Candace Owens presents new footage and analysis of events surrounding Charlie Kirk's death, challenging Turning Point USA's narrative
Solo episode of the Candace podcast in which Candace Owens presents previously unseen footage of TPUSA videographer Terrell Farnsworth's actions immediately after Charlie Kirk was shot, and argues that the official account of those actions contains deliberate deception.
Summary
This solo episode centers on previously unseen footage of TPUSA videographer Terrell Farnsworth's actions in the immediate aftermath of the September 10th shooting at Utah Valley University, and on what Candace Owens argues are deliberate inconsistencies in the official account. She presents Terrell's 1102 sworn statement to the SBI, which she argues proves he lied to her about being unable to send footage and about fearing a Google hack — since he had in fact shared footage via Google Drive on the very day of the shooting. She then reveals previously unseen footage showing Farnsworth pocketing the SD card from the camera behind Charlie's head and immediately texting someone, rather than securing other cameras or SD cards, which she argues contradicts TPUSA COO Andrew Kolvet's explanation that Farnsworth was simply protecting all footage from theft. She also raises questions about why the FBI — rather than Utah state authorities — took custody of the evidence, citing former CIA officer John Kiriakou's observation that nothing in the case legally triggers federal jurisdiction. Candace also references her recent debate with Andrew Wilson, which she characterizes as a TPUSA-orchestrated attempt to entrap her, and frames the episode's "Court of Candace" opening as a formal sentencing of TPUSA to "more truth" for that misconduct. The episode closes with audience comments responding to her recent debate with Andrew Wilson, and a clip from the Joe Rogan podcast in which Rogan and his guests discuss the Tyler Robinson case and mock aspects of Erika Kirk's public appearances.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Opening: The Court of Candace Sentences TPUSA to More Truth
Candace Owens: Happy Tuesday to everyone except the people who think that we need positive evidence to share our opinions and cannot comprehend why that's patently ridiculous. I think granola is delicious when I'm pregnant. Where's your positive evidence for that? We can just say what we think, put ideas together.
As stated yesterday, there must be a sentence handed down from the Court of Candace for Turning Point USA's misdemeanor offense. They ran afoul of CO Code 92784 — colluding with debate bro slobs to attack me, violating my personal space, ignoring the rules, having the permanent creep Steven Crowder sneak his CEO into my home to join Steven's show from my children's playroom without my consent, without my knowledge. None of that can be tolerated under the current law that we have on the books. And we all know what their punishment is. That's what their punishment always is. I am the magistrate, therefore the judge and the jury. They have been sentenced to what they hate the most: more truth.
Welcome back to Candace. Get ready because it's another big one. It is explosive. We have something to share — it's never been seen. Our favorite. But first, we have to jog your memory of whence we came. I want you to lock in and really pay attention to the details. They matter.
Revisiting September 10th: The Camera Behind Charlie's Head
So I'm going to ask you the question. What was the original moment that made people suspicious of what happened on September 10th? What was the first thing that you saw online that made your eyebrow raise, so to speak?
I would offer that it was when Terrell Farnsworth — Turning Point USA's audio and visual lead, he runs Visual Impulse — was seen taking down the cameras, particularly taking down one camera: the camera behind Charlie's head. This turned out to be less than four minutes after Charlie was hit. We know he went up and he recorded himself, he announced that Charlie was dead, he went down and he began removing that camera in particular.
Before anybody knew who he was — I knew who he was, but the rest of the world just went, "What's going on? Why are we violating a crime scene? Why is somebody moving a chair that Charlie was just sitting in to stand up and take that camera down?"
I actually should be honest — unlike the rest of the world, I was not immediately suspicious because I knew Terrell. You'll recall this. I reached out to him. I've known him for years and I said, "What's up?" I assumed that there had to be some sort of a reasonable explanation. That conversation took place — to remind you — on September 18th. I reached out to Terrell, got him on the phone, was expecting something simple, and instead it was the phone call itself that made me feel suspicious. I went to my team: something is wrong.
I've gone over this moment with you guys so many times. It's because Terrell was nervous. He was offering me various, increasingly bizarre reasons as to why he could not show me the back footage. People thought maybe the back footage caught the person from the crowd that shot Charlie. And I just said, "Okay, let me see it." He said he didn't want to share it because he didn't want Erika to see Charlie get hit in 4K. And I said, "Okay, it doesn't need to be shared. You can just tell me and I'll tell audiences that I saw it and everything's okay."
And the craziest part of all was him telling me — again, you'll recall because I said this to you right when it happened — specifically that he did not know how to send the file to me. I said, "Just send it to me. I'll watch it. Obviously I won't share it." And he said, "I don't know how to send the file." And I said, "Terrell, you run an AV company. What do you mean you don't know how to send a file?" And then he admitted that he did know how to send a file, but he didn't want to do it for fear that Google might hack him. Go back, watch the episodes. That's what he said. He had proof that Google might hack him. What?
But it turns out that now we know that Terrell lied to me. Terrell's a liar. I sensed it then. Yes, I had an immediate intuition that Terrell was lying to me — that he maybe did know how to send a file, but he wasn't actually fearful that Google might hack him. They keep telling us our intuition means nothing. But guess what? My intuition and vibe in that matter has been proven correct.
Terrell's 1102 Statement: Confirmed Lies
It was confirmed when the preliminary hearing took place. The lead investigator on the case, SBI Agent David Hull, explained on the stand that on September 10th — so that would be eight days before I spoke to Terrell — actually on the very day of the assassination, Terrell apparently did know how to send footage. And he chose to do that via a Google link. He used the very company that he would then tell me eight days later he was afraid was going to hack him. That makes Terrell a liar. He lied to me. I don't like when people lie to me.
There is entirely no dispute that he lied to me about his fear of a Google hack, because he actually signed and submitted an 1102 statement to that effect. He was entered in and discussed during the hearing. We can show you this statement from Terrell.
It tells us — and I'm going to read the first part first — that on September 10th: "I, Terrell, was present at the Turning Point USA Utah Valley University event. Myself and my team were there to provide audio, video equipment setup, management, and support as we had done for Mr. Charlie Kirk for years. Our camera setup consisted of three angles: an angle directly on Charlie, an angle on the individual asking questions, and a wider angle behind Charlie that showed the audience and the crowd reaction."
Okay. So a wider angle behind Charlie that showed the audience and the crowd reaction.
"That day on September 10th, I provided SBI with four videos through a Google Drive."
And then you see the link, and he tells you what those videos are labeled. And then he says: "These videos were taken by me and my team at the UVU event on September 10th, 2025. These videos, as they were provided to SBI, are a true and correct representation of what took place at UVU."
Now let's understand that first portion. He says there are four videos that he sent to them. He says there are three cameras. I want you to remember which cameras we saw around Charlie generally speaking. Now there is one moving camera that I want to point out which may potentially be the fourth camera, which was operated by a guy that seemed to be floating from side to side. I'm assuming this might have been a contractor and maybe Terrell got that footage from him. But the more pertinent ones are the three static cameras that he is representing in his statement that he was operating.
The Three Camera Diagram
Here is the diagram of those static cameras — the three shots. We have one to the front left side of Charlie that is being operated by Robert Golo. In theory, I would say that is the camera circled in blue. The yellow one is operated by Robert Golo — that's the one facing the person asking questions. The one in blue is the one that I would say would carry the most critical, graphic, up-close evidence of Charlie Kirk being shot. That's the one being operated by Jordan Wilson. In other words, if I were trying to gather evidence very quickly within minutes of Charlie Kirk being shot, I'd go blue.
That's an opinion. I'm saying: were I in control of the AV department and I was trying to be useful to police, I'd probably grab that footage as critical evidence. And then I would grab the footage circled in yellow — as he described, pointing to the person asking questions. We know that has some rotating capability. I'd probably grab that one second.
But that third camera — to me, if I'm running this event — is instantly the most irrelevant. Because A, it's facing downward. B, it's behind Charlie. And traditionally, all it showed was a view of what was happening below and around Charlie's feet and captured some audience — but not more than the yellow camera is going to capture. If you want to capture the audience, you go with the yellow.
And the reason I'm saying "traditionally" is because there was a massive discovery from YouTuber Nissi when she realized that Terrell Farnsworth, when he finally did show me the completely non-graphic footage from behind Charlie's head, presented to me what appeared to her to be a zoomed-in shot from that camera. This is important that we go back and revisit what Nissi caught about that camera. Take a listen.
Nissi's Discovery: The Zoomed-In Footage
Nissi: "In this footage that Terrell has selectively shared with Candace, we can't see the ground where Charlie had been sitting. You're probably thinking, 'Okay, so what?' Well, I'll tell you what. Actually, I'll show you what. On February 28th, 2025, the American Comeback Tour did a stop at Florida State University. And here is the back camera shot. On March 3rd, 2025, the American Comeback Tour did a stop at the University of Southern California. And here is the back camera shot. Here's San Francisco. Here's San Diego. Long Beach. Boise, Idaho. Washington State. Do you notice a pattern? The camera is a wide-angle camera and was always used as such. However, in the footage that Terrell has selectively shared with Candace, you cannot see the ground. So either that day at UVU they had changed things up and had zoomed in the camera so that you couldn't see the area around Charlie, or Terrell had zoomed in after the fact and he was showing a cropped version of the footage to Candace. Why did Terrell do that?"
Candace Owens: Now we've already demonstrated from Terrell's 1102 statement that he's willing to lie to me. So I don't think we can go directly to him and ask that question. We're going to have to continue to prod this narrative on our own.
What we learn is compelling from Agent Hull: on September 10th, Terrell did not give them the SD cards. So we see him race to take down that camera, to then take the SD card out of that camera. Our assumption was that he handed that over to the FBI that was in charge of the investigation. But Hull is going to testify that no — Terrell gave them a flash drive. This means that Terrell inserted that SD card into a computer and then copied the footage onto a flash drive, and similarly created Google links. Even though days later he'd be concerned that Google might hack him. Initially, he gave them Google links but not the original SD card.
Why? Why not hand the direct SD card over to the FBI's lead investigator? Did Terrell think that they were not equipped with knowledge of how to use an SD card? Even I am, and I'm terrible at technology. But let's listen to Agent Hull's testimony.
Agent Hull's Testimony
Agent Hull: "Yes, we were able to collect video. TPUSA had a videographer — Visual Impulse — who was taking coverage of the event, and they provided video to us that they had captured on September 10th of 2025."
Interviewer: "And do you know who or how that video was collected from Visual Impulse?"
Agent Hull: "Yeah, Mr. Farnsworth originally provided, I believe, a flash drive to Lieutenant O'Brien with one of the local agencies. And a short time after that, on September 10th, he provided downloadable versions — electronic versions — to Agent Mortonson. And an 1102 was collected from him on May 6th of 2026."
Candace Owens: Not the SD card, though.
So when the footage began going viral — the clip of Terrell taking down that camera in particular — people online, I think rightfully, speculated that there must have been something really important about that back footage behind Charlie's head specifically. And then people were gaslit. We were told no, there was nothing unique about that camera, there was nothing unique about that footage in particular. Terrell actually grabbed all of the footage, and he did so because people were stealing — and people are evil.
Which we then said — our common sense went — that doesn't really make sense. Because if he was worried about people stealing, wouldn't he be concerned with the camera? It was just the SD card that he took out. It was Andrew Kolvet who offered that excuse, by the way, to Tucker Carlson. I'd like to remind you here is what he said.
Andrew Kolvet's Explanation to Tucker Carlson
Andrew Kolvet: "So Charlie was very well aware of the existence of evil. Obviously, you know, there's a — by the way, just one other conspiracy theory I just want to snuff out here. One of our dear friends that literally from the very beginning started with us and loved Charlie like a brother — he grabbed the SD cards out of the camera afterwards. And there's all these conspiracy videos about why did he grab the SD cards? Well, first of all, they're in the possession of the FBI. Okay? It's not like he took them and ran off with them. Second of all, I asked him personally. I said, 'Why did you do that?' And he looked at me, and this was his answer. He said, 'Because I know people can be evil.'"
Tucker Carlson: "Oh."
Andrew Kolvet: "And he did not want that footage being grabbed by somebody. There were videos of people after the incident going and stealing hats off the table."
Tucker Carlson: "I mean, so I'm so grateful he did that, and that that was his instinct."
Andrew Kolvet: "He's like, 'I'm depressed to know that that was why I did that, but I knew that I had to protect that footage because — you know, you're recording in like 4K — and so I'm so glad he did that. It's beautiful. It's really beautiful."
Candace Owens: I'd like to — he just — he said, "Because I know people can be evil." Let me try that again. Because I know people can be evil. Okay, one more time. I just want to give it with as much passion as Andrew did. "I took the SD cards because I know people can be evil." Beautiful. Beautiful. Really, the Academy Award goes to you, Andrew.
But you said "cards." And what we noticed was that it was card — it was that one first. It struck me and others as odd. But here is Andrew reinforcing the narrative that this is a conspiracy theory, that there was nothing special about that particular footage behind Charlie's head, that he was actually worried about all of it.
But actually, if you keep reading Terrell's 1102 statement, it flies in the face of what Andrew has said. There was something unique about the footage behind Charlie's head. There had to be something particular about that footage which moved Terrell — or maybe someone in the FBI, but it's not clear — to create a clip out of only the footage behind Charlie's head. Just that back footage.
The Clipped Footage: Terrell's 1102 Statement Continued
We're going to read the rest of the statement. Terrell writes: "Regarding the clip which has been labeled 80704 — Turning Point footage of the crowd and behind Charlie — I have reviewed and from what I can see, it is a true and correct representation of a portion of the larger files previously sent to SBI."
Let me slow that down for you because it's very important. What we are learning is that they had four videos. And of those four videos — the statement tells us the length of each — one is 26 minutes, another is 26 minutes, another is 26 minutes, and a fourth is 23 minutes. I'm guessing that represents the full length of all of that footage from the cameras I showed you, since Charlie got hit very quickly into the event.
Despite having all of that footage, they decided to clip from the camera behind Charlie's head a special clip. That is what Terrell is saying — that this is a true representation of the footage that was recorded. Why did they need to clip out from the full footage of that camera just a little three-minute clip? That's the question.
What we can discern from this is that for whatever reason, of all the camera footage provided across four cameras, only one of the four cameras had footage that they felt they needed to turn into a clip. We're not sure if Terrell clipped it or if it was SBI that clipped it. We do know that Terrell was the first to touch that footage, and we do know that the footage wound up clipped. And Terrell is testifying in a statement that from what he can see, it appears to be a true and correct representation of the portion of the larger files.
Now, the way that he is phrasing that is interesting — "a true and correct representation" — because it would still be a true and correct representation if it was zoomed in. We learned that during the whole back and forth regarding 12.1 and 12.4 in the courtroom when they were debating. They got to see zoomed-in footage, but they were like, "This is still a true representation of what happened. We're just zooming in and making some circles." So Terrell is basically saying it's still a true representation. It's plausible that the only reason they would have to clip that out is because it was zoomed in. You would have to create a new clip if you were zooming it in. You couldn't just run that in the entire content.
So again, I want to underscore what I'm saying: you would have to clip the footage in order to zoom it. I am making the case, based on Terrell's 1102, that the footage behind Charlie's head was specifically clipped. And I'm also going to make the case that contrary to what Andrew Kolvet is saying, there was something special about that footage behind Charlie's head. And Terrell beelines to it in particular. He was nervous about that footage in particular, because he did not instantly grab all of the SD cards. He grabbed that one, and he did it nervously. That's what people saw. He was looking around to see who was watching him as he took only the SD card from that camera before he disappeared behind the tent.
The New Footage: What Terrell Did Next
Let's watch that together. Here he is. He's taking down the camera altogether. If you're worried about theft, take the whole camera — it's pretty small, it's in your hand. He doesn't do that. He takes it apart and he takes the SD card out. And he looks around. He wants to see who's looking at him. And then he looks down at it and he walks around.
We had wondered: what did Terrell do when he walked around? He hasn't addressed any other camera — just that one. Well, you don't have to wonder what he did anymore, because today I can tell you what Terrell did. I've actually known what Terrell did since October. As I was wondering who could be trusted at Turning Point USA, there was a network of government employees that were fighting to get the truth out and wondering who they could trust as well. And now appears to be the moment — not to tell you what Terrell did, but to rather show you and let you draw your own conclusions about whether Terrell appeared concerned about anything other than that particular footage.
Okay. Here is what Terrell did thereafter — seen for the first time.
Terrell is there. He looks around again nervously and he puts the SD card in his pocket and he zips up. He doesn't run to the other cameras and try to grab the SD card. Instead, what he does is he whips out his phone and he begins texting with someone. And that's what he does. He's texting with someone — to say what? Who's he texting? What's he saying?
If he's just out there fighting evil and worried about securing the footage, why didn't he grab the other SD cards? Who is he in communication with after he grabs that? Because I've got to tell you something, Andrew. Were it me, and I was amongst my peers sitting on a jury, I would not accept your narrative that he looks like he's worried about people stealing. Not about the hats, not about the other footage, not about the cameras. It looks to me like — and again, this is my opinion — it looks to me like he's completing a task and checking in with someone to say that a task is completed.
Maybe I don't know. I'm open to everything. Maybe there was some police officer who told him to take that footage in particular. I'm told that didn't happen. And I will say this: when someone demonstrates that they are capable of lying to you, you have a right to take note. And Terrell lied to me. He lied to me about his fears regarding Google.
It is therefore my opinion, on the basis of everything that we are observing with our eyes — his mannerisms, the beeline to that footage so quickly within four or five minutes as if that had to be secured, the 1102 statement where we know that that footage in particular was clipped, the questions that Kathy Netor asked thereafter, things that she asserted about not knowing whether or not that footage was edited — your claim that the FBI has it? Why? It's a Utah case. Why would the FBI have the SD cards?
When I observe everything with my eyes, I don't think they're going to call me for jury duty in Utah, but it demonstrates to me that that footage was prioritized. So now the question is why. It was zoomed in, and if Nissi is correct and this was unusual, and knew that that footage would be zoomed in, then the only thing that would be accomplished by that sort of a crop and a zoom-in would be not showing us what happened below Charlie.
But I need that footage. I'm being sued by Brian Harpole. I'm going to need that footage. I'm going to trace that footage and be able to understand the custody of that footage and whether or not — as Kathy Netor is asking — it was edited before it was given via Google link or via a flash drive to the FBI.
And I'm genuinely asking questions here: why did Terrell tell me that he spoke with Erika about that footage specifically? Again, he was lying a lot on that phone call, so I can't assert that he was telling the truth, but I do know and I have proof that that's what he told me. And why did Turning Point USA gaslight us about the significance of the footage? Now we can read the case and see that there was something about that footage that required something different than the other cameras and the other videos that were running — significant enough for the FBI to create a specialized clip from it, or Terrell to create a specialized clip from it. Why continually gaslight the public into believing otherwise? Pretending there's nothing interesting there?
Terrell just violated a crime scene to secure it because he was worried about evil, because people can be evil. Is the SD card still in his right pant pocket? Andrew, Terrell, anybody? You say it was given to the FBI. Okay. Well, why? State crime. The FBI under the law is allowed to assist, but they don't have jurisdiction over the state. In all practicality, the state should have been handed the SD card, and then if they wanted to, they could have handed it off to the FBI — but that should have been the flash drive copy.
Anyway, I'm going to continue to think while it's still legal to do so. And I'm certain the internet will join me in that exercise.
FBI Jurisdiction: Why Is a Federal Agency Running a State Case?
All right. Speaking of this totally inappropriate chain of custody — the FBI jumping on the case like cowboys — that's not how this works. They are supposed to be used, because your tax dollars pay for these things, when there is a case that obviously violates federal law. If it's happening on federal property, you don't get to have Kash Patel just go, "I'm just gonna come and bring everybody with me and take over the whole case and evidence." The State Bureau of Investigations, as you saw, can reach out to the FBI and ask them to assist with certain testing and things of that nature, but the custody goes state and then FBI. So why the FBI interjected so quickly is in and of itself kind of a conspiracy.
There was a man named John Kiriakou who is a former CIA officer who had a conscience back in 2007 during the so-called war on terror. He became a government whistleblower about how some of the terrorists were being tortured. Anyway, John Kiriakou went on to the Danny Jones podcast, and here is what he had to say about the FBI's involvement in the Charlie Kirk case.
John Kiriakou: "Why is the FBI involved in this? Charlie Kirk was killed in Utah by a kid from Utah who left his house in Utah, drove to the university in Utah, and allegedly shot Charlie Kirk. Nobody ever crossed a state line. There's literally nothing in this case that would make it federal — unless there was a conspiracy, in which case it would be a federal case and the FBI would be involved. So Kash Patel was asked this early on and he said, 'We're just offering the FBI's expertise to the Utah State Police.' Like, really? Is that just what it is? Because offering your expertise means sticking stuff in a FedEx and sending it to Utah so they can do with it what they want. Or maybe you put one FBI lab person at their disposal."
Danny Jones: "Mm-hmm."
John Kiriakou: "You don't have the FBI director fly out there with a plane load of FBI agents. It's not a federal case."
Candace Owens: He is correct. This is unusual and you have a right to feel that this is very suspicious. You have a right to ask questions. As I demonstrated in my back and forth with Andrew Wilson, you have a right to look at this and go, "Hey, it's very strange that Kash Patel apparently shut down Joe Kent, who wanted to investigate whether or not there are foreign ties."
If there are no foreign ties, then why would you have an issue with people investigating those non-existent foreign ties? And then when people say, "Hey, I think there's foreign ties," you gaslight them and say, "You have no positive evidence." How could we have positive evidence when the department that's supposed to find that positive evidence is told, "Don't do that"?
And then we had Turning Point USA, who's upset with the person who wanted to investigate those ties, but not upset with Kash Patel — going to events with Kash Patel, dressed up, buddy-buddy. People are starting to notice that all of this does feel and look like a conspiracy. Were the players involved? We don't know.
But as I said, they were intentionally trying to trip me into a lawsuit. You can see they're all salivating for me to be sued. "Turning Point, sue her. Take her money. Take her money. Shut her down. Bankrupt her. Charlie Kirk got killed and she cares and she won't let it go. Bankrupt her. Bankrupt her." Okay. Well, guess what? People are taking notice of that being odd as well. You're going after the people who are investigating it, and you're becoming increasingly more vicious in how you do it. You are spending a lot of money to do it. You are lying on record, getting caught in lies, and then gaslighting us by saying we don't have a right to recognize those lies. It's not working.
Joe Rogan and the Comedians Weigh In
And this has gone mainstream. It is being discussed on the biggest platforms in the world — whether that's Shawn Ryan, or more recently Joe Rogan, who had a laugh alongside his guests Mark Normand, Shane Gillis, and Ari Shaffir as they were discussing the Tyler Robinson case and the odd and increasingly odd public relations campaign surrounding Erika Kirk. Take a listen.
Joe Rogan: "I get it. Wearing that mask for a little bit though — I genuinely, both Duncan and I both gained respect for the furries."
Guest: "Yeah, but then they shoot the president."
Joe Rogan: "Nah, I don't know if that guy's a furry."
Guest: "No, he loved a furry."
Joe Rogan: "Oh, he loved a furry. So—"
Guest: "Yeah, but I'm not even sure if that's true."
Joe Rogan: "The more time goes on, the more I'm leaning towards Candace Owens."
Guest: "I don't think any story that you hear in the news is accurate. I think there's always spin on it at least."
Joe Rogan: "There's always some spin. But whatever the spin is, whatever the spin is about Tyler Robinson, there's some bullshit to it. I don't know how much, but there's some. One of the more recent things is they found a photo that they were saying was Tyler Robinson, but then people noticed — because he's real thin — people noticed that the cars in the background, the proportions were distorted, and then they realized that what they had done was taken a guy who's much wider than Tyler Robinson and shrunken the perspective."
Guest: "Really?"
Joe Rogan: "Yep. Yep. And then when you see him for what he really looks like, you're like, 'Oh, there's no way that's that guy. That guy's big.'"
Guest: "And then you're like, 'Well, it's mostly true.' Like, no."
Joe Rogan: "No. No. They changed — like you look at the hood of the cars behind him, they're all like that."
Guest: "Now, who is that guy?"
Joe Rogan: "What guy?"
Guest: "Tyler Robinson."
Joe Rogan: "He was the guy who supposedly shot Charlie Kirk."
Guest: "Kirk. Yeah. Not the president."
Joe Rogan: "Did you ever see Juski's America Kirk?"
Guest: "Yeah. I thought it was threatening him. They were going to sue him for that."
Joe Rogan: "I don't know. It was funny. It would have been the best thing that ever happened to him."
Guest: "When he came out, he starts doing cartwheels with white face on."
Joe Rogan: "White face. He's killing that guy. Every video kills — when he goes to NASCAR."
Guest: "Unbelievable."
Joe Rogan: "Funny dude."
Guest: "Funny dude. People that got upset with that — shut up."
Joe Rogan: "I know. You don't think it's weird the lady comes out to sparklers behind her? That's insane."
Guest: "I know."
Joe Rogan: "You don't think someone can make fun of that? She walks out like Randy Orton — Goldberg coming out. She's going out like Undertaker."
Guest: "The queen wore black for 80 years. Crazy."
Joe Rogan: "In interviews she dresses like Seal Team Six. She's all blacked out with like a black hat and everything."
Guest: "She's serious, bro."
Joe Rogan: "She's serious."
Guest: "Are cool."
Joe Rogan: "She's serious."
Candace Owens: You just have to love guy chat. That's exactly how everyone is speaking behind the scenes, and you just have to love Joe Rogan for having the courage to just have a boy chat publicly — which everyone's relating to and laughing at, except for Turning Point USA. Because this has been their PR strategy: this bizarre strategy to go after the comedians for noticing, to go after people for noticing, for trying to entrap them into lawsuits by sending D-list debater bros who know nothing about the case, for trying to investigate the case. It's backward.
The best thing that they could have done would have been to say and do nothing for at least a year, rather than partnering with Charlie's enemies, saying that his friends were enemies and that his enemies were friends. None of this is making any sense. And we have now reached peak comedy with people just leaning into it and mocking it. And somehow they continued to go after me as if I were not here, this conspiracy would somehow stop.
I'd like to remind everybody: I was the last to comment publicly about the strange behavior of Erika Kirk, and I only weighed in beginning in December when she went on a press tour and explicitly shared something that was untrue — that the night before, Charlie was not sending messages saying that he feared for his life. So we are to believe that Charlie did not share his fear with his wife at all the night before. When she says he was just so excited to do what he's always done, so excited to go to UVU, he couldn't sleep — maybe he couldn't sleep because he thought he was going to be killed. That makes more sense to me. I've never known Charlie to not sleep over a tour stop at a place that he's already been. It's just not a thing.
The "Positive Evidence" Parody Video
Another video I want to show you. Yesterday I was telling you about this account at whereforbidden. They are just brilliant. I mean, talk about somebody who has the creative force within them. They have dropped a new Erika Kirk video and it might be my favorite. Take a listen.
Video: "Erika, what are you doing out here?"
"Shabbat shalom. I CHOOSE YOU. PICKLE PUP."
"Positive evidence."
"Oh, you've got to be kidding me."
"Positive evidence."
"Pickle Pup attack."
"Positive evidence. Positive evidence."
"Pickle Pup, do something."
"Positive evidence. This was a terrible investment."
"Positive evidence."
"Who is that Pokémon?"
"It's Shapiro."
Candace Owens: It's just absolutely brilliant stuff. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant stuff. The comedy that is coming out right now — like I said, we have reached critical mass with this. And so setting up these influencers and wasting money doesn't work. Just sit down, have a full conversation.
Obviously, not just could be — there are likely a ton of things that we have gotten wrong as we have pursued this investigation. And when I say "we," I'm referring to all of the independent investigators, whether that be Nissi, Baron Coleman, Ian Carroll, Coach Colin. Sure, I'm sure we have made some errors, but we did not make them knowingly. And we wish to correct them if we did make them. And the best way to solve this is to just sit down and be honest.
I actually taught a great lesson last week in my debate when we turned Andrew Wilson by the end of it into a conspiracy theorist who thought that I was receiving text messages on my phone to remind me of what the charges were, and then thought that I must have been receiving them through Signal or through Telegram. What did I do? At first I said, "Here's my phone. If there's no conspiracy, there's no conspiracy." Transparency is the best way to debunk any and every conspiracy — if that's what you call them, alternative theories. I demonstrated that. You have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hide. So I don't understand why Turning Point won't engage in that by just sitting down and having Erika answer every possible question about what happened on that day. Andrew Kolvet, Blake Neff — here's my phone. Here you go. This is what happened. Here's where I was. We're not getting that.
And the longer that it takes, and then when you choose to finally share some daylight, you pick Andrew Wilson and you give him a text message — never before seen, by the way. It's still never before seen because we haven't seen it. He's teasing it. I can't wait. Another little trap. I can't wait for that text message to be publicized. I'm so glad just even knowing that it exists, that it was in Andrew's hand. That's already helpful for me.
Audience Comments
Candace Owens: Top comments from yesterday's episode. K. writes: "Somebody's comment said, 'If you play the Andrew Wilson debate at 1.75 speed, bro's foot turns into a fan.'" I actually have to do that. That is hilarious.
Nikki writes: "Paying someone $100,000 an hour to be humiliated is a rather expensive fetish." Indeed. Indeed it is.
Trillion writes: "This debate is positive evidence that Turning Point USA has terrible PR." Overwhelmingly, I am overwhelmed that it is positive evidence that their PR strategy has just been an open-and-shut disaster from start to finish. You just — it's unbelievable. They cannot stop blundering.
Comments from today's episode. "The one you feed" writes: "Candace, please make sure that they did not do a BB and leave a bug in your house." First off, the zone that they were in is not a place that we are regularly in other than when we actually film the show. And secondly, of course, George has already had the house swept for bugs. That was like the first thing he did, especially when we learned the Steven Crowder crew were here.
Alicia Switzer writes: "Ian Carroll did a great reaction video, six hours, and it was great. Kudos to him for calling the BS as we all saw it and stopping to call it out. I can't wait to get my new second favorite shirt. Stay amazing. We will continue supporting you. Much love from Missouri." I actually saw just clips of him and I've shared some of them and they're hilarious. And I do want to, when I have time this weekend, watch his reaction video because so many people have said that it was absolutely amazing. Shout out to Ian Carroll for that.
James Gray writes: "The fact that a woman-hating man paid 300K to be dog-walked by a woman is insane. Congrats, Candace. You are a gentle woman and a scholar." Thank you. Thank you so much. Like I said, I am very proud of myself because I knew that it was Turning Point's horse. Even just them saying "we have nothing to do with him" and then his opening statement — it just is incredible. It's like there's just not a brain cell split between Erika and Andrew Kolvet and Blake Neff. Like, obviously it's not a good idea. Give yourselves some plausible deniability.
TJ Palo writes: "Because I know people can be evil." I would like everybody, as a homework assignment, to practice that in the mirror. The way he did it was compelling. Didn't give me Denzel Washington, but I think he put in a good effort. And I think my third one was good — a little bit off to the side. "Because I know people can be evil." That's good. I'm warming up there.
Blackest Panther writes: "Reason Turning Point USA wanted Andrew to debate was to attempt to absolve Israel from any possible implications surrounding the case." Yeah, that was the obvious focus. Israel and America — which then puts a spotlight on Israel and America? Because you don't want to make the case, but you just want to say, "But it's not Israel and America." Why can't they comprehend that? Why is everyone's social IQ so low as to not realize that if you keep pushing "it's not Israel though, right? It's not Israel" — then people go, "Maybe it's Israel. It's weird. Why would he come in here wanting to talk about Israel?" His opening statement, he starts talking about Israel. Why? This is just a weird thing for you to do.
Look, if he had proven his debate claim — that there was overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did this — he would naturally then absolve Israel from any guilt. Well, he didn't want to do that. He wanted to absolve Israel from any guilt without having to prove his statement. Weird focus.
Zamut writes: "A burden bestowed on Candace Owens is a blessing to us all." It's very funny.
Okay, I'll tell you one thing — I don't like having to give out these punishments and sentencing people to more truth, but this is just the way things work in the court of law here in my court, my house, where I am the magistrate and I reign supreme. You can't be doing that. You can't just be bringing people with no type of values, no type of decorum — people whose wives act like a Jerry Springer episode waiting to happen. You just — it can't be like this, Turning Point. You're scraping too hard at the bottom of that barrel right now.
Anna writes: "If the text said that he feared the left was going to take him out, why wouldn't Joe Kent need that message? Make it make sense. These people endlessly contradict themselves. Keep going, Max. Because they are relying on us to have a short memory." Of course — if he was handing over messages of people that Charlie felt threatened by, or anything that could be significant, that would have been the first message that was handed over. And certainly they would have expressed it publicly that Charlie was fearful that the left was going to kill him the night before. Instead, they stayed mum on it for four months and then had Erika deny it on Glenn Beck. And then when it backfired, they were like, "Oh, no, there's messages, but it says 'the left.'" Suspicious timeline in my opinion. I'm allowed to have an opinion.
Joey D. April writes: "Debategate is worthy of its own spot in the official Candace timeline." I'm going to put random things in the timeline now because I just know how angry they are about the timeline. Like, they're all just like, "Why is it in your timeline? How could you put this in your timeline?" I'm just going to be like, "Candace went to Whole Foods. No evidence needed. Candace went to the farmers market." Like, just put — we're going to start putting just random little tricky stuff in the timeline and see who has a heart attack about it on X. It's my timeline. It's a weird, strange reason to question me about my timeline, which I take great pride in.
And I saw people commenting going, "Candace, I didn't even think — this is another level." I had mentioned that I even organize my fridge and it says, like, "Sauces" — I use my little label maker and it says "Sauces" and "Dairy" and things in those side compartments. And then we have little turntable trays inside of the fridge. Organize. Get to the Container Store and do that. Shout out to the suburban moms who just need it. When you have a lot of kids, you've got to be organized. I organize their clothes. It's just so freeing. Feels so good to be organized. So I will be darned if anybody thinks they're going to come for my timeline and I'm not going to stand up for myself. Me and Ashley worked hard on that timeline. And we were pretty fired up when he addressed the timeline — things almost got physical — but I kept my composure.
Golf Mommy writes — side note: "I was listening to Kanye this weekend and came across the song 'Stars.' My heart raced. Lol." You have good taste in music. Thank you very much. That is our intro. I wish he had made that a full song. It really is just an intro, which is unfortunate. But yes, I absolutely love Ye. I love just who he was and how hard he fought for himself. I love the song "Power" — the different phases of his life and recognizing how much you have to fight for custody of your own soul once you make it. And that is why I love "Power" so much, because I feel like I've gotten to a place where they expect you to sell your soul. And I don't want to do that. Not to the highest bidder, not to anyone.
And that has been the reason why I am focused on this case — because Charlie was my friend. And what has happened here is unacceptable. And what Turning Point has become is unacceptable, in my opinion.