charlie Kirk. And my rebuttal obviously to that is that Tyler Robinson was set up as a psy. That's my belief and I believe that I can defend that. I don't think there are many more people who know this case inside and out. I feel like I know this case better than some of the lawyers do. Truly, Baron Coleman perhaps would be neck-and-neck with me. If I was debating Baron Coleman on the case and we weren't on the same side, I probably would be a little nervous, because he's also a lawyer and will have a natural talent for understanding some of the filings where I always have to double-check. But I am sued a lot, so maybe I'm a little more experienced than Baron Coleman actually. If we ever have a debate, I actually am the most sued person ever.
This could not have been made more fair. Other than the fact that I have asked that it takes place here and that he doesn't smoke, I have made no other requests and I have conceded everything to him. And PBD will be honest about that. I've just been like, "This is fine. This is fine. This is fine." I don't care. I actually am excited to address these points finally.
And the idea that anybody would be fearful — debate rule number one: stake a position that you can actually defend. This is not going to be like him sitting down with OnlyFans chicks in debates where you don't have to prep because you just go, "Well, I don't think stripping is a good idea," and then they try to tell you that stripping is great and they're super happy. This is not that. This is an actual court case. This is a court case that has evidence. And I believe that the people who are pursuing alternative theories — as they call them, conspiracy theories — are completely righteous in that pursuit given the lack of any evidence that has proven to be concrete thus far connecting Tyler Robinson to this murder.
So that's what we'll be debating. And I am confident going into this debate. It doesn't sound to me like Andrew is so confident when he keeps trying to seed the narrative that it's somehow unfair.
Andrew Wilson's wife's pre-debate statement
Candace Owens: Even his wife kind of posted something that felt like a eulogy. This was on August 7th. She wrote: "Regardless of whatever happens with Candace Owens or anyone else, Andrew will still be here in five, ten, or twenty years if he wants to be. He has a unique and special skill that nobody else online has, which is in very high demand. Nobody can do what he does. He's taken on some of the best debaters and commentators on the internet and torn their whole worldview to shreds in front of millions of people. We are talking about Ivy League-educated men with PhDs, political commentary veterans, people who were at the top of the debate sphere. Andrew consistently comes out on top. If you see accounts who think all he does is argue with OnlyFans girls, you can be certain that person is not familiar with him or what he does. None of their lies about him can stop him. Only somebody with a more coherent and unbeatable worldview who knows how to defend it better than Andrew does can beat him. So far, we have not seen anyone like that come along."
"Regardless of whatever happens with Candace" — what are you guys doing? Why are you eulogizing him? We don't need a eulogy. We need that same macho energy — cigarette-smoking guy who's just talking about conspiracy theorists and came into some money.
It seems like right around the time he went to TPUSA headquarters — because first, remember, he only offered $50,000, which seemed completely reasonable. That's what somebody would do reasonably. He was going to go half and half with Brian Atlas and up it to $100,000. Now suddenly, after going to TPUSA headquarters after months of dissing Turning Point USA, he comes out a different man. He's got hundreds of thousands of dollars to just throw at a debate. We're not supposed to draw any conclusions from that. We're supposed to just think, yeah, he's just got it like that.
Let me tell you something. People who have that kind of money just sitting around would never spend it on conversation. Just a fact. Read things like Rich Dad, Poor Dad. Wealthy people like that don't like to part with their money over stupidity. They like to make investments. They like to invest in property. It's a thing I've learned — I love coming from nothing and learning these things along the way, how differently they think. That sounds to me like somebody hit the lotto, and whatever this transition happened for him, it certainly was after he went to Turning Point USA headquarters and sat down with Erika and the executive team.
Like I said, let's not draw any conclusions. There's no evidence. He says he's his own horse. This is just coming from him. We'll leave it at that, and I'm sure we'll discuss it.
Our debate has no time limit — that's another thing I said. We can talk till you're blue in the face. No tricks. It will be a clean win. And I'm pretty confident. I'll leave it at that.
Viewer comments
Candace Owens: Top comment from yesterday's episode. Bro from South Carolina writes: "Thirteen hours and twenty minutes on the road and not a flock camera in sight. Sure, that makes perfect sense." That's regarding us calculating how much Tyler Robinson drove on that day. It really is incredible. He must have — I would assume he did drugs. That's the only way I could imagine that being possible. But also he was jumping off of the building. He had like superhero strength that day.
Next comment comes from Stevie. He writes: "The hat looks like it's hiding the left hand and Lance's man bun." Here's what I would like to know — I actually didn't put an APB out on this, and maybe internet researchers can help. When I look at those socks pulled up that he's wearing, I wonder if it's because he has a tattoo on his ankle. Does anybody know if there are any recent photos of Lance and whether or not he might have any identifying mark? Maybe it's a mole, maybe it's a birthmark, something that would need to be hidden. Maybe it's not Lance and it's somebody else who's left-handed. Who knows? But Lance comes to mind because we have always said that it's just bizarre that the feds moved to protect him rather than to bring him in as a suspect. Lance has always had his excuse: "I was sleeping." Oh, really? You were just sleeping. The whole day you just slept. They protect him. If you know anything about that, or if you've come across something — so many internet sleuths out there — maybe there is a birthmark of some description or a tattoo. You can email more tips at candaceowens.com.
Comments on today's episode. James the Least writes: "The gap between the truth and what reasonable people will accept as the truth is already small. You don't have to sell the truth or hire anyone to sell it for you. Yes — as soon as it's obvious that you are hiring people to sell the truth to you, you know you are being lied to."
Zamut writes: "Ironically, Charlie Kirk's voice that was extinguished by the Charlie Kirk show can now be freely heard again at Candace Owens's and a multiplicity of truth seekers. Won't you join them? Mr. Joe Rogan, are we still talking about Charlie Kirk?" "Yes, Mr. President." Yeah, that's going to be the new thing. It's going to go from "Are we still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?" to "Are we still talking about Charlie Kirk?" Because I feel like President Trump was done talking about him as soon as he gave his speech at the memorial. He kind of just sort of let that go. Feels that way.
Seven Sheets writes: "We love your vibes. I'm saddened to think that they might have hidden truth, but so grateful that they woefully underestimated your voice. Most of us have been here way before the Charlie Kirk tragedy, but they flew too close to a truthful voice. We are here for you. Truth for Charlie Kirk." Absolutely. Truth is winning because it always does in the end. You don't want to side with liars. Like I said, the dollar-a-day perspective is harmful.
John Big Boss writes: "Christ bless all the beloved. Candace, you and yours, especially those that hate us — Christ loves you." That is very true, and thank you for that.
Keeping the Faith with Father Joseph writes: "For those who are unsure whether the courtroom footage or your photo are real — meaning, did Candace stretch the person who was actually skinny? — what is undeniable is the cars. Normal-sized cars equals normal-sized person, in my opinion." Oh, are you trying on common sense, Father Joseph? Well, that's not allowed. The lawyer from Canada says it's the opposite — that the cars that look squeezed are totally legit and Candace is manipulating them with AI enhancement and it's irresponsible to share that. What's his evidence? Trust him, bro. Just trust him, bro.
Alaska Dog Lady writes: "Bro, ironically, I was in Diligent Dennis's space last night. He said jokingly: 'This guy looks more like me than Tyler Robinson, except I don't have skinny legs.'" Oh my word. The cope. So now the jokes are being spun as fact. Who are the conspiracy theorists? I know. I can't wait for whatever they're going to say about us putting in another person or recreating it. That's going to be so nutty and fun to play on the show. Stand by.
Easy Hammer writes: "What if Lance was supposed to be the psy, asked Tyler to take his spot for whatever reason? If Lance had been there, maybe they would not have compressed the photos." I think Lance — and this is strictly my opinion, which I have asserted from the very beginning of this investigation — is a federal asset. I think he is exactly, and this is according to speaking with his family members, the kind of person who would get caught up in internet garbage that would render you able to be blackmailed by the feds. That's the kind of person he strikes me as. According to my independent research into his character, he was into weird internet stuff. And the way they instantly moved to protect him — if they had done a meaningful investigation, detained Lance for a very long time and investigated before assuming that this guy is innocent — they instantly moved to protect him.
His whole demeanor when we watched his prepared statements during a preliminary hearing — it felt to me like he was not happy about what he had to do, that he knew he had to lie for some reason. Again, this is how I'm watching this and how I'm reading his character. The only time it seemed like he was very obviously telling the truth and comfortable was when they asked him about gaming and about what games they played. You could see he just sort of loosened up a bit, and I was like, "This is a person who has been coached. He has to say certain things." And I read him as a federal asset. That's just how I feel. And of course then there's just all of the evidence pointing to the fact that Lance could be involved in a bigger way.
Chris writes: "Perhaps the guy in the black shirt was walking with a limp to avoid gait analysis, allegedly used by the FBI in the January 6th pipe bomber investigation. TR was smart, but not massage smart. Well played. Wait, never mind." What's interesting is I saw them trying to be like, "Well, maybe the gun was actually up higher and it was here and we just didn't realize it was under his shirt." Well, then guys, you're going to have to explain why he was dragging the bottom of his foot. You can't just move the gun and say, "Let me show you — now that everyone's like, 'Clearly there's no gun in his pants'" — you can't then pivot and be like, "Well, no, it was up higher on his waist," because then you've got to explain why he's dragging his foot. They just have to keep filling in a bunch of holes, and they're not capable of doing that. And that's where we are right now. And I think that they know that I have more. They know that. I needed to see where everyone was at, and now I see where everybody is at.
UFO 12 writes: "Andrew Wilson never served in the military." And according to Baron Coleman's reporting on August 9th, he misrepresented his military service — he never did. I also wonder how many of the PhDs his wife claims he earned are actually legitimate. I did read something — I didn't know about this. I mean, I didn't know who Andrew Wilson was. To be fair, I did hear about this stolen valor thing. It is interesting. Someone sent me the tweet that his wife wrote years ago saying that he was a sniper in the army. I don't know that you can just tweet that and then delete it and say never mind. She tweeted something like, "I'm just so grateful that my husband's a sniper in the army. It comes in handy." And then I saw they said that he denied that or said he only spent some time in the army. Maybe he was sniper army. I don't know anything about him. I'm going to learn a lot about him, though. I'll tell you that much. By Friday, I will know a lot more about Andrew Wilson, because that's what it means to prepare for any debate. You should always overprepare.
Donna writes: "Candace, is your security team good enough to detect nanotechnology that they leave behind — hidden somewhere, the bathroom, the kitchen, the patio — to spy or to use as a weapon?" We actually strangely just do sweeps a lot. My husband just does that — even before things got like this. He's just a person who believes in doing that. But beyond that, people who were asking, "Are you concerned about that?" — we are moving very soon. We have been in the process of looking for a new home for a couple of years, but we sped that up when the psycho group of 92 people — when they started and Laura was publishing and they're looking for pictures of my kitchen — we sped that up and just got rid of everything and started fresh. So we'll be gone soon. We're not really too concerned about that.
I also did not at all feel like, "Oh my god, I could not let Andrew into my house." I did not get that feeling. I'm not intimidated by Andrew Wilson, I guess, is the best way to say this. And like I said, with PBD, I've been to his house. I do not strike him as that kind of person. I know some of you guys are always very concerned for me, and I deeply appreciate that. I do go with my gut instincts on things. I am not as paranoid, maybe, because my husband is always paranoid for me anyway. He takes good care of that stuff on the security end.
If someone pulls the BB — as we call it — BB notoriously, if you don't know the story, went to see the then-Prime Minister, which was Boris Johnson, and he pretended he had to go to the bathroom and tried to bug the bathroom, and then they swept after and found the bug that Bibi planted. That's just so Bibi Netanyahu. It's just absolutely hilarious.
Koko Goes Off writes: "Can we please talk about Rob McCoy telling Darren Tyler a couple of days ago that Charlie wanted him to start Turning Point Israel? Like, be so for real. Thank you for everything you do, Candace. You are our voice." I forgot to get to that Rob McCoy interview. I did see that trending. I actually haven't seen it yet. I will have to take a look at it and maybe we'll pull it into tomorrow's show.
Also want to remind you guys we are not having our regular show on Thursday, as we have to flip the whole studio to accommodate the debate on Friday. We want to run some tests and stuff, so we're not going to drive ourselves crazy. So there will not be a show on Thursday.