Candace Owens and Baron Coleman review the UVU shooting case ahead of trial
Candace Owens and Baron Coleman do a comprehensive review of the Tyler Robinson case — covering the federal narrative, preliminary hearing testimony, and evidence gaps — ahead of the upcoming trial date.
Summary
Candace Owens and Baron Coleman conduct an extended retrospective on the case surrounding the shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10th, tracing the investigation from its earliest days through the five-day preliminary hearing. Owens reveals for the first time that Bill Ackman told her privately that his million-dollar reward was directed to the FBI rather than to Tyler Robinson's father Matt Robinson, contradicting the public narrative that Matt Robinson turned in his son. The pair systematically challenge the federal narrative, arguing that the physical evidence — DNA, fingerprint analysis, and bullet striation testimony — is scientifically indefensible and would not survive cross-examination at trial. A major thread of the discussion concerns Terrell Farnsworth, a Turning Point USA employee who recorded a selfie declaring Charlie dead within minutes of the shooting, subsequently removed specific camera footage, and gave inconsistent explanations to both Candace Owens and Baron Coleman about his actions. They also discuss the abandoned backpack found near the alleged shooter's escape route that was collected as evidence and returned untested. Turning Point USA's ongoing PR failures, the use of influencers at the courthouse, and the broader question of who ordered the crime scene to be paved over without the lead investigator's knowledge are also addressed.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Introduction and Overview
Candace Owens: All right, you guys. Happy Thursday. Actually, Baron, do you want to try the intro? They're going to miss me saying it.
Baron Coleman: All right, you guys. Welcome in. Welcome in. Welcome in.
Candace Owens: It's going to be a combo. Welcome in, welcome in, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. Boy, do we have a class for you today. I've been wanting to do this for a very long time — going backwards. So much has happened in one year since the beginning of this trial. We've obviously dedicated — me and Baron — what feels like a year of our lives to this, and there's been so much information. It's hard to go back and remember what happened, so I'm hoping that we can put this all together for you so that you can reflect, remember, and refresh yourselves on what you need to know going into the trial, since there's going to be a trial date set. We should know more about that tomorrow. So let's jump right in and welcome back to Candace and Baron.
Where to begin? There is a lot to unpack. There are some things I actually don't even know, and I'm going to have to completely toss to Baron because he went down some rabbit holes that I didn't follow him into. He knows a lot of stuff about the warrants that were filed, which is actually really important. But I think the best place to start, as I was thinking about how to pull this all together, is to just remind everybody of what the official narrative is regarding Tyler Robinson — and I'm putting that in air quotes for a reason — and what he did on September 10th.
The Official Federal Narrative: September 10th
Candace Owens: So, Baron, I'm just going to walk them through that so everybody remembers. We hear from Lance Twigs in his testimony that he believes Tyler Robinson woke up around 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. on the morning of September 10th and he left. The assumption is that he then drove all the way up to UVU campus. We know that he pulls into UVU campus around 8:30 a.m. He is wearing the maroon shirt, the light-colored shorts, a black hat with a white logo, and light-colored shoes. We then know — and this is a story that we broke — that he drives first to the top of the parking structure, and he just sort of lingers there for about seven to eight minutes. I don't want to read into it, so I'm just going to deliver the facts. We don't know what he's doing in the car before he then goes to a lower level and gets out of his vehicle.
At this point, the federal narrative is that he walks toward the amphitheater, approaches an as-yet-unnamed Turning Point USA employee, and asks, "Is this where they are having the event?" I do want to interject right here and say that I find this to be problematic, because we now know that Turning Point USA's first employees did not arrive until just about 9:00 a.m.
Baron Coleman: That was in the parking lot, away from the amphitheater. They didn't get to the amphitheater until even later than that.
Candace Owens: Right. So this is going to be a tricky spot. They may have evidence of this. We're supposed to think that he walked up and asked them this question. That seems weird to me, also just because Tyler Robinson could have used his context clues. The flyer says it's going to happen at this event. You see them pulling in stuff. But whatever — we will leave it at the federal narrative. At that point, we're told that at 9:33 a.m. he leaves the UVU parking structure. So that was it. He just came onto campus to ask a question — to ask if this event was here — didn't trust the flyer, and thought the best person to ask was somebody working at the actual event, and then he leaves.
We know that he gets caught on the campus footage going up and down the staircases. Then, despite leaving at 9:30 a.m., neighborhood cameras are going to catch him just before 10:00 a.m. Now he's still walking in his maroon shirt. So we don't know what he did. I guess he just parked off campus, decided to park off campus, returns to campus, and he walks through the tunnel and decides he's going to grab some Chick-fil-A and eat. So he heads towards the Sorenson building, purchases food, sits down, and enjoys a meal.
Like I said, he's parked off campus now. And we do have a map of what they say happens next. I do want you to walk them through it because it's quite exceptional what they're saying happens. Again, this is around 10:10 a.m., after he's enjoying some Chick-fil-A on campus.
Baron Coleman: Yeah, he could take a really easy path to scope out the Losi Center, or he could do what we see here on the screen — walk down the road, enter the UVU campus through the tunnel, walk over and get some Chick-fil-A, and then leave and head to the wooded area, drop off a backpack, head over to the Gunther building — which is shockingly the home of the UVU police department — walk somehow from the Gunther building to the computer science building, and then go from the computer science building on the walkway to the Losi Center railing.
If you look at that and think, "Man, that looks pretty messy — why did he walk all the way to the woods to drop off a backpack, only to circle around to the police department before going into two other buildings and then to the Losi Center railing?" — you're not alone. A lot of us have the same question. Why didn't he just walk from the Chick-fil-A to the Losi building? It's about ten, twenty feet. He would have saved himself a lot of steps. He wouldn't have had to worry about how to get the backpack away from the wooded area. He wouldn't have had to walk by the police department. He wouldn't have had to walk through multiple buildings, presumably being seen on camera.
Candace Owens: So it's a map that raises serious questions about the federal narrative just looking at it.
Baron Coleman: And I do want to say this is where they declined to show us footage.
Candace Owens: Yeah. This is where they say we have him on camera. He's eating at Chick-fil-A. You're at a preliminary hearing. You got one shot to pull everything together. You've had a full ten months to pull all this together. Why are they not showing us any of this footage — in particular of him eating at the Chick-fil-A, sitting down?
And then also, I actually want to keep talking about this map. This map is crazy to me. Just so you guys are following: at 9:57 a.m. they're going to catch him walking through the neighborhood, and he is then — I don't even know why — entering the tunnel. That's not the easiest way to get onto campus. Then he goes to Chick-fil-A. I find that to be problematic because of all the places — if you're going to commit a crime, and you are motivated by LGBTQ issues to commit your first crime ever and to murder someone — I probably wouldn't pick the Chick-fil-A restaurant.
Baron Coleman: Right. And not to mention all the cameras inside. We have images from inside the Sorenson Center looking at the Chick-fil-A counter. There are two cameras looking right at the counter. And then, like you said, now he's going to drop off his backpack, which he could have done much simpler — a different route on the way. But also, we don't know what happens to this backpack.
Candace Owens: Okay, so Agent Hull testifies and says he then goes back onto campus and he's not wearing the backpack, but nowhere else in his testimony does he say, "And then we saw him head back toward the backpack." There's just a missing backpack here that we have completely lost the thread on in the federal narrative.
And then going past the computer science building and walking right in front of the UVU police station — which is in the Gunther building — feels very odd, only to then go to Losi and do the scope. So he's on campus, we're told, for approximately an hour. We're told he leaves campus just before 11:00 a.m. after having done all of that. And this is when we know that he's going to change into some different clothes.
He leaves campus at 11, just before 11:00 a.m. At 11:28 a.m., he submits his Wordle score.
Baron Coleman: Yes. A long day of assassinating ahead of you, and you need to submit your Wordle score to your friends. You don't know what's going to happen afterwards.
Candace Owens: You don't want to miss a day. Very strange thing to do right before you're about to commit your first murder. But I do want to point that out — we know at 11:28 that's what happened.
Then we know that at around 11:49 — this is TMZ footage — now he's wearing a different outfit. He's wearing the black long-sleeve shirt with the American flag, and he is going to walk with a limp. We were initially told that the reason he's walking with that limp was because we were meant to assume that he's got a .30-06 in there, disassembled perhaps.
Baron Coleman: Yes. The official narrative is that the gun was disassembled.
Candace Owens: Somehow, and they never explained whether the barrel was down the front of the back, the stock was down the front of the back. There was never an explanation of how the gun was disassembled and how it was packed inside of him. But that's the official narrative — that he's disassembled the gun and is moseying around campus. Again, not just like we had on that previous map, it would have been very easy for him, if he wanted to scout out Losi, to avoid every camera, not take nearly as many steps, not see nearly as many people, and just walk around the back of the computer science building onto the Losi building.
Same thing here — if he is having trouble walking, there are shorter routes to get where he was going.
Baron Coleman: My sources — the faculty sources that I have at UVU — said that he clearly wanted to be caught on camera to take those routes. And I do want to say we all made the assumption that the gun, or the disassembled gun, whatever it is, had to have been — he's dragging his leg. So there were some people who said, "Well, maybe he had it up here." Well, then why is he dragging his leg? If it's in his belt, there's no reason for him to be dragging his leg. So we have a problem there with that narrative. If you're going to say it's at the bottom, the footage that we have does not show that it's in his ankle. If you're going to say it's at the top, then you've got the problem of why is he dragging his leg. Is it performative? Is he pretending? We don't know.
Candace Owens: We obviously all know what happens next. At 12:15, he is going to reach the top of the stairs near the Losi rooftop. He walks to a short concrete wall that separates the common area from the rooftop. He's just sort of looking over the wall. He stands there for about 70 seconds and then he hops over and he ducks down. And this is where again assumptions were made that he reassembled the rifle. There's no evidence of that that has ever been presented. They're just saying — use your imagination. What do you think he does when he gets down low?
Baron Coleman: Now the hunters are going to tell you — how are we zeroing that scope? You can't just put together a rifle and not fire a couple of rounds to zero the scope.
Candace Owens: Not typically. And the problem with it is this is a shot you have to make. You're going to take a life. You have to make this shot. This isn't like you're going deer hunting and if you miss, the deer gets away. It's not like you're going target practice and if you miss, you're like, "Oh, I need to move it a little." No, this is a once-in-a-lifetime shot.
In fact, in the pleading from the government, one of the points they made was that he was reckless and could have put other people in jeopardy because he reassembled the rifle and had jostled the scope in his pants the entire way there for a mile, or however far he walked.
Baron Coleman: It's a gap in the narrative that they've really not explained satisfactorily.
Candace Owens: Yeah. And I would also say they have not explained that — once we are supposed to assume, as some people have explicitly said, like Blake Neff said, that he got down under there and reassembled the rifle — he didn't zero the scope. When we presented the footage of the lateral crawl, I don't see a gun. I don't see how you do a lateral crawl with that size gun. And then we obviously see him lurched forward into a position, and we see him run off of the rooftop and jump off. He's quite athletic, whoever this individual is.
Baron Coleman: He was very healthy. Obviously had no injuries. Couldn't have had any kind of injury to his body because that's a heck of a fall. It has to be pretty athletic. Is it an impossible jump? No. But if you're not very athletic, it might become a substantially more difficult jump. So I would think whoever made that jump was very athletic and very healthy.
The Shooting, the Text Messages, and the First Red Flags
Candace Owens: Okay. Charlie gets hit by what? We do not know. The federal narrative is that it's a .30-06. He got very lucky on not needing to zero the scope. One shot. Didn't even think, let me take two just in case. And then what happens is, according to the feds, he jumps down, he runs away, and then the federal narrative really gets into him wanting to express himself to his lover about everything that he had just done.
Baron Coleman: Every single key detail.
Candace Owens: Yes. Every detail needed to convict Tyler Robinson was mentioned in those text messages.
Baron Coleman: You would need nothing else except those text messages.
Candace Owens: Right. Like everything — what he was thinking, the motive, the who, the what, the when, the where, the why. Do you remember — didn't you see me when I was carving the bullets, my dear, my love? It's sort of written like a Jane Austen novel. It's very expressive. "Oh, I thought I would get away with it, and I don't want you to get in trouble." It's a lot for a person who's supposed to be pretty smart to put all of this in writing while simultaneously saying that he wanted to get away with it.
Baron Coleman: There was one key discrepancy in there that I thought was strange. He mentioned at first he didn't know if it had a serial number. He said, "I don't know if it has a serial number. I don't know if it'll get traced back to me. If it does, it won't get traced back to me." And later he says, "The serial number will trace back to someone else." At one point he's saying, "I don't know if it has one," and the other time he's saying yes it does and it'll go to someone else. That discrepancy has been unexplained. But yeah, every single text message is so tied to a single element of the crime, even the enhancement factors.
Candace Owens: Some hate can't be negotiated out. He's even premeditating the aggravated charge —
Baron Coleman: The aggravating factor that's going to be needed to secure aggravated murder. It's incredible.
Candace Owens: I've never seen anything like it. Even if you're talking about a person that sells pot — a grandma pot dealer — they'll be paranoid about texting about something that small. But he's like a full confession. Everything went to Lance. And that is why Lance's testimony has proven so controversial and crucial. Definitely crucial to the state. Controversial, I think, to the public.
The text messages, I think, were one of the first signs where the public sort of said something's not right. What was the biggest thing for you?
Baron Coleman: The wound.
Candace Owens: The wound.
Baron Coleman: I could not get past the wound. I still can't get past the wound. I've been hunting. I've shot lots of rifles. I've shot .30-06s. I cannot get past that wound. It does not look like an entry wound, and there not being an exit wound in three or four inches of neck tissue — it's an unbelievable narrative to me. It's an absolutely unbelievable narrative to include that wound in the neck and tell me it's a .30-06. And they can't present any other example in history. They'll be like, "Well, if you shoot a deer in the abdomen" — we're not talking about a deer. We're not talking about an abdomen. We are talking about a human neck being shot at relatively close distance from a .30-06. And we are told that it did not go through. And not only did it not go through — you're talking about 1,500 pounds of force coming at you. Charlie didn't even fly backward.
Candace Owens: No, he just kind of slumped back a little bit. And you hear these stories of someone getting shot in the rib or in the abdomen — your abdomen has a huge amount of tissue to absorb that blow. Your neck does not. That much pressure coming into your neck — your neck is not going to expand to four times the size and come back down and not be picked. The wound just doesn't make sense. That was the very first indication to me that something went terribly wrong.
And do you know what? I would answer the question the same way. I would add that I was not at all suspicious of Turning Point USA. So when people were going, "Who's this guy taking down the cameras?" — which I think the public saw and was going, "Whoa, this is very strange" — I recognized him and I was like, "Well, that's Terrell. I know Terrell. I worked with Terrell for years." And I called him thinking I was going to help him clear his name. My immediate thought was, "Oh, I'm sure a police officer told him to do that." And he was all nervous. When he said that no, he didn't do that because a police officer told him to, he couldn't tell me why he did it. And then when I finally got him to show me the footage from behind, the excuses weren't making sense, and I realized there was no wound.
I thought, is this the reason why you took the footage down quickly? Like specifically that camera?
Baron Coleman: Of all of the cameras. When he said he spoke to Erika and he wanted to make sure that she didn't see what was done to Charlie. And then I look at the footage and I'm like, this is the cleanest angle you've got.
Candace Owens: A couple of blood splatters here and there. That's it. So why was this footage so crucial? And then to hear them try to explain away why it didn't go through.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. And the Superman neck narrative — that he was a man of steel and it was a modern-day Christian miracle. That's when things got very weird.
Candace Owens: Andrew Kolvet has never retracted that tweet. He's never retracted it. That Superman neck tweet is still on his timeline, and I don't believe he's admitted that that conversation with the doctor didn't happen.
Baron Coleman: That the miracle didn't happen.
Candace Owens: Well, no — that the conversation with the doctor didn't happen. I don't think he's admitted that yet. Because the conversation with the doctor did technically happen. He's just quoting not the doctor. And I think they were very panicked. I know they were panicked. I know for a fact that the feds were on the phone with them, trying to discern whether or not I had recorded the conversation with Terrell on FaceTime — which I had, gratefully.
And then I think one of the things that's very strange is them stepping on the day of Charlie's actual funeral, being concerned about the fact that I had told the public that the bullet didn't go through. I did not believe Erika at all when she said to me that Andrew went rogue and spoke to the surgeon alone, and the surgeon also went rogue, violated HIPAA, and spoke to a PR agent. It was a little too steep of a hill.
Baron Coleman: Well, and before Terrell Farnsworth grabs the camera footage, don't forget he runs at breakneck speed — Carl Lewis speed — to jump up on a wall and film a selfie of himself declaring Charlie dead. The first person to pronounce Charlie dead was Terrell Farnsworth.
Candace Owens: And it was within a minute or so of Charlie even going down. He declares him dead. He has this very awkward selfie moment. He keeps flipping the camera around back and forth so you can see them dragging Charlie off. It was gruesome. And it was so awkward. I still to this day do not understand why he showed that to you.
Baron Coleman: And what's funny is I didn't ask him. I didn't know he had filmed himself. I didn't know any of that. I think he sort of sent that. He was nervous when he spoke to me on the phone, and I think he was nervous because I was just cutting through the BS. He forgot that I worked with him. What he was saying — "I don't know how to send a file" and "I'm nervous that Google's going to hack me" — I mean, my team was all there. They were literally all witnesses. And I was the first time I looked up at them and said, "Something's not right. That was weird."
Candace Owens: So that was the first moment that you thought something was weird.
Baron Coleman: Because it was — I wasn't expecting it, right? So I was very team Turning Point USA. And then Terrell's phone call to me, and the excuses he was making up — because I said, "You can just show it to me." My thinking was maybe it was really bloody in the background. He didn't want to show Erika. I didn't want anybody to see it. I said, "I can fly to you. You can come here. People will trust me. I've earned the trust enough that if I say, look, I saw the footage and it's horrific and he did want to just get it down, or the cops told him" — but he was all over the place. Saying you don't know how to send a file when you run an audiovisual company is just insane.
Candace Owens: I think pretty much everybody took it as an article of faith that the bullet went through.
Baron Coleman: We just assumed —
Candace Owens: Because it had to. It's a .30-06. It hit him in the neck. It had to go through. In fact, it was such a common narrative that most people believed it was an exit wound and that there was an entrance wound from behind. People were trying to figure out what angle, who could have been where, because it did look more like an exit wound. It was substantially larger than a typical entrance wound, which is usually no larger than the diameter of the bullet. But it looked more like an exit wound the way the blood came out, and so people just assumed. And because he didn't go backwards, I think people assumed the bullet had come in from the back. And then you broke that news — that in fact there was no entrance wound, there was no exit wound from the back, there was no other wound on the back. I think it did throw the investigation into a tailspin for the official narrative.
Baron Coleman: And I think this is probably why you became public enemy number one to them, because you did it so innocently. And that's what's so funny as I go back now and reflect on how many times you had stumbled upon a really big story without realizing how big it was, because you were just trying to help clear someone's name. And then suddenly people inside of Turning Point are telling you the feds are involved and they're worried about this tape, and you went, "Something's not right here."
Candace Owens: Do you remember the date of that, or roughly?
Baron Coleman: I do remember that. I had the phone call with Terrell. I think it was —
Candace Owens: September 19th.
Baron Coleman: I was going to say it was the 17th.
Candace Owens: I could definitely look into that. But it was early. Do you remember when you reported it?
Baron Coleman: The very next day.
Candace Owens: Okay. So September — no, I should have known that, of course, because it was the day of Charlie's actual funeral. Not the funeral event that was open to the public, but the actual funeral. And that's the day the bed slot narrative started unwinding.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. And that was the day that Andrew tweeted — because they were kind of panicking — and Justin Streiff was calling my husband. My husband has no idea what's going on. He's like, "What? Did you record some video? I've got Justin Streiff calling me." And I'm like, "Why is he calling you asking this question? Why does he care?" And I didn't put two and two together because I was still totally aggrieved and my brain wasn't processing information the right way. And then I went, "Oh, this is a very big deal."
Candace Owens: It's a very big deal.
Baron Coleman: I think the knock against Candace Owens is, "Well, she's never brought anything. She just has dreams." No — we would all still think that bullet went through.
Candace Owens: Yeah. And that was the point.
Baron Coleman: We would all still think it went through. And frankly, even people like me, as skeptical as I am, would have perhaps accepted the gunshot narrative at that point.
Dropped Narratives and the Bill Ackman Revelation
Candace Owens: Yeah, me certainly. So I want to kind of get into some of the holes that have emerged, because the feds have changed the story so many times. It's kind of incredible to reflect on the things that they just dropped or completely changed. There's no excuse for these changes.
Initially when they came out and said, "Okay, we've got our guy," they did this big press conference — I think it was on September 14th — and you had Kash Patel and you had Governor Cox. So they've now reviewed the footage and they're presenting to the public. And Governor Cox tells us that he changed his clothes on the rooftop. That was a narrative that they just dropped and let go of. That's a very big thing for him to have made a mistake about, and no one interjected and said, "No, that's not correct."
We were also told that Tyler Robinson was suicidal, and that his parents were concerned that he was going to commit suicide and were effectively talking him off of a ledge. We were told — and this was a major one — that his father turned him in, because his father thought he was guilty. And Bill Ackman publicly offered a million dollars to Matt Robinson, like because you're the person that saw this. "What a brave father you are. Here's a million dollars."
And I want to add here — I spoke to Bill Ackman at this time. I asked him specifically. I was totally upfront, trying to get information. He was kind of lecturing me a little bit about being careful with my platform because it's a very big platform and people can draw conclusions, and making sure that I have the facts. He was very nice on the phone.
Baron Coleman: Did you view that as a threat at the time?
Candace Owens: No.
Baron Coleman: Do you look at that differently now?
Candace Owens: He was very nice on the phone. He had like his PR person or something — a social media type person on the phone with him. I was totally just wanting information. I really didn't have this figured out.
Baron Coleman: But looking back now, do you think it was a threat?
Candace Owens: No. I think he genuinely was concerned that people were roping him into things that were not true. I think he cares deeply about public perception of him. So I never felt the conversation was anything but perfectly friendly. And I said to him, "I'm not trying — I just want to know what happened." And I wanted to ask him obviously about the Hampton Summit. He was honest about the fact that he had funded the influencers to come out there. And regarding the father turning him in, I said, "So who did you give the money to — Matt Robinson?" And he said that he was giving the money to the feds.
Baron Coleman: Okay.
Candace Owens: Is that public?
Baron Coleman: That's not public. This is the first time I'm hearing that.
Candace Owens: Yeah. No, because I was not trying to — I don't have any personal ill will toward Ackman. I have ill will toward people that are lying about what Charlie was going through throughout those days and haven't been forthcoming. And so he was forthcoming about the summit — basically said how he got involved. And I then switched and I said, "Well, what if we don't really know anything about the case? You're giving a million dollars to Tyler Robinson's dad. What if it turns out that he's somehow involved?" Because I didn't know anything. These are early days.
Baron Coleman: And he's like, "Well, once I give the money to the feds, it's up to them."
Candace Owens: So I would like an update. I'd like to know if Bill Ackman —
Baron Coleman: When did he tell you that?
Candace Owens: It was right in September.
Baron Coleman: Oh, so it was over a year ago.
Candace Owens: Yeah. I was just talking to everybody. I genuinely did not have this like "this person did it or that person did it." I was just sort of — now I see his motives. He's sharing not even fed slop, but targeting me and my family, DoD-talking stuff that I would have never ever done to him. And now we understand that he's promoting these threads of Jennica Pounds. But he was not on my bad list when I spoke to him.
Baron Coleman: Did he call you out of the blue?
Candace Owens: No, I reached out to him. And I was just investigating things. We talked about the Hampton Summit. Like I said, he was forthcoming. He was nice. I did not in any way feel threatened. I just wanted information. I spoke to everybody. Anybody who was willing to talk, I was willing to talk to.
I do think it's relevant that he said the money was going to the FBI, and the FBI could then give the money to whoever they wanted. And I immediately sensed a problem with that, because I said, "Okay, well, if someone comes forward" — because he offered a reward for more information — "and then he said it was going to Matt Robinson," and then I had a source who told me that Matt Robinson never even had a conversation to that effect. So I was like, "What's going on with that Bill Ackman story? Somebody should follow up with that." That is so bizarre — to hand over a million dollars to the feds over a year ago.
Baron Coleman: Can you try to find that tweet? I know that's a long time ago. That'll at least let us date it and figure out when he made that, because it was pretty fast. And then he said something about how brave Matt Robinson was, and like the money — he put up basically a reward and then said it was going to Matt because Matt turned in Tyler. So it was instant, before Tyler Robinson had been arrested. So do you think it was to try to set the narrative in the public consciousness that Matt Robinson turned in his son?
Candace Owens: Yes, I think that now. And I think that I underestimated how invested Bill Ackman was in this until time went on and I started seeing his personal vindictiveness toward me. And if you just hosted a summit in the Hamptons, why are you angry about the fact that we exposed it?
Here we go. He's replying to a tweet — "Breaking: Alex Brucewitz and Robbie Starbuck add $25,000 each to the FBI's $100,000 award for information leading to the capture of Charlie Kirk's assassin. It's now at $150,000." And then Bill Ackman says, "I am in for a million dollars." So this was like, whoa. That's a lot of money. And he seemed sincere in that. Like if he had just seen Charlie at his house a couple of months prior — I'm like, okay, he's got money. To him that's like us giving five bucks.
So yeah, the look — some of the comments like "million-dollar baby" — that would have been a great thumbnail title. I'd like to chase that down. That to me is a loose end. But yeah, they dropped that entirely. The Bill Ackman money story got completely dropped, as did the father turning him in. It never happened. As I have said from the very beginning, the father does not believe that his son is guilty. And they just kept lying about that.
They first reported that the screwdriver was found near the gun. Then they radically changed that and said actually it was found on the rooftop. CNN was the first to report it, and then they came out and said, "Oh, there was all this confusion in the early days." And so that changed. And then the Discord narrative changed. Do you remember what happened with Discord?
Baron Coleman: No. Can we go back to the screwdriver for just a second? Because there was a key fact that came in between the screwdriver being dropped originally. The screwdriver was said to be in the woods — that was Fox News or CNN, maybe, citing legal inside sources. And then five or six days later, Kash Patel comes out and says, "No, no, no. The screwdriver was on the roof." In between those two dates — in between the date CNN reported it and Kash Patel relocated it to the roof — the results came back from the DNA and the fingerprint, and nothing put Tyler Robinson on the roof. The DNA didn't put him on the roof because it was indeterminate. The fingerprint — they couldn't determine whose that was. And then all of a sudden, the screwdriver transports to the top of the roof.
Candace Owens: And I always found that a little magical, because right now that's the only thing putting Tyler Robinson on the roof.
Baron Coleman: That's the only thing. And you can say, "Well, anybody could put a screwdriver on the roof." Yeah. Something had to have his DNA on the roof. You had to put something up there. There are no photographs of him. They say it's a footprint — you can't tell a Converse footprint in a bunch of gravel. There's just nothing up there putting him on a roof except that screwdriver.
Candace Owens: Yeah. And I do want to go over the evidence. I want people to understand what actually happened during the preliminary hearing and how to weigh that evidence, how relevant that evidence is. That was actually something I desperately wanted to do when I was debating Andrew Wilson, but obviously he had no idea what was going on. So I'm glad we had the opportunity to do that today.
The Discord message narrative that was dropped — I do want to point to the fact that a lot of these narratives were set by the probable cause affidavit. And in this affidavit — I'm going to read to you what it says happened. They then gaslit us and were like, "No, there were never any messages on Discord," because Discord themselves came out and said these conversations did not take place on Discord.
And what people don't realize about this probable cause affidavit — this is a cop typing up a bunch of things. It's just like the hearing where nothing needs to be super concrete. It's just putting together things. Hearsay is allowed into this. So you have no idea who it's coming from. If it says his mom recognized him, it doesn't mean they have a statement from the mother saying "I recognize my son." It means they spoke to someone who said the mom recognized him.
Baron Coleman: And she's allowed to infer it. This is the thing a lot of people —
Candace Owens: Nothing in the statement of facts or the probable cause affidavit will ever see the light of day in front of a jury. They'll put the charges up in front of the jury. The jury's going to look at that, but they will never see this set of facts. All this is is going to the judge and saying, "We have a basis to hold this guy."
Baron Coleman: Right. This is a basis to hold this guy, and we're going to now investigate and figure out how right we are. But we have a basis to hold him.
Candace Owens: And the Discord messages — this is coming directly from that affidavit. Whoever wrote it wrote: "Investigators identified an individual as the roommate of Tyler Robinson. Investigators interviewed the roommate, who stated that his roommate — referring to Robinson — had made a joke on Discord. Investigators asked if he would show them the messages on Discord. He opened it and showed several messages to investigators and allowed the investigators to take photos of the screen as each message was shown by Robinson's roommate."
So the Discord narrative came from this. The context is very clear. This does not sound like a mistake. We then were like, okay, so he's communicating on Discord. And then when Discord very quickly came out and said there was no conversations, no plotting, nothing on Discord, then they sort of said, "No, no, no — we meant actually that it was all via text message." So this could be some sloppy police writing. Maybe the English grammar is not correct. But that was the basis of that, and then that narrative also got dropped.
The Preliminary Hearing Evidence
Candace Owens: We absolutely should talk about the evidence at the trial. I want people to understand — they have literally nothing at the moment. In my view, there is nothing, if you watched the preliminary hearing, that you walked away from and said is a concrete piece of evidence. And I'm talking about DNA, physical connecting the dots — this gun fired this bullet. None of that exists.
Baron Coleman: They don't even have text messages. I'm sorry. People fight on that all the time. They don't have text messages. They don't have Discord messages — not based on what they introduced at the preliminary hearing. And nothing they showed at the preliminary hearing is going to be put in front of a jury.
Candace Owens: Correct. Yeah.
Baron Coleman: Because you're not going to be able to just drop these text messages in front of somebody. Lance Twigs is going to have to come in and authenticate them.
Candace Owens: And then the defense is going to have an opportunity to look at the cell phone extraction. There are so many steps between what we saw at the preliminary hearing and what's going to be introduced at trial that there's no guarantee we'll see any of it.
Here's my thing about looking at what actually happened at the trial — which I'm so happy was all aired and everybody could watch it, because if we had to rely on influencers in court being overwhelmed, the performance was unbelievable. If people were actually listening and following what was happening every day, you were going, "I'm struggling to believe this."
Day One: Officer Christopher Baggley
Candace Owens: Trial day one was Officer Christopher Baggley. Who could forget Officer Christopher Baggley? Your opinion on Officer Baggley?
Baron Coleman: I call him Officer Bag Boy. I don't find him a credible individual. He kind of reminds me of a guy who sort of fails upward in life. I'm not knocking the guy — maybe he's doing the best he can — but he got so many things wrong, over and over and over. If someone gets something wrong multiple times and sometimes it benefits them and sometimes it benefits the other side, you think, okay, well, they're just maybe not real sharp. But when they always get it wrong to benefit the other side, it looks like a motive. It looks like a reason they're doing it. And that's kind of how I look at Baggley.
Candace Owens: And just so you guys know — if you've never followed this case — Officer Christopher Baggley is the Utah Valley Police Department officer who was the first person to say to the police, "Maybe the shot came from the Losi rooftop." And then he is the one who runs to the Losi rooftop with another officer in hand from Utah State University named Alan Robertson. They get up there, and the first thing that happens is Baggley says, "Oh, look, a screwdriver."
What was problematic about his testimony — the biggest things — is that he said conveniently his body cam footage died in the moment where he discovered the screwdriver. Okay, let's just take that as it is. The second thing I found to be exceedingly problematic is that when you are getting ready to testify, especially for a case this big, your lawyer preps you extensively on the information you need to remember. So when someone says, "I don't know," and they've had almost a year to get the answer to something, it strikes me as odd. And he says that he did not know and did not remember who was the plain-clothes officer that accompanied him onto the rooftop at Losi. That to me registered as not the whole truth.
Baron Coleman: Hugely problematic. And the idea that you would just take a random guy in plain clothes with a gun at a shooting event that you don't know and say, "Here, come with me to this isolated remote location."
Candace Owens: How do I know you're not the killer?
Baron Coleman: Yeah. And the whole idea that he just was meandering around — "I was like, wait a minute, we should go to the Losi Center." I find that problematic as well. I'm not suggesting overtly that I believe Baggley was in on it or whatever, but his testimony was just a disaster.
Candace Owens: I would say it was unconvincing.
Baron Coleman: Very unconvincing. And the Axon body camera dying — every police officer across the United States messaged me and were like, "Candace, the Axon body camera gives you a warning before it dies. It beeps loudly. It turns red." So did he not know? Did he not hear that? That also seems extraordinary.
Candace Owens: And he's on photo and video shortly before going up to the Losi Center, and there's no red ring around his Axon body camera.
Yeah. So I am keen to hear more about that, and hopefully we will. But I would say definitely unconvincing — trial day one.
Day Two: Agent David Hull
Candace Owens: Then they bring in the second witness, which is Agent David Hull. Agent David Hull has been with the SBI — the State Bureau of Investigations — for 12 years, and he is the co-lead investigator on this case. He was initially put on the case with Brian Davis. We'll get to him in a bit. He's the sizzle reel guy — that's the best way to remember him. He is the person who is going to present the video, the now-notorious video 12.1, of who they are calling Tyler Robinson in the video. He is coming onto campus and here's what he's doing and here's what the event — and then he went here. He's speaking very quickly through the video, basically trying to just get you to think that this individual we're seeing is Tyler Robinson.
How did you find Agent David Hull and his sizzle reel? I found him entirely unconvincing for a couple of reasons — and not just his haircut. The videos he was showing were out of order. They skipped around. Some of them were mirrored. Some of them jumped ahead a minute and a half and he didn't explain why. Sometimes there's a video up and he's talking about a different time period. There's a guy standing in black at the top of a stairwell and he's talking about a guy in maroon walking around campus. It was so out of order, so out of sorts, that you thought, what is he doing? Why can't they slow down? We've got five days. This is a very important part of the testimony. We're trying to put Tyler Robinson on campus.
Baron Coleman: This is a key — you have to be on campus to take the shot. We're trying to put him on campus. A guy leaves and another guy comes back dressed completely differently, head to toe, with a different backpack. Why do you think it's Tyler Robinson? "I don't know. Kind of looks like him." Guilty. Part of it was he did know they were wearing similar sneakers — Converse sneakers.
Candace Owens: Yeah. We should actually roll that clip. I still think it's one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. The toughest police work I've ever seen. Take a listen.
(Clip plays)
Baron Coleman: Do you recognize the person in these images?
Agent Hull: I wouldn't say with 100% certainty, just because of camera quality, but that looks like him. The shoes he's wearing, the sunglasses.
Candace Owens: Sorry — I think that was the wrong clip. That was Lance. But similarly, Lance did also say like, "Yeah, he's wearing jeans." I mean, this was how they figured out that person one was person two — that nobody's ever worn jeans on a college campus in a t-shirt and Converse. But Agent Hull specifically says — and this is a big thing — "How did you even know the maroon guy was the guy that comes back in the black shirt?" And that was their FBI co-lead investigator saying: because they were both wearing Converse sneakers. He had a different hat, a different shirt, different pants.
Baron Coleman: Everything on him was different. And he looks different in the face. His hair looks different.
Candace Owens: Right. We have the correct clip. Let's play that.
(Clip plays)
Defense attorney: You believe this is Mr. Robinson returning to campus?
Agent Hull: I do. Yes.
Defense attorney: And why do you believe this is Mr. Robinson?
Agent Hull: The shoes are the same. And the images that we have — from my viewing and seeing Mr. Robinson on the video — it's the same person.
Candace Owens: Shoes are the same. He walked through the same tunnel. They don't look like they're the same height to me. They're not walking the same. One's limping. That is the craziest thing. You can't just say that. You can't just say stuff. And that's what he does. So I'm going — they have not even connected these two people yet in a way that is sufficient that people should publicly accept as concrete evidence. Maybe they will, but for me, this is a major hole in the story. How do we know Maroon Boy is not a completely different person than the person who reappears onto campus around 11:00 a.m.?
Baron Coleman: Well, and it's not lost on me that this is a criminal trial for the life of Tyler Robinson. You have to get it right. If you believe it's him because there's a cell phone signal in his pocket and it comes in as the same cell phone Tyler Robinson was carrying, then testify that way. Tell us that. Don't tell us he wore Converse.
Candace Owens: And I'm going to also say he suffers from a level of amnesia. Again, you are in a lead position at the FBI. You can get concrete answers before you hit the stand. He says — when he's asked about an off-duty trooper named Noah Gonzalez who was interviewed and recovered a holster on the scene — he says he doesn't remember that. Then he's asked about what time he went onto the Losi Center in the evening. He says he doesn't remember what time he went up to the center in the evening. These are literally the things that the lawyers sit down with you and go over every single detail before you testify. It's been a year. Why don't you know what time you went onto the Losi Center in the evening?
He also admits — he's the co-lead on the case — that he is not aware of who ordered the dirt to be paved over at the crime scene.
Baron Coleman: Didn't he say that he learned it the same way everyone else did — by the news or social media or something?
Candace Owens: He may have. But I know he officially — and these are just my notes — he says that he doesn't know who ordered it. So he's the lead investigator, and it's not something that in ten months he thought, "Hey, that is kind of weird."
Baron Coleman: That's my crime scene. Who's doing that?
Candace Owens: Never wanted to know anything. And by the way, that suggests that it's someone higher than him, right? Because if you're the FBI and somebody did this and you don't know — you're the lead on this case — then the person who ordered it has to sit above you. We've got someone who sits above the lead on the case in the FBI, because you can't go messing around with somebody's crime scene a couple of days later.
Baron Coleman: I wouldn't think you could dig ten inches of it up and then pave it over.
Candace Owens: Yeah. And there's more than that to David Hull. There are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people following this very closely, investigating, looking things up. I challenge anyone — no one knows who he is.
Baron Coleman: He's a ghost. He's an absolute ghost. And so this ghost gets brought in to lead the investigation. He says some pretty absurd things in the testimony and everybody's supposed to go, "Yeah, yeah, guy with a snazzy haircut. What can we do?"
Candace Owens: Right. And we had a lot of trouble learning anything about him. He has a trace accent that sounds almost like Australian, South African, and it seems to change.
Baron Coleman: It does seem to change, and I can't place him either. Maybe he was overseas. Maybe he's military. A lot of these people who I can't seem to find tend to be military. We would definitely like some more information about Hull.
Day Three: Amanda Baker — DNA Testimony
Candace Owens: Now I want to get to a very important person who was a witness. I actually very much liked her. Her name was Amanda Baker. She was the forensic examiner from the FBI, Quantico, Virginia. She's been there for ten years. She was requested by the state of Utah to do the testing on the towel and the screwdriver.
She testifies that normally to turn around the DNA it takes between 90 and 200 days, but in this case she was asked to speed up due to the high-profile nature of it. She said that means they were instructed to basically work around the clock.
There's a very important part of her testimony where she talks about September 13th. She takes meticulous notes and she talks about this date. And I'm going to tell you guys — this is the date where Kash Patel, I think it was Fox News, comes out and says, "We were able to connect Tyler Robinson's DNA." She testifies that not only is that not true — she spoke to FBI Special Agent Fulier and the Utah FBI, David Hull, on the phone. They called her. They asked her whether or not it was plausible that Tyler Robinson's DNA could not be excluded from the sample. And they then tell her, "There's no need for you to do any additional comparisons at this time. Stop." Essentially — stop testing. This is the answer we're looking for. And then they went out and said something that she never ever said. She specifically says in her testimony that she could have never told them that Tyler Robinson's DNA was on the towel or the screwdriver. And yet, Kash Patel lied publicly, misrepresenting these facts.
There are a couple more things she went through. She said that just because DNA is on an item, it does not mean that an individual touched or used that item. Even if they found DNA on a towel, it does not mean that the individual touched that item or used that item, because that's how easy it is to transfer DNA. She also said that DNA can persist on any item indefinitely, and also that it can degrade over time. They have worked on items in her experience that were 40 or 50 years old and they were still able to recover DNA from that item.
Baron Coleman: Tyler could have used that gun when he was 12 years old.
Candace Owens: And he could have never touched it.
Baron Coleman: Right. He could have touched his father's hand. And Lance Twigs could have grabbed a toothbrush and rubbed it on everything. He could have rubbed his bath towel on everything.
Candace Owens: And that's really important. She really gets into telling you what DNA degradation is. And then the defense has her walk through how degradation can happen, how long it can stay on, and then kind of walks her into this broader point about the screwdriver. And she says the samples on the screwdriver were tremendously degraded. So that signified to me immediately that she's saying: A — I don't know how the DNA got on there. You cannot make the statement that Tyler Robinson touched the screwdriver. B — she testifies that Lance's DNA is also found on the screwdriver, but you also can't make the statement that Lance Twigs touched the screwdriver. This could have just rolled around in their house.
And she impressed upon in her testimony the fact that the screwdriver DNA was degraded. That's why I am of the opinion that the screwdriver was just dropped there. It was never there to put together the rifle — that would be fresh DNA, not degraded DNA. If you put together a rifle and you crouch down like Blake Neff was trying to say, you're going to have fresh DNA, not degraded DNA on that screwdriver.
And then regarding the towel — I actually can't even follow what they're trying to say happened with the towel.
Baron Coleman: Where was the towel? I think a lot of people assumed it was on the roof.
Candace Owens: Yeah, but they actually never said that.
Baron Coleman: They never said that. And you pointed that out to me. They never said it was on the roof. Everybody assumed it was, because when they showed the video of him jumping down — or whoever jumping down — you see this object swing. Now they're telling us that's a gun. I don't know how a gun bends like that. But I always assumed, oh, that must have been the towel. You say they've never said that.
Candace Owens: Yeah. Because I thought to myself — if you're planning out this assassination, why would you bring a towel to cover a gun? A towel is going to look objectively weird on a college campus. That's going to stand out. If I'm walking down a college campus and I've just got a towel, you're going to be like, "Did you just shower here?" You have all the ability to get a bag. You could throw that gun into a large tennis bag, a sports bag, an actual shooting bag. None of that's going to stand out. But holding a towel is not the best way to cover a .30-06. It looks weird.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. You'd have to roll it up in there, and now you're walking down the road with a rolled-up towel.
Candace Owens: Is there a beach around here? What are we doing with the rolled-up towel? So that didn't seem right to me. And then I realized — they never said the towel was on the roof. We just all assumed it in our heads. There's actually no evidence of that.
Baron Coleman: We all put it on the roof in our minds.
Candace Owens: I think it came from the swinging object in his hand when he jumped down. But that could have been a backpack, could have been a jacket, could have been anything. All we know is that when we do get the towel, he has it sitting on the gun. And I think that's why they constantly want us to start putting together a story that they're not actually saying. Maybe it's that backpack that was left behind. Maybe he then took it out because he was going to cover the gun and come back and try to retrieve it and was just going to cover it with a towel. I don't know what the purpose of the towel is yet. It has not been made clear to me.
I also thought maybe they were going to suggest that he tried to wipe away his DNA. Well, you don't wipe away your DNA with your DNA. So that would be stupid.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. If his DNA is all over the towel because he took a shower, you're not going to then take it to wipe it down.
Candace Owens: Exactly. So that was really interesting about her testimony in general. And again, regarding the towel — we again have a situation where both Lance Twigs and Tyler Robinson have some DNA on those items. So if you're going to make a statement that you think the evidence is overwhelming on the basis of DNA that we don't know how it got on there or if they ever touched it, you're now saying you believe it was Tyler Robinson and you believe it could be Lance Twigs, on the basis of those two items.
You have the Kash clip. Yeah. So, knowing that Amanda Baker testifies and says that she never made this statement, and she was asked to basically stop looking into it and doing comparisons, and she was under duress and it was rushed — listen to how Kash Patel presents this information.
(Clip plays)
Kash Patel: I can report today that the DNA hits from the towel that was wrapped around the firearm and the DNA on the screwdriver are positively processed for the suspect in custody.
Candace Owens: Amanda Baker disputes that. And she works for him. She works at Quantico.
Baron Coleman: I was listening to him, but I was watching that guy jump off the roof again. There's no gun. I'm sorry. There's just no gun. Guns don't move that way.
Candace Owens: Yep. So I just want to make sure that you guys know that Kash Patel lied. He literally lied. And told her to stop testing — or someone from his office told her to essentially stop testing — and that was enough for him to go to the press and say something that was not true.
Day Four: Sergeant Brian Davis and Lance Twigs's Testimony
Candace Owens: We then hear from the other half — the co-agent assigned to lead the case — Sergeant Brian Davis. He's kind of the guy that gets everything together for the probable cause hearing. He talks about this character, Mike Mitchell. I don't know how I feel about Mike Mitchell. I feel like Mike Mitchell is kind of a shady character who gave the police what they needed for the probable cause affidavit. Most of the information that they used was probably given to them by Mike Mitchell. We'll find out obviously. We don't need to read into that.
He also talks about why they decided to give Lance use immunity. And I do not understand — if Lance is telling the truth, you have a pre-recorded interview. You can't go wrong here. It's pre-recorded. You have almost a year — nine, ten months — to go check his messages, see what's right, see what's accurate. Maybe I'm ignorant. You have a legal background. I don't. Why are they giving Lance use immunity for this pre-recorded testimony?
Baron Coleman: I honestly don't know, except — if I have a client and he's going to testify and he lived with a guy and he touched a piece of evidence, I would probably say he's going to take the fifth unless you give him some immunity. That's the only thing I can say from the lawyer side.
Candace Owens: From the lawyer side, the lawyer's going to say, "He touched the note. He lived with him. A lot of the evidence was found in their shared room. You're giving him use immunity for anything he says."
Baron Coleman: I could see a lawyer doing that. I don't read a lot into the use immunity. I know a lot of people do, but as a lawyer I don't.
Candace Owens: Okay. So you think it's just the lawyer argued for it and that's what he did. Okay. He admits during his testimony that the text messages were not published in their entirety, just relevant portions for the state's probable cause. And I do want to talk about the text messages, because this became the whole point — people who believe are like, "But the text messages, but the text messages." And as you had pointed out, this is going to be a major thing that they have to verify, because their whole case is riding on these text messages.
Baron Coleman: If the text messages get bounced, the case is over. Tyler Robinson goes home. He doesn't get convicted of anything. I don't think there's any way to convict him without the text messages. I don't think Lance's testimony alone is even enough.
Candace Owens: And people were acting like it's extraordinary for us to consider — and by the way, this is just our common sense — that there was way too much information. But this is a person that he's dating. This is his boyfriend. This is his roommate. Lance says he's home the whole day. He was sleeping until 12 or 1:00 p.m. And then even when he found out that Charlie Kirk had been assassinated, he wasn't that interested in it — the biggest assassination since JFK.
Is it possible that he logged into his boyfriend's Discord account? Is it possible, since they play video games and they're on these threads together, that he logged into his boyfriend's text messages on iMessage? Is it weird to anybody that when we see Lance's phone and he's giving his testimony, the phone is cracked at the part where we can see the time?
Baron Coleman: There are a couple of things about this. One is that dead cell that goes from the top to the bottom — then green. It crosses over, and sometimes it doesn't cross over the text messages. I find that weird. I've had one of those on my phone. When I had it, it crossed over everything. I'm not a phone expert. I don't know what to make of that. Maybe there are phone experts out there who can send a tip. But I look at that green dead cell that goes from the top to the bottom and that doesn't look right to me.
Candace Owens: Yeah. I don't even know what that's supposed to be. What is it supposed to be?
Baron Coleman: So when your phone dies, where whatever it was hit the clock area up there at the top, sometimes it will do enough damage that it'll kill that whole cell from top to bottom, so it can't produce any imagery. Well, if it can't produce any imagery, it should be a solid green line from the top all the way to the bottom. But there are some parts of the text message that are actually over the top of that. And that looks wrong to me, but I'm not an expert and don't know. It's just something I noticed.
Candace Owens: And it's really interesting that in the probable cause affidavit they mention the fact that they took photos of his phone. And this is obviously the photos of his phone. The fact that right where we could see the time — which is where we could place Lance at the police station — that's not able to be done. And that looks to me like somebody just stabbed the corner.
And when you go and watch his body language, he looks very uncomfortable when he's talking about these messages. Even at one point, I think he says "the phone" as opposed to "my phone." I think I'm recalling that correctly. And then he totally loosens up when he is telling the truth — when they're like, "Well, how do you know Tyler?" And suddenly you know he's telling the truth and he's like, "Oh, we play video games. We met because of this." All of this stuff. And I'm going, "Okay, there's a totally different demeanor here than when he starts speaking about these text messages."
And getting into Lance Twigs's pre-recorded interview — he also tells us rather explosively that their entire narrative is that this is an LGBTQ crime. The text messages also portray that — that's the narrative. So he's telling, "Why did you do this?" "Some hate can't be negotiated." But then Lance gets up there and says, "Never really thought about it. Never talked about it. It never came up."
A couple of things on the text messages. There are a lot of people who suggest maybe the text messages arrived on Lance's and Tyler's phone from some source originating outside of Tyler's phone. And a lot of people go, "Oh, well, maybe the government planted them." I don't think the government could have planted them — I think it's pretty complex — but I don't think it would have been hard. If you read the search warrants, they pulled out all kinds of iOS devices, all kinds of Mac operating system devices, iPads, other iPhones, a computer tower that could have been logged in, a Raspberry Pi device that could have potentially generated these types of text messages. It's not out of the realm of possibility for me to believe that someone might have logged into his account or just accessed an account that was already logged in and generated these text messages.
They're so detailed, they're so out of the ordinary, that it doesn't strike me as weird to question them. If you accept that they're real, that's fine. But I think you should want to know more. Let me look at the extraction. Let me look at the actual technical information. And then I'll make a determination whether I think these text messages rise to the level of convicting Tyler Robinson, because a lot of people are convicting Tyler Robinson in their minds based on these text messages that have not been properly authenticated.
Baron Coleman: That's right.
Candace Owens: That have not been properly technologically underpinned. We're just looking at pictures from a broken cell phone.
Baron Coleman: And people are like, "Yep, fry them."
Candace Owens: Yeah. And like I said, the text messages are just unbelievable. Way too detailed. Every single piece that they would need to convict him is in these messages. And that's just too stupid for me to believe that any person would not just — especially if you're going to see him later that night —
Baron Coleman: Just drive home. Have a conversation face to face. You would expect him to say, "Can you meet? Can we do this?" Whatever. "I'll be home in four hours."
Candace Owens: "I'm waiting. I'm waiting to retrieve my rifle. I'm doing this." It just is completely crazy to me. I do not accept the messages are legitimate just on the basis of common sense. I am happy to be proven wrong. We have not yet been presented with anything. Obviously it's a preliminary hearing, but I find them just a little bit too precise.
He does open up about their relationship, how they got to know each other. They met in 2023. They became roommates. They began dating three months later in St. George. They have an apartment complex together. And like I said, you really see him start to loosen up when he starts talking about things that I believe he's being honest about.
I find it very strange that he says that he saw Tyler on the 11th on the morning when he woke up. And again, he tells us that Tyler gave him this confession. So he's got the confession letter — which we're never going to be able to test for DNA. He finds a letter under his keyboard. It's from Tyler. He authored this letter and said, you know, "Text messages — look under your keyboard." And then of course there's this letter where he once again admits to everything that he did. But then the letter gets burned and tossed into the trash. So we're never going to be able to test that.
Baron Coleman: But not before someone takes a picture of it. Lance —
Candace Owens: It is the strangest part of the Lance story — that you find this letter, you're horrified by this letter, and you text them and be like, "All right, so when are you coming home? What's next? When do I get your stuff out of here?"
Baron Coleman: Which I think a normal person — if someone confessed to killing someone — they would stop all communication. Like, why are you going to sleep in the same house as him?
Candace Owens: Yeah. I would be at my mom's house. It's like your family lives around the corner. I would be totally somewhere else, being like, "I am not getting caught up in this." Instead, he says he sees him come in. He comes in and he's all stressed out and he confesses to him and says that he regretted that he killed Charlie. Why is Lance still in the house at this point?
Baron Coleman: Yeah. Why is Lance still in the house? And why is he taking a picture of the note? And then he testifies, "I don't know what I did with the note after that. I don't know if I ever saw it again."
Candace Owens: Well, if you don't know if you saw it again, who burned the note? I think it's supposed to put the burden on Tyler Robinson for coming home, finding the note, and burning it. They didn't say that. But the fact that he took a picture of it — it's like Fonzie jumping the shark. At what point are we just saying, "Okay, this is ridiculous. It's too much."
Baron Coleman: Yeah. And again, a confession. A confession.
Candace Owens: So I'm very keen on when the defense is going to be able to question Lance about his sleeping spells, about how he knew that Tyler left around 4 or 5:00 that morning, why he was not interested at all in the biggest assassination and manhunt that's happening, and even when he found out and knew fully that Tyler Robinson was involved, why he would be comfortable staying in that house and in that environment.
Baron Coleman: Something else on his testimony — I'm very curious why his mother had her big birthday party at 9:00 or 8:00 a.m. on the 11th. It was a very weird — he was going over to his parents' house and he felt like he couldn't leave. He was saying, "I don't know if I can leave my parents' house. I need to make up a reason to leave my parents' house."
Candace Owens: You're a grown man. You live somewhere else. "I got to run an errand. I'll be back."
Baron Coleman: Why are you so worried about where mom and dad think you're going? The entire narrative around Lance Twigs's testimony — particularly when he woke up the next morning — did he wake up in his house? Did he wake up at his parents' house? When did he go to his parents' house? When did he see Tyler Robinson? It's very muddy distinguishing between the text messages and his testimony. They look very different to me on paper and in his oral words.
Candace Owens: And I do want to say — having conducted our own investigations, I had access to Twigs's family, and they are just amazed that the police basically only questioned him for a couple of hours and then let him go. And that seems crazy to me.
Baron Coleman: Well, and the police didn't investigate him. He was the only one questioned — excuse me — by the FBI. Everybody else was questioned by state police. He was questioned by the FBI.
Candace Owens: And I do feel he's a federal asset on the basis of what we've been told about his background. He flies into rages. This is all true. He had substance abuse issues. He's terminally on the internet. I always wonder whether or not he is a blackmailed federal asset.
Baron Coleman: And sometimes he thinks he's a dog.
Candace Owens: Yeah. He fits a profile of someone that's going to do something crazy. And I do think it's plausible that he was turned into a federal asset because he got into some trouble. Obviously we can't assert that definitively, but I do want to say that I find him to be the most suspicious person. Their lack of interest in investigating and just taking his word at face value and letting him go after a couple of hours makes no sense.
Baron Coleman: And then they put up all six pictures of Tyler Robinson on campus. He's like, "Yeah, I don't really — I can't definitively —" And then he's like, "Oh, I guess in those last two I can definitively state it." Well, you just saw all six of them. What? You couldn't definitively state it 20 seconds ago when you saw these same pictures. What changed?
Candace Owens: Right.
Baron Coleman: And we're not in a courtroom. We're in a Zoom call across the desk from each other. How do we know somebody behind you didn't go —
Candace Owens: Exactly. Yeah.
Day Four Continued: Sergeant Jennifer Fuina
Candace Owens: So it is going to be really interesting when they finally allow that cross-examination of Lance Twigs. I think a lot is going to come out and it's going to be very problematic for the feds.
Then we had Sergeant Jennifer Fuina from the FBI, and she testified. I do want to just point out some things she testified about. First and foremost, she makes it clear that Tyler Robinson was excluded as the person the fingerprints belong to. So they had told us that they found fingerprints where he climbed down on the window. They had gathered these fingerprints, Lisa Farmer had gathered them, they had tested them, and then they said these fingerprints do not belong to Tyler Robinson. So he was removed from that.
She also testified that when they found the gun, they found that there was one fired round and three unfired rounds with engravings that were still on them. She's the one that testifies about the note that was found burned. I guess it wasn't a note — I mean, how hard is it to burn a piece of paper? In the trash can located in the kitchen inside of their house, they collected that and sent it to the FBI. So I guess Tyler was too dumb to fully burn it. I don't know who allegedly burned the note — that's not clear.
And I found her to be unconvincing. The biggest part of her testimony that I want to talk about though is that backpack that she found. This is crazy.
Baron Coleman: Let me back up to the bullet for a second. I just thought of something for the first time since you've said it. If you're hunting, if you're doing anything, and you take a single shot and you have three more in the magazine — you have three more ready to go — and you take a single shot, you can't — a lot of times you don't stay on the target with your scope. It moves. Particularly a .30-06, it's going to move. And so you are naturally, probably out of habit if you shoot often, going to open the action and cycle the next round through — unless you only intend to take one shot.
Candace Owens: Right.
Baron Coleman: But if you only intend to take one shot, why do you have three more rounds?
Candace Owens: That's really interesting, because they said they found it with three unspent rounds and then the spent casing in the chamber. Why didn't he open the action and cycle another round if he took multiple rounds with him?
Baron Coleman: I always say it's that Chick-fil-A confidence he had. He was just flying high that day. He was like, "One shot, got it. Don't even need the scope zeroed. Jumping off a building."
Candace Owens: It's the waffle fries and those fancy ketchup packs. He was just feeling extra on it that day. Again, I do not even believe that a shot was fired from that rooftop. I think it was all meant to be a distraction and they just had a guy run and jump off of that rooftop who had nothing to do with what happened, and Charlie was killed a different way. But we'll get to that later.
I do want to say that it was massive to me that they found unattended items — an unattended backpack just outside of the Fulton Library. There's a bus stop and there's a backpack. It's got a jacket. It's got gloves. And they take it to the lab. It's an abandoned backpack that was found on the route that the alleged shooter took after he jumped off of the building. And then she testifies that they just stopped testing it because they got a phone call that the backpack belonged to someone on Charlie's detail.
Baron Coleman: That is insane.
Candace Owens: Seems like it's more reason to go test it.
Baron Coleman: That is insane. First off, who on Charlie's detail was up by the Fulton Library bus stop abandoning a backpack? And why?
Candace Owens: Yeah. Who is it? And when? And why? And when you say detail, is it security?
Baron Coleman: Yeah, because four of them left in the car.
Candace Owens: We have most of the rest of them still on camera. Christopher, I think, was on the roof and came back down. Who did it, and when, and why? And why can't we get an answer to that question?
Baron Coleman: Something collected as evidence belongs to them.
Candace Owens: I think she said it had a mask in there. I'm like, "Okay, how did you just let this go?" Why would someone on Charlie's detail — which means someone that showed up with Charlie — abandon a backpack at the Fulton Library bus stop? Why? When? And how was this returned?
Baron Coleman: And where? You didn't know who the killer was. Why would you just rule out everybody?
Candace Owens: And that gets to the heart of it. Every time they stop, it's because they've so zeroed in on one person. And even if it's not like they're all in on it — sometimes this happens. You just get biased and you say, "Well, we know we've got the guy, so this might go down another trail, but we don't need to go down another trail because we've already got the guy." So it might just be sloppy police work because of an implicit bias. But regardless, it is something that shocked me when they talked about it at the hearing.
Baron Coleman: Why did the person have gloves in September when it was 91 degrees out?
Candace Owens: That right away stands out. Yeah. Why did the security detail have gloves? They didn't say security. They said someone on Charlie's detail. I thought security because they're the only people I could justify having gloves. I'm not going to go with a TPUSA employee having gloves.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. This is a very problematic thing.
Candace Owens: And again, something that Turning Point USA in their own capacity could get ahead of and not look shady — just say, "Oh, yeah, it was so-and-so's backpack. It was, you know, Blake's backpack. Blake gets lost. He has spells of amnesia." Or somebody on the detail, and when everybody ran, they ran that way, and somebody stopped at the bus stop, they were going to get on the bus, they recognized somebody that came by, they jumped in, and they forgot their bag. And this has been one of the biggest problems with Turning Point USA — even when they could provide clarity for things and not be shady, they always opt not to.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. And the more information the better. Nothing can mess up the trial. Especially if you're just saying it was a backpack that was abandoned. Something's very not right with that. So pay attention to that.
Day Five: Samantha Carner — Bullet Striation Testimony
Candace Owens: Okay. The most significant testimony that nobody could really get through at the time because it got so scientific — but when I rewatched it a couple of times I was absolutely blown away by what the defense walked Samantha Carner into.
So Samantha Carner is the person who was tasked — she's a firearm and tool mark examiner — and she's really snotty and really proud of herself. She's very arrogant. She is the person responsible for connecting the quote-unquote bullet fragment — I would almost call it a metal fragment at this point — from Charlie's body to the gun. So this is the big thing. Tada. We can connect the gun to the fragment that was found inside of Charlie's body.
And why am I saying fragment and not fragments? Well, because first and foremost, we learned — and we don't get an answer for this, it's another one of these threads we need to keep pulling on — there were a total of seven fragments that were removed from Charlie's body. And yet they only sent her four. Kind of like why they sent her four in a small manila envelope. Three of them she couldn't even use because they were too small. So she's basically going to try to connect the gun to Charlie's body using one bullet jacket fragment — which she has. It's 6A. They keep talking about 6A. And this is the only one that's going to be usable.
So what is her job? Her job is that she looks for subclass characteristics on guns. Subclass characteristics are effectively like a birthmark — something that could be uniquely developed during the manufacturing process. Somehow, what that means is like over time, if you have a groove inside of your gun and you fire it, every time your gun fires it's going to have this little mark on it. So they're kind of walking you through that. If you're not familiar with guns, you're like, okay, I've got to learn about subclass characteristics. The easiest way to think about it is it's a birthmark. It's a birthmark, and she should be able to find this birthmark on the basis of her skill set and her science — being able to connect guns to bullets that have been fired.
Then we learned that actually she's not that qualified to do this. We learned that Samantha Carner has only ever taken one bullet proficiency test in her life, and that was in 2023. And it was a year where everyone kind of failed the test. And he questions her about this. He's like, "So you've only taken one bullet proficiency test?" She's like, "Yeah." And he's like, "And that was a pretty traumatic year, right? Because everybody kind of failed." And the test is just one question — they give them a bullet and they give them a gun, and they're supposed to observe these striations, the little marks on the bullet, and they're supposed to tell them if it's a match. And Samantha's all pompous up there and she's like, "I actually didn't fail because I said, 'I don't know.'" She was like one of the few people that didn't fail. And he's like, "But you didn't pass, did you?" Do we have that clip?
Baron Coleman: Let's run it. It's actually exceptional.
(Clip plays)
Defense attorney: In the years that you've been doing this testing, is it true that you've only taken one proficiency test that involves bullet comparisons?
Samantha Carner: Yes, I've only had the opportunity to take one bullet proficiency test so far.
Defense attorney: And is it true that that was in 2023?
Samantha Carner: I don't remember the exact year, but that sounds correct. Yes.
Defense attorney: All right. And is it true that that proficiency test involved a test where you had question bullets and then you had two sets of bullets — one that was fired from one gun, not the suspect gun, and then a second gun that was fired from another gun?
Samantha Carner: I don't remember the exact final ground truth answers that were there. No, I'm sorry. I don't remember.
Defense attorney: I think when you and I talked about this, you said you were aware of a controversy about that particular test. Correct?
Samantha Carner: I was aware — yes — of the results of the proficiency test. Yes.
Defense attorney: That there was a very high error rate in that particular proficiency test.
Samantha Carner: There was a higher error rate. Yes. However, my answers were satisfactory, along with the five other examiners at my specific laboratory that took it as well.
Defense attorney: Your conclusion in that case was, as in this case, that it was inconclusive. Correct?
Samantha Carner: Correct.
Defense attorney: Even though the correct answer was that the bullets did not come from the question — the two did not match — that known in the question should have been an elimination.
Samantha Carner: The ground truth answer was yes, they were excluded. However, an inconclusive result in this comparison was extremely appropriate. The lack of quality and quantity of those individual characteristics never reached sufficient agreement, nor did it ever reach sufficient disagreement. So saying anything but inconclusive was not appropriate.
Candace Owens: She's just wrong. Like, if the answer was "these don't match" and she put "inconclusive" — and it's relevant, and he goes through it, it's a lot of pain to watch him go through this — I was like, why is he harping on this? It's relevant because it's the exact same thing. She is the Samantha Carner that then broke the news, and they say, "Oh, you know, it's inconclusive, but like it could be." And so he's like, "Wait a second — but you only took one bullet proficiency test, and you did that. You just said basically 'I don't know,' and the answer was no." Okay. The answer was no. This is not a match.
Then he makes her do a test live. Okay, this is a very long testimony, guys. I'm telling you, you can watch it at 1.5x and you have to get through it. And he's going to have to work on this. This lawyer is going to have to work on how to quickly arrive at his conclusions and to be quicker at combating what she's saying. His presentation is not good, but the information is fantastic.
So then he goes, "Let's do it live." He's like, "I'm going to show you some bullet striations, and you're telling me you're an expert — can you look at one column and tell me if you think that this is a birthmark match for this gun?" And she does it. She does this live. And you just got to watch the end of this. She's so pompous. It's amazing.
Baron Coleman: So painful.
(Clip plays)
Defense attorney: Does this comparison show individual characteristics indicating that it was fired from the same weapon?
Samantha Carner: There are individual characteristics present, but without examining it in person I don't feel comfortable making a conclusion.
Defense attorney: Okay. How about the next page, 27?
Samantha Carner: Again, I see individual characteristics. On a very first glance, I can see maybe one striation that is in agreement, but without seeing it physically in person and having an accurate representation of the entirety, I can't conclude in any answer.
Defense attorney: And the last one — the third photo, page 28, exhibit 19, page 28 — same question.
Samantha Carner: I do see individual characteristics. I do see some areas of agreement. Without looking at it further, I wouldn't make a conclusion. It's a holistic approach when you're examining items.
Defense attorney: Would it surprise you if I told you that all three of those were fired from different weapons?
Samantha Carner: The answer is no. I don't know any context to these photos other than what you showed. So I don't feel comfortable saying one way or another.
Candace Owens: Her answer to everything is "I don't know." This is the woman — he made her do it live — and they do show pictures at different points, and by my eyes I would have been like, "Yeah, it looks like a match, looks like a match, looks like a birthmark match." And by the time he gets through it, it's a totally made-up science that's based on your eyes. And she does say that it was her opinion, but her opinion always just happens to be wrong. And every time the answer is no —
Baron Coleman: Which is what demonstrates — whether it's in her test for class characteristics, her exam, or whether it's in the real-life example that he makes her do three times — each time the answer is no, she votes inconclusive. And guess what she voted for the Charlie Kirk one?
Candace Owens: Inconclusive.
Baron Coleman: Inconclusive. It's this way with DNA. It's this way with fingerprint analysis. And it's this way with these bullet classifications. They're all just dependent on someone eyeballing it. And we get the idea that, "Oh, it came back from the FBI. We got a test result." No, you don't. You have some guy who may have had a bad night's sleep, who might have been fighting with his wife, who might be unqualified — and looks at it and goes, "Yeah, okay. That's close enough. Next." You should not be putting people in prison like this. It's a clown show.
Candace Owens: This testimony is a very big deal. And that's why I said he's going to have to get to the point, because it takes a very long time to go through testimony. We pulled it out and made it easy for you. This one has no idea what she's talking about. She literally has no idea what she's talking about. And this was the basis of trying to connect Charlie's bullet to his body, which she determined is inconclusive — but based on her history, I'd say that's a no, because every time she says inconclusive, the real answer is no, as he demonstrates very quickly.
She also testifies — which is crucial — that they observed debris and dust in the barrel, and she doesn't know why there was debris and dust in the barrel. My husband was like, "That's just crazy." You're telling me a recently fired weapon had a bunch of debris and dust in the barrel? So that's going to be another hump that they're going to have to get over.
And yeah, she is just wholly unqualified. One bullet proficiency test and you've never passed it. "I didn't get it wrong. I said, 'I don't know.' I said, 'Maybe, maybe not.'" I absolutely loved that testimony.
Day Five Continued: Caitlyn Oliver — ATF Forensic Biologist
Candace Owens: And I do want to also show you Caitlyn Oliver. The next day — trial day five. She was the ATF forensic biologist, and she's testifying just regarding the prints that are on the gun. This is the crucial clip. She just basically tells us that the media flat out lied when they said that Tyler Robinson's DNA was found on the gun. We're going to run that for you because everyone's lying about it, and it's right here in the preliminary hearing. Take a listen.
(Clip plays)
Defense attorney: From a scientific standpoint, you couldn't read the paragraph that sets out the likelihood ratio in your report, whatever the number, and then blast a headline in the media — "Mr. Robinson's DNA is found on this item." That's a source attribution, is it not?
Caitlyn Oliver: Correct. Yes.
Defense attorney: And that would not be scientifically defensible, would it?
Caitlyn Oliver: Correct.
Defense attorney: So it is a scientifically indefensible statement to say that Tyler Robinson's DNA was found on the gun?
Candace Owens: You can find that in trial day five. Go through it, watch it. And she's like, "Yeah, I don't really know why the media said that." And then she also notes crucially that the DNA that was found on the gun — going back to why it's important to understand the science of degradation — the most degraded prints found on the gun were Tyler Robinson's. They can't get over that scientific hump. There's no reason why Tyler Robinson, if he carried this gun and had it and put it together like Blake Neff said, would have the most degraded prints on the gun. Meaning that Matt Robinson's prints were stronger on the gun. They said they found four or five sets of prints on the gun. They didn't name all the people, but they did name Matt Robinson.
Baron Coleman: How are we explaining that?
Candace Owens: We've got a real problem on our hands. So you have DNA issues, you have bullet striation issues, you've got fingerprint issues. All three of those — in a trial, the defense is going to jump up and down during the closing and say, "You want reasonable doubt? Go ahead and drive a truck through this. This is the definition of reasonable doubt right here." What we've seen this week explains why they rolled out the influencer campaign on day five.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. Because that was crucial — she literally testified the opposite and said, "I don't know how it got there." And his in particular are very degraded. And as I said, degraded could mean that he touched it 20 years ago. And he didn't even touch it, by the way. And that's why it's going to get down to the chemistry.
Candace Owens: And I think one of the flaws of Tyler Robinson's defense attorney is that he's actually the strongest lawyer in terms of what he knows. He is the worst lawyer in terms of communication. So it's like the super science math people who can't communicate it quickly and tell you what they're getting at. He's going to have to work on that, because they can just say, "Get to the point or we're not going to use it." You don't have all day to lay out everything. But the science is simply not on the prosecution's side.
Baron Coleman: It's not. And the influencers can come out and say, "It's overwhelming. There's DNA. There's fingerprints. The bullet match." No. No. And no — not beyond a reasonable doubt. Because some guy who's in a lab holds something up in front of his face and says, "Yeah, they kind of look alike." But not even in this case — they're not even saying, "Yeah, they kind of look alike." They're testifying, "No, I was stopped in the middle and told to stop going." "No, I don't know whether it matches or not." "I failed my test — the only test I've ever taken." And then the lady talking about the fingerprints being degraded. You can't win a case in trial with influencers. Juries aren't swayed by influencers saying it's overwhelming.
Candace Owens: I think it's the opposite in this case. I think it's one of the strangest things in the entire world that they thought to bring influencers to court like that. And I also want to say that that's traditionally something that conservatives mock — when you think about BLM, when they have like Ben Crump doing the most outside of a hearing, and you go, "At least he's a lawyer." But the point is — when people start influencing in a courthouse, why did you feel the need to invite influencers? And they say, "Oh, it's because —" what's the logic of that? Why would they all come out there? And Erika in particular asked me to be here. Are we supposed to believe that Charlie was best friends with, you know, Betty Johnson? What's the purpose of this? It feels like it's a psychological operation, and they're going to have to answer for that. It's part of the reason why there has been so much distrust with Turning Point USA — because they're not behaving like they have nothing to hide.
Baron Coleman: No. And I'm telling you — you watch that preliminary hearing. If it wasn't Charlie Kirk, and you hadn't been subjected to this year-long psychological operation, influence operation, this juke-and-jive operation that's been going on for a year — if you just watched it, if it was Bill Smith that had died and Roger Davidson that allegedly shot him, and you watched this preliminary hearing, most people would walk out and say, "Man, the prosecution's case is not very solid. It looks really weak to me."
Candace Owens: But because we've been told for a solid year — and it's propaganda. You repeat it enough, people start to believe it.
Turning Point USA's PR Failures
Candace Owens: What would you say — and I want to now start talking about Turning Point USA. They've made a ton of mistakes and they continue to make a ton of mistakes every single day. I mean, we could have even spoken about this morning — this weird lie that they dropped and now they've deleted from the internet. I don't want to put it on Turning Point USA, but one of their newer influencers claiming that Erika offered for me to see the autopsy report.
Baron Coleman: The autopsy report. I was going to say the death certificate or the photo.
Candace Owens: I guess you said the autopsy report, and now they've deleted it from the internet. Like, what do you think?
Baron Coleman: Well, can we state on the record — were you offered the autopsy to review?
Candace Owens: The craziest lie. I mean, I knew it was going to be deleted fast. I was like, this is just weird. She had said something about the guy who made the videos regarding the finances — she was talking about how Wolves in Finance had made all these videos and was talking about the filings and stuff. And I said to her, "Even if you gave me all of the accounts, that's not my focus in this investigation." Because I'm not a math accounting person and there's nothing I can do. So we talked about the finances and how that was a problem, and I said genuinely I'm not the right person for this and it's not where I can add my expertise. I've maintained that throughout this entire process. I'm the person that broke the story that Charlie wanted this DOGE. And he suspected that money was missing out of Turning Point Action in particular. But I'm not the person that's going up on their filings and talking about who's giving money.
Baron Coleman: But did she say, "I have them with me. Would you like to look at them?"
Candace Owens: I don't think she did. No. Because what would she give me?
Baron Coleman: That spreadsheet. I don't know.
Candace Owens: It's like, what could she give me? And she maybe offered, "I could get you something," or whatever. And I was like, genuinely, it's just not my skill set. I'm not the person that you're going to hand a finance and accounting spreadsheet to. I'm better at putting together a timeline. I want to answer questions about why people are acting weird. I want to know what's going on with the surgeon. That's what I came here to do. I don't want to get seguéed onto something that I'm not contributing to or asking a question about. The autopsy report — we didn't even discuss. That was never even a topic of discussion. So I thought it was so weird that he comes out and says this, and now it's since been deleted. Why would you do that?
Baron Coleman: I can only think of two reasons. Option A — Erika said that to him. And in a bizarre moment of untruthfulness, maybe rare and bizarre for Erika, she off-handedly said that she had offered to let you see the autopsy and you declined. And this influencer went and reported that, and then she calls and says, "What are you doing? I told you that off the record. You shouldn't have put that out." "Oh, okay. Well, I'll delete it." In which case, she lied to him. The other alternative is even more bizarre — that she did not say it at all, and he went and said that, and then someone called him like, "She didn't say that. Why are you reporting that? Take it down."
Candace Owens: It's weird. It totally didn't even kind of happen. That's why I was like, "This is wacky." First off, I would never not look at that. I'm like the nosiest person in the world.
Baron Coleman: I was kind of irritated you didn't, when I saw that initially. I was like, "What are you talking about? She turned down the opportunity to look at it."
Candace Owens: Does everybody know who I am? Like, if you're going to invite me to read text messages, do anything like that, I'm 100% going to read. What she did offer me was a transcript — and this was weird because I had never thought anything of it at that time. And that's what actually made me question Charlie handing over the company to her. Because she offered me, sort of in a way, an excuse for something that I wasn't questioning on my show. And I said that to her. She was like, "You know, we have a transcript of Charlie saying that he wanted me to take over the company." And she's the one who told me — because remember, the public at that point thought that happened in the Hamptons or something like that. She was the one who told me it was the Aspen event. And I said to her, "I've never covered that on my show. I've never talked about that. I just assumed it was like a board decision." But the fact that she had the transcript actually made me suspicious about it. So then I was like —
Baron Coleman: Where did this —
Candace Owens: Yeah. She made me suspicious of it because I was like, I'm not talking about this on my show. This is not an area that I'm looking into. And she offered me a transcript of an alleged video of Charlie saying that he wanted her to take over from Aspen. And I was like, I mean, I don't know what to do with it. You're typing up a script. You want to show me the video? That'd be great. But the transcript is just a Word document.
Baron Coleman: It's just a Word document.
Candace Owens: It's just a Word document typed up. So she did have that on hand. And I thought that was very strange. But yeah, there were no conversations about the autopsy report at all. And I would have definitely —
Baron Coleman: I think there was a question at the time whether an autopsy had been performed.
Candace Owens: And I actually was one who came out and said there was. I knew that there was an autopsy performed. I knew that for a fact, and I came out and said that. So I wasn't on the train, so to speak, that there wasn't an autopsy done. I said several times on my show, "Guys, there definitely — I can report — was an autopsy done." So you can go back and watch that. That's why I found that to be a bizarre angle that this kid took.
What do you think, beyond even yesterday? Because it keeps happening. I mean, I've never seen so many PR blunders in my life. They have ruined the Turning Point USA organization.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. They're pulling really nasty characters out of the woods. And I think that's an indication that good people — the types of good people that Charlie tended to surround himself with — are not willing to cooperate.
Candace Owens: Right. They're running out of options from the good people and now they're like digging through the gutter trash and saying, "Will you help us? Can you come talk to us and carry water for us? Can we leak stuff out through you?"
Baron Coleman: Yeah. I find it very unusual. You know, if I offered for $25 million to go turn TPUSA around — and I'm still willing to do that, by the way — it's easy. It's a three-step process. I'll give it to you for free right here. Save you $25 million bucks. Number one — start being radically transparent. Be honest at every step of the way, to the point where you embarrass yourself with transparency. Number two —
Candace Owens: You issue things only through official channels. You don't issue things through gutter trash. You don't issue things through failed podcasters. You don't issue things through podcasters no one's ever heard of, trying to build their name on your back. Just issue things through Andrew Kolvet, your spokesperson, through Erika Kirk, your CEO, or through something with TPUSA letterhead.
Baron Coleman: And number three — you do it without attacking.
Candace Owens: You do it without attacking. And if you can do those three things, I do think it's possible that TPUSA can ride through some of these issues. You won't have things like Saturday Night Live making fun of the guy's haircut, saying it's a TPUSA representative haircut. I think you will begin to reform and rehab your image. It's not going to be immediate. It's not going to be overnight. But if you did that for me — as hard as I've been on TPUSA — if they came out and were radically transparent, started issuing things only through official channels, and stopped attacking people, even someone like me, I'm going to go, "Maybe I've got these people wrong. Maybe I need to rethink my analysis on all this." But the way they're going, I'm more convinced than I've ever been that I'm on to something.
Baron Coleman: That's exactly right. And I think the thing that stands out to me the most is the lack of humility from the organization. Even when they're caught red-handed, completely wrong, having gaslit the whole public about something, they never say sorry.
Candace Owens: And that's like signs of abuse. I think of so many moments where they could have exercised public humility, or just been a leader in general, even if they genuinely got it wrong by accident. Like if Erika really had no idea that Charlie had threats the night before, and she gets on to Glenn Beck and she's like, "I have his phone and it didn't happen," and then when she realizes that she's wrong — if this genuinely was a mistake — and she admitted to my face, "Okay, yes, Dan Flut" — whatever — you publicly go out and you correct the record. And that demonstrates, "Okay, you're not a bad person. You just really didn't know and there was a lot going on." I would be like, "Hey, guys —"
Baron Coleman: I do it on my show the whole time, where I'm like, "We reported this yesterday. I spoke to someone. This is actually incorrect." Like, why aren't they doing that? They seem to get angry whenever they get caught in a lie. And then they want to go abuse you. Like, go beat Candace, because then this wouldn't have been a problem. You should have said so much throughout this process that you guys were wrong with. And your refusal to do it makes everyone feel like it's because you're trying to hide something.
Candace Owens: Well, and the other thing too is when someone points out that they didn't do their best — she wore a gold Elvis sparkly suit and came out to fireworks. Not your finest hour. Being honest. Not your finest hour. When you wear the gold sparkly Elvis suit and people call you on it, don't come out and be like, "Oh, I have to shame those people. It's the only thing that fit." Just say, "Hey —"
Baron Coleman: Ridiculous.
Candace Owens: Bad judgment call. You're right. You had a bad interview. You look unprepared. Just come out and say, "You know what? It wasn't my finest hour. I screwed up with Bari Weiss. I screwed up with so-and-so. Yes, I apologize. I'm new to this. I've only been doing it a year now." Think about how crazy that would have been if she said that. Like, "I'm really sorry. This was really dumb. I'm listening to too many people. They told me to wear this because I should be like celebrating." That would have gone so far. It's the constant gaslighting that comes out from this organization. And when someone points out, "Hey, that wasn't your finest hour" — don't attack that person.
Baron Coleman: No. Because I promise you, they're not the only person that thought that.
Candace Owens: And when you attack them, all the other people that thought that think, "Okay, so not only was it not her finest hour, she's nasty." And that's the thing that's coming across now. It's like they are so desperate to sow insane narratives against people who are legitimately trying to get to the truth about something that they should be on our side about.
Baron Coleman: Right. Yes. And instead they're out there, and Blake is saying that you're jealous of her because she's white. Like, what?
Candace Owens: Like, you are lost. You guys are lost. You are running out of ideas. My children are half white. My husband is a white blonde. What are we even talking about?
And Erika can't detach herself from that because she's the CEO of the company. So he's on a podcast and it is called the Charlie Kirk Show. You are not just the widow. You are the CEO. You are the chairman. And when he makes these ridiculous accusations — when you now have them trying to tweet pornographic rumors about me — I mean, truly disgusting stuff — while you're simultaneously not answering for why they're platforming sexual deviants. Matt Tardio. How crazy was that when that story broke? He literally — it's like old school rape story. Chased a girl down an alley —
Baron Coleman: Dragging someone down the road.
Candace Owens: And the ICE cameras caught it. And you're partnering with these sorts of people. And we can go and look at the background story of Andrew Wilson and Rachel Wilson and how they speak to women, while you're simultaneously pretending to be this faithful, heaven-focused — "I don't even think about politics because I'm so heaven-focused." You are registering to the public as a fraud. Also kind of as clinically insane. Like, you go, "Something's not right here. Why do you keep pretending that you're godly? We can see what you're doing."
Baron Coleman: Well, and the other thing too — when they have an issue with something you said, they don't just come and say, "Hey, she said this. Here's really what happened." It's "She's evil. She's awful. She's biased. She's terrible. Anyone who watches her — we're done with her." This is not a Christian response. This is not a godly organization any longer. This is not the way you behave in polite society. If you have an issue with something, if you think someone didn't have their finest moment — maybe they think you didn't have your finest moment. Well, just point it out.
Candace Owens: Just say, "Hey, Candace was off yesterday. Here's what she said." Instead, they come out and they say these ludicrous things, totally mischaracterized. You'll do an hour, hour-and-a-half show. They'll mischaracterize the whole thing. Blake will, or somebody else will. And then all their minions will jump on it and be like, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah." They didn't watch. They're just lying. And it's not the organization Charlie left. Why are people still talking about this 13, 14 months later?
Baron Coleman: The man led an organization and millions of people deeply cared for him. They deeply respected him, or they deeply cared for him, or they even deeply loved him. A lot of them.
Candace Owens: And you can't just treat those people this way. You cannot just treat those people this way — who have spent so much time. Even the day he goes and does an event, people will travel hours to go see him. They'll spend gas money — gas is expensive right now. They'll go get a hotel. They're eating food along the way. It cost them money. It cost them time. They take a day off of work. Why are they doing this? Because they love his message. They love him as a presenter. They love the organization he built. Treat them with respect when they ask who killed him.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. Treat them with respect.
What Turning Point USA Should Do
Candace Owens: What do you think was their biggest PR blunder? I know it's a hard question.
Baron Coleman: Oh gosh. I don't know that you can get it to the biggest. It's like — which is your favorite drop of water in the ocean? It's impossible.
Candace Owens: So I would ask the question this way, and I'd put it on you. If you woke up tomorrow and you're Erika Kirk, and you know you have to fix this — you need to take specific concrete steps in the next 30, 60, 90 days — what specific steps do you take to fix the PR problem that TPUSA clearly has? They can act like they don't. They do. It is bad. You do not spend the money they're spending to support this woman, to promote this woman, to support the organization, to promote the organization, if you don't recognize you have a real problem. But what specific steps would you take?
Baron Coleman: If I'm running that organization, the first thing I'm doing is I'm shutting down the Charlie Kirk Show. And I'm doing that because you have to stop the bleeding. And Blake Neff and Andrew Kolvet are the bleeding. You've got to pack 36 feet of gauze into that wound. Right away, I'm getting rid of the show, and they have to stop talking. You have to delete Blake's Twitter and his affiliation because he's very bad for the company.
Candace Owens: Do you keep Blake on in any capacity? Do you keep Andrew on in any capacity?
Baron Coleman: No. Andrew's a terrible — his biggest weakness is public relations, and yet he's the spokesperson for Turning Point.
Candace Owens: Yeah. He wanted to be a screenwriter. How did he end up in PR? Those are very different disciplines.
Baron Coleman: I just think he's always been connected, and you get these kids that are like, "I want to be this," and they just go, "Okay, you can be that." But he's not actually good at that. And with Andrew, he's trying on different PR strategies. So first he sort of tried to play it nice, and then we met the real Andrew Kolvet, and it was like such a radical — "Oh god, okay, that's who you actually are." And now he's getting — I don't know if Andrew Wilson took over his Twitter feed for a week, but he was getting down in the dirt and being all crazy. And you can't restore those sorts of images. Just get rid of him. And by the way, if you want to say, "Okay, he went through a tough time and that's why he did that" — maybe you keep Andrew Kolvet in a back office job, but you get rid of Blake Neff.
Candace Owens: You get Andrew out of public-facing, no matter what.
Baron Coleman: Yes. You get him out of public-facing and you get him off of the show. Because really, he has proven — in the beginning he could kind of be likable. Blake Neff has kind of been unlikable from the very beginning and he's serving you no purpose. He seems — even in little things, like when he turns on Tucker Carlson, who helped him get the job — he feels like the Judas at the table. You just go, "Something's not right about Blake Neff." And he's getting pettier and pettier. You just got to get rid of Blake Neff. I would say that would be the first thing I would do. The show itself is a wound. And people are tired of you running it with Charlie Kirk's name on it. That feels dishonest. It feels wrong.
Candace Owens: And you stop tweeting from Charlie's accounts. The second thing she does is she does a long-form, five-hour interview and she goes into some fire.
Baron Coleman: Who's the host?
Candace Owens: She can pick that person. If it's me —
Baron Coleman: Who would be a good host for her?
Candace Owens: Joe Rogan.
Baron Coleman: Really?
Candace Owens: Yeah. And because he's been very critical of her. And the reason why I'm saying Joe Rogan is — let me re-answer the question. If I'm her, I'm doing the Candace Owens show. Because that's my character. If someone's going to keep challenging me, I'm like, "Bring the challenge. Let's go." That's my character. That's not her character. So let's be realistic about what she's willing to do. She's going to do a Joe Rogan or a Shawn Ryan interview, and that's where she's going to land. She's not going to go into the fire, but at the very least it would put enough pressure on the person doing the interview — like a Joe Rogan — that if he didn't ask significant questions, it would hurt him more to host her. So he's got to prep for it. He can't look like he just let her do whatever she wanted. And it would demonstrate — it would go some way toward the public going, "Okay, at least she did this. It's not like a throwaway interview where she's pretending and just speaking to a fan." She's got to do something adversarial.
Baron Coleman: I was thinking someone boring. I like your idea though. It's got to be adversarial.
Candace Owens: Joe Rogan has made a couple of comments. Maybe a Theo Von.
Baron Coleman: No. No, no, no, no, no. She can't do Theo.
Candace Owens: Maybe a Theo Von.
Baron Coleman: No, I like Theo too much. He can't do Theo.
Candace Owens: Yeah, he would be hilarious because he actually would ask all the questions.
Baron Coleman: Yeah, he would. And he'd be very funny about it, but he would ask the questions.
Candace Owens: "Let me ask you a question, baby girl." Yeah. But that would be my advice. And she's got to answer all the questions. You can't hide behind the idea of "this trial is going on." We just live in a different media. What she is coming across as right now is, "I've got the power. I've got Kash Patel. I've got the president. I've got the vice president lecturing you all when I don't show up for my event." It's gross.
Baron Coleman: Do you think if the Republicans lose the midterm, that's a threat to Turning Point?
Candace Owens: I'm going to be honest — I hope so. And I'm going to be really honest. I hope that they are investigated, because it's gotten to a point where they've told so many lies that I don't care if it's the Democrats that demand the truth. I don't care. What are we winning in the Republican party? What are we — just like the pro-pedophilia party at this point? Like, what are we even doing? What is the Republican party? It's the neocon party. So we have a choice between neocons — Ben Shapiro's party — or Democrats.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. Going back to 2016, there was all this — I don't want to say "hope and change" when Trump got elected — but the Make America Great Again, and now we're ten years past that and it's obvious it's not what we were promised. But I do think they're protecting their people.
Candace Owens: I do think the Republican party — that's basically what's left of it — is out there protecting their people, whether it's the pedophiles or their political organizations or their billionaires. That's all it's done. It's kind of coalesced around there. They've got all their guns pointing out of a wagon circle.
And she — Erika — has basically come out and been like, "I'm a part of the billionaire class. I don't have to do anything. I can call a crisis PR person. I can call Kash. I can have the DoD attack you during Tyler Robinson's week." That's what she did.
Baron Coleman: Okay. Let's just call it a spade a spade. The DoD was attacking you during Tyler Robinson's preliminary hearing, and your show was not even on air. Think about that. With the Jennica Pounds thing exposed.
Candace Owens: Do you think she directs that or do you think she's just a beneficiary of that?
Baron Coleman: She is a beneficiary of it, because I don't think she's the brains of the operation. But the operation doesn't really have any brains. I will say that as well, because it's falling apart. I think it has never been so fragile — us seeing how this all really works. Like, we know these people are working for the DoD. That's crazy. And then you ask yourself the big question: why would the DoD — you're going into Tyler Robinson week, you say it's open and shut, it's overwhelming evidence, he definitely did this — who in the room is going, "We've got to get people on payroll to start attacking Candace Owens that week"?
Candace Owens: And it was insane. I couldn't even know where to look. I was like, "What is happening right now?"
Baron Coleman: I think the colossal attacks against you, me, others is a really good indication that the case is really weak and that they want people to be discredited or to stop looking into things. And that's who they go the hardest at. As soon as I announced you were taking over the show —
Candace Owens: Oh, I mean, the attacks against me kicked up literally overnight and have persisted since. And it's obvious what it says: "Hey, we think that the case is not very strong. We don't want people looking into it." It may not lead back to TPUSA's door. It may not lead back to the government's door. It may not lead back to the Utah government's door or the federal government's door. We don't know where the investigation's going to go. But if you are 100% convinced Tyler Robinson did this and you think it's an open-and-shut case, why are you attacking anyone?
Baron Coleman: Sit back, you know, swipe your hands.
Candace Owens: That's the ultimate attack. You guys are going to look so stupid. We're going to let you look even stupider. We're going to let you get all lathered up before you look stupid. Why would you attack people and try to slow them down?
Why are you freaking out about Fort Wachuka? Why are you freaking out about Carl Pangerl? It's like — we're going to sit back and then you're going to see in the trial that everything this person said was wrong, and they're going to discredit themselves by going all in on this. That's my strategy. I'm always like, I want to be very careful because I know that my credibility matters. So I'm not going to just accept somebody without me properly vetting it, going through things.
I actually think one of their bigger PR blunders was attacking Joe Kent. That was weird.
Baron Coleman: That's weird. He wants to conduct a foreign investigation. Now you all hate him.
Candace Owens: Right. That's very weird. Yeah.
Baron Coleman: Accuse him of treason. Yes. They're behaving the exact opposite way that we would expect them to behave.
Chaos Agents and Staying Focused
Candace Owens: And I agree with you. I do want to also assert — as I go off air — it's one of the things I talked to you about. I'm so grateful that I read that book, Chaos.
Baron Coleman: Yeah.
Candace Owens: Because you have to understand the government employs chaos agents. And it is so tempting for you to get pulled into drama on the internet. What they're trying to do is fed-jacket someone. "Oh, this person looks like they're into this. Whatever. I don't know if we can trust this person." All of this stuff. You don't need to fundamentally trust people. Trust their work.
Baron Coleman: Just look at their work.
Candace Owens: Look at their work. Criticize work.
Baron Coleman: That's it. Criticize their work. And when you start seeing that happen and people are trying to constantly sow and divide, it glows to me. I abstain from it. The amount of times people have messaged me wanting me to get involved in this or that, and I'm like, "I'm actually good. I'm going to trust my gut. I'm going to trust my instinct." And if I'm proven wrong, I'm going to have to come out and do a mea culpa. It's gotten me this far in politics. My gut instinct about things has gotten me this far, and I've been in some heated rooms. I've been under pressure. I've been on the wrong side of a perspective — like when I was pro-Israel and then I had to risk it all to basically say — and I lived through the chaos agents being like, "She used to work here, she used to work there." Yes, I changed my mind. This actually happens. And that's actually usually when you are the most under attack, because they're like, "Wow, Candace has a massive platform and now she's not parochial." Same with Charlie Kirk. He was changing his mind at the end.
Baron Coleman: Well, and the whole idea — I've heard this about you, I've heard it about me — "She won't address the fight over here. Therefore, she approves of it."
Candace Owens: Nonsense. I just have too many toddlers to care about.
Baron Coleman: And you're allowed to have — like I said with Erika — you're allowed to have an opinion. "Hey, she didn't do well in that interview and she did not look good in that interview." That doesn't mean you hate everything Erika stands for and wish ill things for her. No. And if she would just come out and say, "You know what? I heard the criticism. I didn't do very well in that interview."
Candace Owens: Right. Then, okay. Well, that just undercuts all this attack. It undercuts all of it. You're right. It happens with the chaos agents. The book Chaos is really good.
Baron Coleman: It's really good. And it shows you how the government did that following the JFK assassination. It talks about how they infiltrated the Black Panthers, how they were able to literally just make people all look at each other and go, "I don't know who to trust." And the people who are flip-flopping are actually contributing to this investigation. How are you actually moving on from it? And it takes a lot of patience, but I have perfected it because I've just been under so many bizarre — I mean, I was a lesbian two weeks ago. I'm not — like, you know what I mean?
Baron Coleman: So was I.
Candace Owens: Yes. You just have to go, "I'm shutting this off because it's meant to drive you crazy." She's breaking up with her husband. They're separating. She's a lesbian. She's gay. No, never mind, she's actually — that's just sowing chaos and trying to get people to look the other way. And I have just been like, "Nope."
Baron Coleman: You made a good point. You go back and read the infiltration into the groups in the 1960s and 70s. How did they know they'd been infiltrated? All of a sudden you kept hearing a single phrase over and over and over: "I don't know who to trust."
Candace Owens: Well, guess what? When you don't know who to trust, your group has been infiltrated, and there's an operation of chaos taking place around you. So stop judging the people, start judging their work, and get back to order.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. And I've said that. I've kept the circle really small. But our relationship I feel like took off so naturally because we were just throwing so much of ourselves into the research — meeting and sharing, "What do you have? What do we have? How can we put together this timeline?" We're not talking drama. I don't have time. I don't really care about this person or that person. I want to get this together. I've got timelines. You've got all of these spreadsheets that we're sharing with one another.
Candace Owens: And so I want to encourage people that have been contributing. And by the way, I also want to acknowledge that what we're putting together is because of people that are writing into More Tips, people that are emailing us. You guys have made this process — I get to take the credit for really what people around the world have done. I mean, think about how fast the Latvian guy — they told me where he was living. They're like, "Here's the street he lived on and the high school he went to." We had people in Latvia who stepped up to the plate. And so I want people to remember that. Everything that I have been able to do in this process is because of you guys back at home who have been sending us tips. And that's where we want to always keep the focus. What do you know? Feel emboldened. And I think more and more now people are coming out and they're taking bigger steps because they see that the narrative is falling apart.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. The Brian Cole case even —
Candace Owens: No, the Brian Cole case to me is over. It's been decided. I did a whole episode — or most of an episode — just going through his interrogation transcript, and it was an emotional night. I got done with that show, finished the processing, and laid down in bed and just thought, "There is a young man wrongfully sitting in a jail cell by himself right now."
Baron Coleman: Yeah.
Candace Owens: And I feel the same way with Tyler a lot of times, but that one is particularly crushing. A special needs young man, 30 years old, just heaped on. And Steve Baker deserves a massive shout out. Steve Baker has done yeoman's work on that case.
Baron Coleman: God will reward Steve Baker one day for that work.
Candace Owens: Yes. I actually do want to say that — Steve Baker. That is so amazing. I was even saying to you that even the process of how I feel inspired and not letting go of the story, and realizing that even this sort of ADHD culture has helped the feds, because we always just move on from stuff and we're like, "Okay, that was weird." And so when Steve Baker's like, "Nope, I'm going to keep on this for years and I'm going to focus" — that is so inspiring.
Chaos, the book, being written by somebody who gave 30 years of his life investigating one thing — the Charles Manson murders — and exposed the entire federal apparatus. I was encouraged by Xavier Bousard. I got to present his work. This man gave a decade of his life to just trying to figure out what is that, that is at the palace. Why am I falling down a dark hole? He had to move his family — and each of these people are usually brought to the brink of bankruptcy because they're so focused on it. Xavier had to move his family out of the country. And there was no upside other than him wanting the truth to get out.
I want that to be a part of my story. I'm so inspired by these types of journalists, and I want to be known as someone who never ever stopped looking for what actually happened on September 10th. I want to know every single character, what they look like. I am, yes, as people have pointed out, obsessed with this case — because Charlie was a good person. He was a good friend. He was there for me during the darkest year of my life before losing him, which was 2023, when suddenly I lost everything for not being pro-Israel. And knowing that he was going through that in the end, and that that is what he was struggling with, and people publicly lied about it — including people that he was closest to from a colleague sense — I'm not letting this one go.
Baron Coleman: No. It's because people love him. That's why there's so much support for the investigation — because people love him, or loved him, or cared about his work. I've readily admitted I was not a massive fan of Charlie Kirk because he was very pro-Zionist and I was not. If I would have known — I think frankly if we would all have known what was going on behind the scenes, if that would have all been playing out in public — I think A, he'd still be alive, but B, I think he would have had even more fans. I think more people would have had a deeper respect for him. There have been a lot of people since all that's come out who were like, "Man, we were wrong on him."
Candace Owens: Yeah. We were really wrong on him. There was a lot going on behind the scenes, and I wish it would have played out in public because he'd still be here.
Baron Coleman: He would still be here. I do believe that.
Candace Owens: But I also, like I said, have this sense that he's fighting with us. Charlie was too big of an energy, too big of a spirit. And I think that people thought they could sort of contain that and keep up the legacy and use his name. He was bigger than his name. He was bigger than the Charlie Kirk Show. He was bigger than a trademark. And I feel that the energy is on our side right now. I'm very optimistic about where we're at. I think the feds — the best thing that can happen is this court case to go through. I'm obviously concerned. I do think that Tyler Robinson's life is at risk. That's one thing that makes me very nervous.
Baron Coleman: Well, especially as we were going through this today.
Candace Owens: Yeah.
Baron Coleman: I mean, they can't take this case to trial.
Candace Owens: I don't think. Not unless there's a lot more than this.
Baron Coleman: You better have better DNA, better fingerprint, better cell phone technology. There better be location. You better have better influencers.
Candace Owens: Better influencers. You've got to up the budget, guys. Up the budget.
Trial Timeline and Closing Thoughts
Candace Owens: Okay, I'm going to read some of your comments that are coming in. Manifestum writes, "I couldn't have picked a better person than Baron to hold things down and keep it real. Wishing you and your family health and happiness as you prepare to meet the newest and littlest member of your family." Thank you so much. I'm so excited — just because I know how much Baron and I have put into this case, and he's just the right person for the job. And I'm so excited to meet my fourth son. How crazy. I have my fourth son.
Yeah, and I'm excited for you guys to meet him as well. So we will announce when I give birth.
Jenniped writes, "Two of my favorite podcasters and humans. Thank you for this collaboration. I am praying the rosary daily for you and your families and your platforms." That is — yeah, absolutely. Pray the rosary daily. It is something that I actually need to do. I have never prayed the rosary daily and people tell me it is completely transformative.
Baron Coleman: I've never prayed it daily. I mean, I've prayed it, but I've never on a daily basis for any period of time. That's a good point.
Candace Owens: Kyle writes, "Utmost respect and many thanks to you both for helping to rewrite and clarify our history books, particularly for our children. I have so much hope now, but remain solidified in my stance to never let this go and to talk about events like this more often." Thank you guys. And by the way, while I'm off air, you can still send tips. If there are things that I'm coming across as I'm trying to go back and organize and rewatch things and see if we forgot any threads to follow up on, I will be telling Baron, "Hey, could you ask them to pull up — send out a request for the More Tips?" We have a strong lead, by the way, on the fire chief that was mentioned in the UVU independent review. That might have been the biggest PR disaster for Turning Point.
Baron Coleman: The UVU independent review was brutal.
Candace Owens: They should have participated.
Baron Coleman: Yeah.
Candace Owens: That was a big blunder. They should have —
Baron Coleman: Two pages of just like, "He's a liar."
Candace Owens: Yeah. "Sue me." Anyways. But like —
Baron Coleman: You get a chance to establish your side of the story — do it. I mean, unless you have something to hide. But if you have nothing to hide, establish your side of the story.
Candace Owens: And then their excuse that people were saying — "Well, the court case" — why do they keep saying this? It's ridiculous. Why can't you participate in an independent review that has to do with everything leading up to the event planning? What is their excuse for declining to participate in the UVU independent review about the mistakes that were made that day?
Baron Coleman: I don't know. I mean, the only thing I can think of is if they plan to sue UVU.
Candace Owens: Which she did announce her intent a couple of days later. Well, yeah, she filed that notice. I think — I don't want to comment on that — she did file a notice, or TPUSA did file a notice. But actually, the Kirk family is the one that filed a notice. But that's not a lawsuit. They've got a year now to decide if they want to actually pursue that. I don't know why they didn't participate. I mean, you have a right to remain silent.
Baron Coleman: Maybe that's why they didn't participate.
Candace Owens: And the nastiness of blaming it all on Jeff Long — he seemed to do the most. Chief Long did the most.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. So many PR blunders. That guy, man.
Candace Owens: He's the one that really has a defamation lawsuit on his hands if he wanted to. I think Chief Long could annihilate people. I'm not a fan of defamation suits. I think the antidote to bad speech is more speech. But if I'm just permanently sued — I never sue anybody.
Baron Coleman: Oh, I know. I can't imagine you're a fan of them. But no — I think if anybody was going to do it, Jeff Long has a pretty good case.
Candace Owens: Yeah. I mean, I can't imagine just the year of them saying publicly, "He's the one who did this" — Brian Harpole coming out. Everyone's so invested in this case, and Brian Harpole does one of the biggest podcasts in the world and says this guy is effectively the reason Charlie Kirk's dead.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. Right.
Candace Owens: Um, lastly — Black Swan Revelations writes, "I love you guys." What do you guys come up with these handle names? He writes, "Go Max." Baron, do you intend to go Max?
Baron Coleman: I do.
Candace Owens: I dub the Max goer while I'm gone. Go into the fire. We obviously have even more footage and stuff, but biding our time because I do think we need to wait for the hearing. I did just see something that like they're trying to get the hearing to happen in 2027. Am I right?
Baron Coleman: So, not 2027. One of them said 28, one of them said 29 maybe.
Candace Owens: 28 and 29. I can't remember which one it was. But neither one of them are close. So I think the prosecution wanted it maybe one year and the defense I think wanted two years.
Baron Coleman: Well, it's just a lot. I mean, it's a high-profile — it's also a death penalty case. We keep forgetting this. It's not a typical criminal case.
Candace Owens: They're asking for 2029. That was the defense. And I think the prosecution wanted 2028.
Baron Coleman: Yeah. So no matter what, you're looking at another year plus.
Candace Owens: Absolutely. Can you do it in a year, year and a half? Yeah, probably. I mean, if everything breaks your way and goes right and everybody transfers discovery from one side to the other, it probably could be done in 2028. If they get cute and try to hide the ball, it's going to take longer.
Baron Coleman: The Utah County Attorney's Office is anticipating that it will be a 17-week trial. And yeah, the prosecutors want to go a year from now and the defense is saying, "No, we need more time."
Candace Owens: And I actually — once I see how much they dumped on them, which is the everything strategy — they probably do need more time. Selfishly, I want it to happen sooner. But we'll see what happens.
All right, Baron. Where can they find you? Baron has a YouTube channel.
Baron Coleman: Just go to YouTube and search Baron Coleman. You'll find it. I think the handle's Real Baron Podcast. There's a clips channel as well — Baron Coleman Clips — you can subscribe there and get daily clips from the different shows. And on X it's Baron Coleman.
But I want to thank you. I really appreciate you for this opportunity. It means a lot that you trust me for that. I absolutely trust you. And like I said, it was one of these things where when I looked up and stopped lamenting everything that was going wrong the past year, I looked up and was like, "Man, you sometimes forget to count your blessings."
Candace Owens: And this — just to be able to have the friendship, to trust someone, which is so hard already when you have the spotlight on you all the time and people are selling you out for Discord money — to be able to have someone who genuinely cares about the case even though you didn't know who Charlie was, and has put so much research into it. I do also want to shout out Daisy. She's been amazing. I've never met her, but she's done so much as well. And all of the smaller creators — the funny creators, the laugh breaks — Colin, Coach Colin's show is very, very funny. And NY's channel has been a channel that has stayed on things. She's very thorough. She's always on a random rabbit hole, and then I watch her and I'm like, "How did she get here?" And I needed this information.
Baron Coleman: Yeah, she had a good piece she put up today about the necklace and it was phenomenal. She does a great job and it's always never where I'm looking, so she's been excellent.
Candace Owens: Who other creators? I obviously love Lionel Nation. I just love that he's so British even though he's not. His little bow tie, his extensive vocabulary that makes us all feel like he's posh. And there's so many of them. You've got on-the-ground reporters — Diligent Dennis.
Baron Coleman: Dennis has been phenomenal. Yep. Taking a lot of heat and getting better, too. Like, before he used to kind of get distracted by the little stuff and now he's like, "You know what — going into the fire on the ground, and this is what actually matters."
Candace Owens: There are people chasing finances — that's their thing. Good. Do your thing. There are people chasing gunshots and they're testing all the guns. This case is so broad and has so much interest. No one person can possibly cover everything.
Village Crazy Lady — I actually have had a very nice friendship with her too, and she's someone that I do trust. Mel — she's actually not the Village Crazy Lady. She does fantastic work looking into the NARS pastor angle that we've been noticing.
So yeah, I do want to also just say — it's been such a collaborative process. And to walk away and know who we can trust — and obviously just luckily that you and I live close to each other.
Baron Coleman: That's real fortune.
Candace Owens: It really is. Because it really helped. It's easy. You call and say, "Can you come over for a little bit? I got to run something by you and I can only show you in front of —" Okay, fine.
Baron Coleman: Me trying to understand a map.
Candace Owens: Yeah. He's like, "It says north." I'm like, "But I'm south." Like, I'm just the typical woman at that. It makes me sick. Why are women like this?
Baron Coleman: You're like, "He's walking up on the map. Which way is that?" I'm like, "It says north right there."
Candace Owens: You're like, "It's the exact opposite thing of what you think it is." I'm like, "Okay." Yeah. It's like map dyslexia.
Baron Coleman: You have map dyslexia.
Candace Owens: Yeah. And I think that's fine. Everybody has to have a weakness. Achilles had the Achilles. Everybody has to have one weakness, and yours is maps. Mine is — honestly, if you knew how bad it was, guys, you would never — I just make Ashley do everything because she's randomly good at maps for some reason, which is weird.
All right, you guys. Well, that's everything. Again, we are closing in on the fire chief that gave CPR that was mentioned. I think we have the correct person, but if you have it on direct authority, we'd love to hear from you. We're still looking into Tyler Clancy. We have heard some more updates on him as well. Governor Cox — trying to figure out if he got together for a little bit of golf that morning with Val Peterson. And yes, I will get everything up on the website, the documents for you to be able to scroll through. I know I've promised that. I will take care of that in the next two weeks.
Baron will begin on November 1st. I think Theo Von might pop in for a book club to cover for me, and he's not going to read the book, which makes it even more fun. Theo Von pretends to read a book and just leads a book club.
Baron Coleman: I'm going to show up that day no matter what.
Candace Owens: Oh, it's going to be great. Actually, fantastic.
Baron Coleman: Oh, he's fantastic. Yeah.
Candace Owens: November 2nd is when the start date is — November 2nd. All right, you guys. That is everything. Thank you so much. He will see you on November 2nd. And I will go have a baby.