Candace Owens investigates Erika Kirk's location on September 10th and Andrew Kulvette's flight timeline
Candace Owens hosts a solo episode of her podcast continuing her investigation into the death of Charlie Kirk.
Summary
Candace Owens continues her ongoing investigation into the circumstances surrounding Charlie Kirk's death, presenting what she describes as a newly confirmed tip about Erika Kirk's whereabouts on September 10th. The central revelation is that Erika was allegedly located at the offices of Hopkinson Aircraft — an obscure, hard-to-find building with no independent address, adjacent to but physically separate from the Atlantic Aviation FBO terminal in Scottsdale — when she received news of Charlie's condition. Hopkinson Aircraft uses Atlantic Aviation's address for all mail while occupying a separate, difficult-to-locate building. Owens argues this location raises serious questions, as it is not a place anyone would ordinarily find themselves, and she describes it as having the appearance of a facility designed to keep someone out of public view.
Owens also presents new analysis of flight data and text message timelines to argue that Andrew Kulvette could not have been aboard the Santa Barbara plane he is alleged to have taken (tail number N724A, referred to as 'Barbara'), pointing to Wi-Fi availability records and ADSB flight tracking data as evidence. The charter company confirmed all their planes have Wi-Fi, which contradicts the text message evidence showing Andrew was unreachable — consistent only with a plane lacking Wi-Fi. ADSB data shows Charlie's plane descending below 7,500 feet at 3:26 p.m. Mountain Time, precisely when Andrew's text messages began loading, consistent with him being aboard that plane.
Owens notes that Andrew Kulvette does have one potential alibi: he hosted the first hour of the Charlie Kirk show on September 10th. This is explored through a clip of Andrew speaking to a New York Times writer about how Charlie asked him to guest host. However, Owens expresses moderate suspicion given prior documented instances of Andrew appearing to fake live broadcasts to conceal his location. She is seeking confirmation from the episode's guest, independent journalist Nick Shirley, that the broadcast was indeed live. Owens also expresses skepticism about Nick Shirley's claimed accomplishments, including allegedly infiltrating a Rio gang within 48 hours.
Additionally, Owens presents an updated list of planes involved in the day's events, including the Y Refi plane, an N40J plane apparently owned by a Naval Service Force commander that landed in Provo, and Charlie's G5. She argues the Barbara plane landing at 4:36 p.m. is far too late to be consistent with any credible account of Andrew's movements.
Owens addresses Blake Neff's public defense of the official narrative and Joe Kent's willingness to testify for the defense, which Owens frames as an act of honesty rather than betrayal. She is sharply critical of Blake Neff and Andrew Kulvette's emotional on-camera reaction, characterizing it as poor acting designed to frame truth-telling as betrayal. She notes the prosecution has not yet reached arraignment, yet TPUSA figures are declaring the evidence a 'mountain' and the outcome certain, while being unable to prove the weapon was fired or connect it to the bullet. No witnesses have come forward to confirm seeing Erika Kirk collapse in a parking lot, being escorted by nurses, or departing with an entourage including a priest from a private terminal.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Opening: Baron Coleman's commentary on bad-faith debate tactics
Candace Owens: Happy Tuesday. I'm having a happy Tuesday. I woke up and I had a shot of Baron Coleman this morning — his podcast got me all fired up because he went off. He had a little Baron crash-out, and it added another detail to our investigation yesterday into the planes. A detail that I had missed somehow earlier that's rather explosive. I will say this: I defy no stereotypes as a woman. I am not technologically gifted. So I did not know that you could drag the flight radar ADSB coverage to the exact minute to see where a plane was, what the altitude of that plane was at any given time. I'll explain it later for the other ladies who are like me.
But first, my friends, we have been working on a particular tip for some time. We had received it a while ago regarding Erika's whereabouts on September the 10th. And at long last, we were able to confirm it in a way that is rather explosive. Where was Erika on September 10th? Well, I'll tell you. She was apparently in an unmarked building.
Welcome back to Candace. All right, you guys, wake up. Look alive. We are at the gates. We are at the gates. All of us. It has been a little over six months, and we have not stopped the onslaught. We have kept up the energy. Someone in the comment section described the Charlie Kirk open investigation as a group project. And I love that. That is so true. We are all partners in this group project to figure out what actually happened on September 10th. Who was behind the killing of Charlie Kirk?
Baron Coleman is certainly one of the people in our group. His show is described by some people as the afterparty to my show. We kind of build off of each other and the work and the investigation that we're doing. And I really love that last night he underscored how sick and tired we all are of this obvious game of them ignoring the major inconsistencies in the Tyler Robinson story that we have pointed out, or in the Turning Point USA alibis that we have pointed out. And when they respond, they choose only to respond to the minor details that they can debunk — details that have nothing to do with anything we've said on this show or his show. They sort of wait for somebody to make a mistake somewhere in the universe and then they pounce. And Baron does a very good job of describing what that is. It's frankly a low-IQ strategy of attempting to win a debate on a technicality when you're obviously losing. It's a gotcha argument.
I want you to listen to it because I think it's really relevant. It helps you to further steel yourself when it comes to the internet and what they're throwing at you. We took this from his opening statement. Here is Baron Coleman.
Baron Coleman: Imagine, for example, a simple debate on economics. The losing side might fixate on one outdated data point. They hammer it as proof of incompetence, and then they proclaim the entire case collapses. They declare victory and they never address the macro — the larger construct of the argument. They don't address things like expert consensus or even their own contradictions. And viewers, if they're tuned out or maybe deeply or emotionally invested in seeing the losing side win, they're able to walk away thinking the gotcha side won — even if the other side very much had the upper hand.
This is bad faith. This is bad-faith debating, if not outright intellectual dishonesty. It overlaps with several logical fallacies, but it isn't neatly packed into any one of them. It resembles quibbling, where one side focuses on some trivial objection to derail the main point, or even cherry-picking, where you highlight one favorable detail and ignore the rest. But the twist here is the premature declaration of victory. It treats that isolated incident as a checkmate. And there's this really rookie debate tactic — it's overused and frankly very rookie — it's known as gish gallop. I don't know if you've ever heard of that. It's where you flood the other side with so many details and arguments that it just overwhelms them. It's like that, but it's different in that the gotcha victory is surgical. It's not a broadcasted approach. It's a very surgical strike. One precise strike and then you retreat.
Candace Owens: He's talking about people that are intellectual cowards. And to be clear, that is exactly what angered me when all of the fraud decided to pounce on the audio that was released — not by me, not by Baron Coleman, but somebody released it and claimed it was Erika Kirk. And was it Erika Kirk? No. Was the person who released that wrong? Yes, extraordinarily so. But they then tried to extrapolate that error to mean that the broader picture — all of the other curious aspects of the case which we have presented — can now safely be ignored. Everything else can be summarily debunked because someone unrelated to the investigation got something wrong. It's just so cheap and it's so performative, and yes, it is only done because they are losing.
And I then loved the energy coming from Baron Coleman last night. I watched it this morning, and I think it perfectly encapsulates the emotion of how we all feel right now. Take it away, Baron.
Baron Coleman: And I'm sick and tired of the constant obfuscation and lies. And when we raise real questions like this, they ignore it. But when somebody says, "You think Erika was buying a jumpsuit at Alo?" — OH MY GOD. NO. SHE WASN'T BUYING A JUMPSUIT AT ALO. I WAS BUYING THE JUMPSUIT. OH, THAT'S WHEN YOU CHOOSE TO COME IN AND ANSWER IT. That's when you choose to come in and answer the accusations. Are you serious? That's when you come in — when someone thinks he was buying a crop top. But I do three shows accusing you of leaving Santa Barbara before Charlie got shot, and you're just dead silent.
Candace Owens: He's so right. So let's jump back into the substance. Forget the crop top. I didn't cover the crop top. Baron didn't cover the crop top. We are indeed, however, speculating with a lot of mounting evidence that perhaps Andrew was not on the plane that he claims he was on. We'll have more on that later. The bigger issue is that it means that Erika went on an earlier flight to Utah. Which flight? I don't know. We can't be too certain. But I do now have an explosive tidbit.
The Hopkinson Aircraft revelation
Candace Owens: I have to hope that given my track record of providing you with receipt after receipt, text message after text message, phone log after phone log, you will allow me this: I simply cannot reveal how I came across this information. There's no way for me to protect the source, but the information is explosive.
I've long explained to you that one of the things that is so odd to me is that nobody saw Erika on the day of Charlie's assassination. Nobody has come forward to say that they saw Erika on the day of the assassination in the very public places that she claims to have been. Point one: she says that she collapsed in a parking lot after being with her mother getting treatment, and then she collapsed in a parking lot. Curiously, no witnesses. It's a big deal. Everyone was looking for Erika Kirk on that day. Everyone. The whole world was tuning in to this assassination and then suddenly realized — oh my god, he leaves behind a wife and two kids. That's when everybody got to learn what Erika Kirk looked like. It's not every day that, even if you didn't know at the time, you would go, "Oh my gosh, now I remember — I saw a blonde collapse in a parking lot. That must have been Erika." Now that she's telling the story, you'd recognize her. And I saw the nurses come out and escort her. And then what? She somehow drove her car thereafter to her apartment after having a collapse? Is that even safe? Was an ambulance called? Again, no witnesses. We don't know. And Erika doesn't like to speak about it. There are no details there.
Then we know that at some point she had to have raced to the airport with an entourage — an entourage which included a priest. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not every day that you see the widow of Charlie Kirk accompanied by a man in clerical robes at an airport terminal. Can we acknowledge that? It's just not every day. That would be an unusual thing that stood out to you. And I know, yes, they flew private, but I promise you there would have been more than a few witnesses. Private terminals are actually quite busy in cities like Scottsdale. That's a big hub. You're going to see a lot of action at the FBO terminals where people fly out private. No witnesses. Nobody saw this.
So I was starting to get the feeling that she was actually being kept somewhere that was more private than private. More private than a private terminal. And then I happened upon some information. I said to you, I feel like if this was an operation, a lot took place with planes and terminals that the public didn't have access to. I was positing that yesterday. Well, I can tell you today — and I will say allegedly here — that I happened upon some information that Erika was at the office of Hopkinson Aircraft when she received the news that Charlie was dead.
Now, you'll remember that Erika told me to my face — and Elizabeth McCoy wrote a long post confirming this — that Erika got the news right before they flew to Provo. So Erika had a phone call with the doctor. There are different variations here: whether a decision was made to let Charlie go, or whether she was told that Charlie had passed. But the point is that before she got on the plane and departed Scottsdale, she knew that Charlie was dead. And this was in the presence of Hopkinson Aircraft's employees.
Now, what is Hopkinson Aircraft? It's a luxury aircraft brokerage — like where you go to buy planes. They're brokers for planes. They have locations in Canada and in Scottsdale. So I went on Google and I tried to find their address in Scottsdale, and it listed the address — this is all public — as 14600 North Aircraft Drive. That started to make sense. That's an FBO, a private terminal. And I looked and said, "Wow, that's a lot packed into Atlantic Aviation." I have flown out of this terminal many times. I don't remember there being a Hopkinson aircraft sales office also with Atlantic Aviation and then also this Ross Aviation. What's going on on this map?
But yeah, like I told you, it's the same address as Atlantic Aviation. It's a common, busy private terminal. So I thought, okay, what must have happened here is Erika must have flown out of the Atlantic terminal, and they happened to share a building with Hopkinson. And maybe the people working for Hopkinson overheard her as she got the news. I'm sure she screamed. Maybe she collapsed again, was crying. But something told me this was not a detail to ignore. Something just felt off.
So I decided to look through their website and I thought to myself — it's 2026. Why would you waste time having an office building in this tremendously expensive location? They're not making their own aircraft. It's just a brokerage firm. You could do this on the phone. Why would you spend this money to be inside, sharing this space with Atlantic Aviation? It seemed weird to me. So I went to the team and said, "Let's look at this." And similarly, they thought it looked funny on the map. Just looked weird. And at certain times when I was trying to find Hopkinson Aircraft, it almost appeared as though there was a building behind Atlantic FBO that was separate from Atlantic FBO.
So finally I had a genius idea. I said, why don't I just send someone anonymously to contact Hopkinson, to contact Atlantic, and see what the deal is? Is there really an office inside Atlantic? And remarkably, we were able to determine that Hopkinson is indeed in a building that is separate from Atlantic, but Atlantic accepts all of their mail. And the reason Atlantic does that is because Hopkinson does not actually have its own address. It's in a building that stands alone and is separate from the Atlantic FBO terminal where you would fly out if you were going private. And this is a brokerage firm. They sell planes and they have no address. Their address — they use Atlantic's address. Atlantic receives all of their packages, all of their mail, but their location is separate and it's next door and it's kind of hidden. That's why I was having trouble locating it.
This is the building that Erika was allegedly in when she found out from the doctor that Charlie was not going to make it. You have Atlantic there on the right. We're now coming inward. It's this rather obscure building right here.
Now, why would Erika be in that building? Walk me through that. You don't know your husband is about to be shot — even though she did actually say, when he got shot, "I effing knew it." That was the sentence that came out of her mouth. Maybe she meant, "Oh gosh, he was so scared. I had a bad feeling that day. I knew it." Right. How do we get there? What is Hopkinson? How do we get to Hopkinson Aircraft? Did somebody have a thought — let's see if we can buy a plane? Why are we heading there? Why are we staging there in this obscure building of Hopkinson Aircraft, which is not known to anybody? How did she get there?
It felt to me like a CIA front, if I'm being honest. That's an opinion. It felt to me like this is not a real business, but it needs to present like it's a real business for some reason. And I can show you their website here. Luxury aircraft sales. Premier aircraft sales. Over 60 years, three generations of elevated expertise. The Hopkinson difference. You do jet sales. Why are you in this building? Why are you in this unmarked building? You don't have to be. No one needs to come to see you to see what jets are available, because jets live wherever their owners live. It's not like you're buying a used car and you're walking out and there's going to be a fleet of used jets somewhere. It's not a junkyard at the Scottsdale airport.
What is Erika doing in that building? I would like to know. I would like to know more about the Hopkinson family in general. Maybe you know something. Maybe you know this family and you go, "Oh, well, here's what they do. They really are just the difference in luxury aircraft sales." It's a data point that I think really matters because there's something about this that feels secretive to me. All of it. It feels like Erika was being protected that day.
Andrew Kulvette's flight timeline and the Wi-Fi question
Candace Owens: Which leads us, by the way, to the question of Andrew Kulvette. We were surmising that Andrew Kulvette actually flew on Charlie's plane. Again, why would they all go to Scottsdale would be a question in the background. Why would Andrew need to be on Charlie's plane? Why not just fly from Santa Barbara? Maybe — and again, we are speculating here — there was a pre-approved location where no one would see them, because you can't just wander in there. No one knows it exists. People knew to meet there. They can get in and out and not be seen by anybody.
Now, moving back to Andrew Kulvette — we are positing that he first flew to Scottsdale from Santa Barbara and then flew from Scottsdale on to Provo, Utah. Two flights that day. And we believe that neither of those flights is the alleged, much later 3:19 p.m. Mountain Standard Time flight that Erika told me he was aboard. And I'm going to tell you why I feel even more convinced — just like Baron Coleman — that we are correct that he was not on that plane.
I should say Andrew has never said he was aboard this jet. Andrew himself has never said that he took the 3:19 Santa Barbara flight, tail number N724A. Erika made that claim to my face. Andrew did not.
Now I'm going to give these planes names. I think it's easier to remember them. This is going to be our Barbara plane — for Santa Barbara. You should know it's a Hawker Beechcraft. This is simply not a plane that any person in business would describe as a massive jet. Your knees will be touching in that plane. Andrew described the plane as a massive plane to me multiple times. He also said it publicly on the show — he had this massive plane to himself. That photo of it actually makes it look bigger in the air. This is not the plane we are looking for. You do not describe that plane as a massive plane.
Now, since this particular jet is actually available for charter, and since I believe this was a military operation, I do not believe the planes they would have used would have just been available for charter. That makes me even more likely to believe a scenario where this plane was actually the one that took his wife later to Provo — because then you would charter. You don't care. That plane doesn't matter.
So I thought, let me call and try to ask some questions about this plane. A crucial question, actually. So I called this morning and I said, "Hey, does this jet have Wi-Fi?" Because remember, whatever plane Andrew's on, he doesn't have Wi-Fi. We have now confirmed this. We have a text chain with Aubrey — who's got to be the boss that day. Nobody can do anything. Aubrey's doing everything. She's got to do everything before she gets fired. Justin jumps in on this text thread after Aubrey asks a very important question of whether or not she should confirm or deny the email that was sent to the entire company saying that Charlie Kirk is dead. The media is messaging her and she's like, "Hey, should I confirm or deny this?" And Justin jumps in on the text and says it's up to Andrew, and Andrew doesn't answer. And then he says to Aubrey, "You're going to have to wait until Andrew is on the ground." He says that at 4:18. The implication is obvious. Andrew is on a plane that does not have Wi-Fi. That's why he can't answer.
Well, that means we can rule out Barbara. We can rule out Barbara because Barbara has Wi-Fi. I called this morning. The company that handles that plane's charter said to me, and I quote, "All of our planes have Wi-Fi." It's a big sell — you put it right on the website because people want planes with Wi-Fi. So Andrew would not have been out of pocket and unable to answer if he was aboard Barbara. And it's interesting that when Andrew does come back online, he does not say he was on a plane at this time. He says, "My internet just came back on." That's different from "I'm on a plane" or "I just got service." I think that's how you would say it: "I just got service." But he says, "My internet just came back on."
So let's instead examine the earlier point of that conversation and see if we can find a match — the point where he explicitly mentions that he's on a plane. And again, I'm doing all Utah time. Everything I'm saying is Utah time. I think it's easier to think in terms of Utah time. When Andrew explicitly mentions that he is on a plane at 3:26 p.m. Mountain Standard, he says specifically, "Sorry, on the plane, this just loaded." And he is referring to a message that was sent to him at 1:30 that he had not answered.
Well, we can now adjust slightly his dark period — the period where he was blacked out. We initially said 1:30. We can actually now say 1:47 — 17 minutes later — because we learned that he did answer Aubrey on a separate Telegram channel before he went dark. He answered her about the press, about the Laura Ingraham show. He called her too. Then he goes dark and he's dark until 3:26 p.m. when he says he sounds like he's coming in to land. Sounds like he's coming in to land.
So here is our calendar, slightly adjusted to account for that 17-minute last correspondence we have of Andrew. And you can see it still kind of looks like he would be on Charlie's plane. Drawing your attention to the orange there — that's Charlie's plane. And then in that block to the left, you can see Andrew's unavailable. Marina tells her right around that time that he's not available. You've got to write this statement, and he's not available when that statement goes out.
So I thought, let's see if we can find a plane that flew into Provo on that day and was coming in to land at 3:26 — right when he says, "Sorry, I was on a plane and my messages are just starting to load." Sounds like you're landing. In theory, that's what we're looking for. We're looking for a plane that had no Wi-Fi that suddenly began to receive signals, because we know this: when your plane gets low enough, you suddenly start to receive all of your messages at once.
And you won't believe it, but Charlie's plane matches that exact description. At 3:26 p.m., Charlie's plane was coming in to land at Provo. You can go on to the ADSB Exchange website and you can see that that plane got below 7,500 feet and it was just a couple of minutes from touching down. Precisely where I remember Andrew was flying from. Big plane — that's a G5 — and we can bring it to the exact minute. You can see on the left-hand side, we are looking at 9/10, looking at that time frame which is adjusted UTC — in the summertime that's minus 6 — and we can see that that plane gets below 7,500 feet.
So if we are relying on this text thread, it would appear that Andrew Kulvette took two flights that day and neither of those flights were equipped with Wi-Fi, and that's why he was out of pocket. And I believe, just like Baron Coleman believes, that Andrew first took the plane out of Santa Barbara to Scottsdale — that's the Y Refi plane — and I can also confirm, at least partially, that when that plane was available for charter back in 2020, it was not being sold as having been equipped with Wi-Fi. Because when you're chartering a plane, you want to put all the features. Here's what we got for you. Well, look at this Wi-Fi listing for the alleged Y Refi plane that we think Andrew took from Santa Barbara to Scottsdale. On the left-hand side, they're like, "Hey, you've got a private belted lavatory. We've got cabin power outlets. You can charge. Here's the cabin height — 5'7. A large refreshment center." And then it says: satellite phone. Satellite phone. It's not marketing Wi-Fi. So that's the best we can do. Likely that first plane did not have Wi-Fi either.
The second plane, of course, would be Charlie's plane. Did that plane have Wi-Fi? The simple answer is I don't know. Somebody might know. Somebody may have flown with Charlie on that plane. If so, please email us. It was a G5. It definitely has Wi-Fi capabilities. But I don't know, nor do I believe that Charlie would have ever used it, because it is exceedingly expensive to run Wi-Fi on your own plane. I literally know two billionaires who outright own their Wi-Fi-capable planes and do not use it because the costs are astronomical and they say it's a scam. It is an outright ripoff. It costs $300,000 just to install Wi-Fi aboard a jet, and then you're looking at approximately $30,000 to $50,000 a month to run it. We don't know. We cannot state that definitively.
What we can state definitively is that Andrew and Erika could just respond — not to the crop top, but Andrew could assert on the show that he was definitively on the Barbara plane, the Barbara plane with Wi-Fi. "I just didn't want to text. I just wanted Aubrey to do all the work. That's the plane I was on." Andrew could stop focusing on Joe Kent and answer whether or not he flew in with his wife on the Barbara plane. And Erika could chime in: "I don't know why I didn't remember his wife. That's so weird. She was just right behind him. We were hugging. I was just lost in the sauce. Lost in the hug." That seems easy enough, right? Are we asking for too much to get some answers here? Because we're presenting a lot of evidence. We've got text messages. We're telling you she was in the Hopkinson Aircraft building — unmarked thingamajigger. Could they maybe stop trying to tell us how much he loves Shabbat Shaloming and respond to what we're presenting on the show?
Andrew Kulvette's potential alibi: hosting the Charlie Kirk show live
Candace Owens: I will say — and this is interesting — that Andrew Kulvette does have one possible alibi that day which could, if we can prove it true, mean that he was actually in Santa Barbara during the time that our Y Refi plane flew out to Scottsdale. I'm going to tell you about that potential alibi and why I am moderately suspicious of it.
All right. Something of interest that I learned while watching Baron's show — I don't know how I missed it — is that Andrew does have just one thing that could serve as an alibi on September 10th. It would mean he was not on our Y Refi plane from Santa Barbara to Scottsdale. A strong alibi it would be, if it were true. And that's the fact that Andrew hosted the first hour of the Charlie Kirk live show on September 10th.
Here is a clip of him explaining that to a New York Times reporter named Ross Douthat. He reported how his subbing for Charlie came about. Note just a little side point here: he's going to effectively admit that Charlie couldn't stand Ben Shapiro and was annoyed that he had to interview him the day before, because Andrew is the one who booked him — which I've been saying from day one. It's just refreshing to hear him acknowledge it without saying Ben's name. Take a listen.
Andrew Kulvette: So the day before, I had booked an interview for him that he was not super pleased that I booked for him. But there was good reason for doing it. And he was like, "You know what? I'm tired now and I want to focus on the tour tomorrow. So you're going to guest host the show tomorrow." So I guest hosted the show that morning. It was uneventful, and we had a pre-record for hour two, actually. So it's probably too in the weeds, but he's texting me on his way and he's going over talking points about polygamy — because he's going to Utah — and why monogamy is important. And we're just rapid-fire. These are our thoughts on why monogamy is advanced societal tech, and it directs—
Ross Douthat: The killer app of civilization.
Andrew Kulvette: Exactly. It directs male energies in the right direction — societal building, all these things. And that was about — I think it was 33 minutes before he was killed.
Candace Owens: Exactly 33 minutes before he was killed. Not a minute over, not a minute under. It's always 33. 33 hours. It's just 33. Anyway, it's interesting. He says, "I don't want to get too in the weeds." I'd like to get in the weeds. I like the weeds. I just want to get a weed whacker and go through them all, actually, because that's interesting — he's saying Charlie texted him notes. So I'm going to fact-check that more for tomorrow's episode. But here is a still so you can see that from the episode — he did actually end up hosting for Charlie.
And I wouldn't have thought twice about this. I would have said, "Okay, great. He was live in this hour" — were it not for the fact that we now know that Andrew Kulvette is in the business of faking live shows in order to give himself an alibi. We learned this when I broke the story that Andrew visited the White House the day before the Epstein files were released, but he pretended that he was in Arizona live on the Charlie Kirk show interviewing Kash Patel. Kash Patel is all like, "I never do a live show. He's calling in live." And then all of a sudden my sources at the White House are like, "Hey, Andrew's here. It's kind of weird. He's pretending he's live on the show. He's here and he's actually near Kash Patel's office." So Kash Patel is helping him, in that scenario, pretend that he's live.
I'm not saying that's proof that he faked the live on September 10th. What I'm saying is I would like to confirm that he didn't. That's fair. This is an investigation. I'd like to confirm that he didn't — that it was indeed a live show.
Nick Shirley and the September 10th broadcast
Candace Owens: Some other interesting things. On this particular episode, he interviews Nick Shirley. Nick Shirley is an independent journalist. I should say this is a very big booking for Nick Shirley. Nick Shirley is just 23 years old, and at this moment when Andrew is interviewing him, it's before Nick goes mega viral. In the weeks afterward, he goes really viral for discovering fraud in Somalian daycare. You may have seen that story going around. So why exactly did Andrew book him and interview him? Well, Andrew is going to tell us why in the lead-up to their interview. Take a listen.
Andrew Kulvette: I am so excited about this next guest. His name is Nick Shirley. He's an independent journalist. You can follow him on X at Nick Shirley — that's S-H-I-R-L-E-Y. Nick, I saw your footage and I was blown away. So just really quick before we get into the footage, introduce yourself to the audience and what it is you do.
Nick Shirley: Yeah, my name is Nick Shirley. I'm an independent YouTube journalist and I go all across the world — not just the United States, but all across the world — showing the realities of things as they really are. Whether it be the migrant crisis or the fentanyl crisis, or asking people who they're voting for. I go to all the locations, or just doing ride-alongs with gangsters in Chicago as well.
Andrew Kulvette: I saw it and I was like, this is some of the most incredible footage.
Candace Owens: Okay. So he's blown away by what Nick does. And Nick has definitely accomplished some amazing things as a 23-year-old. He also claims that within 48 hours he managed, among many other accomplishments, to infiltrate Rio, Brazil's most dangerous gang. I'm not kidding. He did this in just 48 hours. I'll let you listen to Nick explain it.
Nick Shirley: Through the course of two days, I was able to get access to one of Rio's largest gangs, Commando Vermelho, and befriend a few of their soldiers who are so dangerous they cannot even leave the favela. Lots of strange things happened to find myself on top of Brazil's largest favela in a destroyed house, interviewing gang members of one of the largest gangs in Brazil.
Candace Owens: I'm just going to say I don't believe that at all. I'm sorry. It's just — if you don't know that that's stupid, that he infiltrated the gang in 48 hours — it's just that's so dumb. That's not how that works. You don't just go up to gangs on the street as a nice-looking white boy with a camera and say, "Hey, I just wanted to sort of see what you're doing here. What's going on?" That's stupid. I'm sorry, Nick. I know you're young. I hope you know — whoever is your contact that has you infiltrating Antifa and infiltrating El Salvador at the age of 23 years old — it just feels like Sean Penn to me. Like, oh, Sean Penn's always there with the cartels, never gets hurt, always is part of a movie. I just don't like stupid. That did not happen. He didn't wander into a favela and meet up with gang members with a camera and they were like, "Yeah, no, it's cool. Come here. See what we're up to."
Anyway, some other interesting facts about Nick Shirley: he is also a member of the LDS church — sometimes referred to as the Mormon church, though they say they don't use that term anymore — and he also happens to be from Utah. So I thought, since I don't really care about what Nick does for a living or who his contacts are over in the government that clearly got him this access, I just want to confirm whether or not he did that show live. So I reached out to him before this episode because it's very easy to get Nick on record saying, "Yes, I can confirm I did a live between the 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Pacific hour on September 10th." That would be a solid confirmation I could get in writing from Nick Shirley. So I'm pursuing that. I have not yet heard back from him. I sent it this morning, so it might take him some time to see my message on X. I think that is something we should be able to easily confirm. If you have any information regarding this, please email us at moretips@candace.com.
Updated plane list and flight analysis
Candace Owens: Anyway, I want to make sure that I also show you this updated list of all of the planes that we have been speaking about so that you can take a picture and examine them yourself. I like lists. I like things that are tidy. So these are the planes. I'm giving them names now.
We've got the Y Refi plane. That's what Erika said — she said it was the Y Refi CEO. It could be Erika Kirk and Tyler Bowyer. I will say this: I do believe Erika Kirk flew with Tyler Bowyer, and another person told us Tyler Bowyer was in earlier that day and had taken a meeting in Utah, but I have not been able to confirm that with a first-person account. I find that interesting, and I do know Erika Kirk and Tyler were together.
The second plane — I actually haven't named this one. This is a very interesting plane. We should talk about this N40J plane that gets into Utah. Again, all of this is adjusted for Mountain Time. So we're in Utah time. It leaves an hour after Charlie gets shot from Scottsdale and it lands into Provo. So that very much could be Erika. And why I like this as an option for maybe Erika on this plane is that it's owned by a person named Jason Knup, and it appears that that is the chief commander of the Naval Service Force in Atlanta. So that's an interesting jet there. We don't know who the passengers are on that plane. I did not get names for that.
We have obviously Charlie's plane. We have the alleged passengers. I don't buy that. I think it is way more likely that the messages reveal — we have enough evidence to at least suggest — that Andrew Kulvette flew on that plane alone, actually.
And then that would mean that Erika landed — if she's on the Navy plane — almost at the exact same time. That lands at 2:29. This one lands — that would still be an hour wait. But if she's on that first plane — the Y Refi plane — then she would have landed into Provo. Oh no, that one doesn't land in Provo. I'm sorry. We'll get into that fourth plane. This is our Santa Barbara plane, and this one is going to land into Provo at 4:36 p.m. Way too late. Andrew didn't scramble to get a jet for three hours. I don't buy that. It's just common sense. You didn't race if you sat in your house for three hours. Anybody can get you a plane faster than three hours. This is California. It's not like he's stranded on an island. This is an extremely resourceful company. They have their own jets. Andrew did not wait for three hours, and then Erika waited an additional hour for him to land. None of that makes sense on its face.
I'm giving my opinion here on the basis of all of the evidence that we have now looked at. That is a highly unlikely scenario — that he was on Barbara. I think his wife could have been on Barbara. And then what he said to me — "Of course I want you to meet up, whatever" — then she comes in later.
I should note — something just came to me live and I am more convinced that I am correct. Remember I told you that despite Erika having to have waited for that tarmac hug, when they went to the hospital, they went in two different directions? Andrew went to the front and Erika went through some private back door entrance. That was my understanding. I did not hear that Andrew was with his wife. Andrew's wife is missing. She had to have shown up later. The recall would have been: they went in, Erika went to the back, and Andrew was with his wife. I don't remember hearing that. I will double-check that. But I remember hearing that Andrew just went into a separate entrance, which was weird. Why would you wait for an hour and then make him go through the front? Either he was so important that you needed him by your side and you waited for him — and therefore you're both going to go through the back — or you didn't wait for him and you went through the back because you're his wife and your husband was just assassinated and you want to get there at your earliest possible convenience. Nothing they are saying makes any sense.
Joe Kent, Blake Neff, and the defense testimony controversy
Candace Owens: Moving on. The Israel firsters are still guns blazing for Joe Kent. They are peak psycho right now. And Blake Neff is trying to make hate happen toward Joe Kent. He wants to make that fetch happen toward Joe Kent because they're angry that we are crushing them with the truth. And how he's going to try to do this — and I'm going to show you this clip from today — is with the worst acting ever. I am talking the Academy Award does not go to Blake Neff.
Background: Joe Kent was interviewed by Michael Shellenberger. And basically the interviewer asks him, "Hey, you're making statements that they did not thoroughly investigate this, that there were leads you wanted to pursue. Do you recognize that by making those statements, you could potentially be called to testify by Tyler Robinson's defense team? They might call you and probe the narrative because they would say they didn't even investigate and pursue other leads." And of course, Joe Kent says, "That wasn't my goal. My goal was just to tell the truth." But the truth holds everywhere. He understands that could happen. He is saying the feds did not thoroughly investigate other leads because it's abundantly obvious and it's true.
And so if they called me to testify in a defense — okay, hey Candace, did you hear that Erika — yes, I did hear that. The truth doesn't play offense or defense. It's just the truth. So Blake Neff and Andrew Kulvette, worst actors ever, are about to try to sell you — with their absolute best emotion — that no, oh my god, if you were called to testify and tell the truth for the defense, you would betray Charlie. The truth would betray Charlie. Let's see if you can be convinced by their raw emotion in this clip. Blake is just unleashed. Take a listen.
Blake Neff: Let's refresh people. There is a murder weapon that was found near the site of the shooting. It was owned by Tyler Robinson's family, given to him by his grandfather, of the caliber used to shoot Charlie. It has his DNA all over it, all over the casings.
Andrew Kulvette: They release a photo of the shooter. They are not able to find him otherwise. Tyler Robinson's parents see that photo and think that looks like Tyler. They begin asking him things like, "Where is your grandfather's gun?" They start asking him this. Tyler Robinson starts talking like he might kill himself. They get a friend of the family to sit down with him. He actually admits that it's him. They get him to drive up to Orem and turn himself in. His parents helped him turn himself in. And we run into people who say that that didn't happen or that's fabricated.
Blake Neff: There's digital confessions.
Andrew Kulvette: There's digital confessions. But also, his parents are out there. They have never stepped forward and said this is a lie. They could easily do that. It would be trivial to do that if it was the case. They have not done that. His parents turned him in. That is the most obvious piece of evidence in the world that nothing can argue around. And some people are so obsessed with these same conspiracies that they concoct for every other thing that ever happens. And so they have to shove it into this one too, because they care more about their conspiracy theories than about the person who murdered my friend facing justice. I am fed up with it.
Here's why it's so frustrating: there is going to be even more evidence that is presented to the public in May at the evidentiary hearing.
Blake Neff: And it's a mountain of evidence.
Andrew Kulvette: Some of which has been made public, some of which has not been made public yet. And the prosecution is going to lay out its case against Tyler Robinson. And I'm told it's a whopper. I'm told they've got this guy dead to rights. And meanwhile, you have government officials that are now saying on the record to journalists they are willing to testify on behalf of the defense — ostensibly to get Tyler Robinson off the hook for something that he did. And so the level of betrayal that I currently feel is dramatic.
Candace Owens: They're just so full of it. They're just — it's overwhelming. The evidence is so overwhelming that if Joe Kent tells the truth, it would be an act of betrayal. The whole case would fall apart if he told the truth. If the defense called him and said, "Hey, did you feel it was thoroughly investigated?" — "No, actually, I made recommendations and I was blocked." It would all fall apart. It would be an act of betrayal. It's so overwhelming.
He hasn't even been arraigned yet. He hasn't even pled guilty. They keep telling us he confessed. Well, they lost the tape of when he turned himself in. Don't forget that. They're talking about that gun. The gun has his prints on it. The part they're not telling you is that they cannot prove that weapon was fired. They can't prove it was fired. The bomb dogs could not find the weapon. The bomb dogs are noses themselves — they are a weapon. They can't explain the magical bullet. Can you connect the weapon to the non-existent bullet? But it has his print on it. He touched this gun that the feds then pointed to — where the bomb dogs failed — and put some rookie cops and said, "Look over there. We didn't just drop that there." And sure, Tyler Robinson obviously must have clearly confessed to everything. That's why he's currently fighting and trying to get one of the prosecutors dropped. He failed, but he tried. He hasn't even been arraigned and they're saying he's guilty. They're saying there shouldn't even be a trial. He's so guilty.
And the idea that anybody would tell the truth on the defense side — they're just overwhelmed because the evidence is so overwhelming. It gets bigger every time they talk. By the way, now it's a mountain of evidence. It's a mountain. So undeniable that if Joe Kent simply told the truth and said, "Yeah, I would have liked to investigate some other leads and I was blocked from doing that" — it would all fall apart. As mountains do. You know me. If you just go stand up next to a mountain and tell the truth, the whole thing will crumble in front of you.
Viewer comments and closing reflections
Candace Owens: Are you feeling overwhelmed? Because I keep saying the talking point — it's overwhelming. It's so overwhelming. We have the messages that sound like they're written by the feds. I am so overwhelmed.
Top comments from last episode. Elena writes: "Imagine being called a coward after you've been deployed 11 times, lost your wife to an IED explosion, spoke the truth while knowing you'd be attacked from every angle. We are ruled by degenerates." Yes, we are. We are ruled by degenerates. We are ruled by cowards. Absolute cowards. That's what they do — they're catty and they call you names. "Oh, he's betraying Charlie by telling the truth." You think telling the truth betrays Charlie? You were never a friend of his. You were never a friend of his.
If anything I said on the show got called and pulled over in the defense, I would stand by every word that I said. Every single word, because it's true. I told the truth. And if I found out later that something was not correct, I did my best to correct everything that I've said. I've been open to dialogue. I said, "Come here. Sit down with me." No. It's so overwhelming. Why don't you come sit down on my show, Blake? Come on, Blakey. Come sit down. If it's just so abundantly true and obvious, why wouldn't you want to come make me look like a fool on my own show? Why wouldn't you want the platform to be able to speak to everybody and say, "Here it is. Here's the evidence. I go back and forth with Candace and everything she's selling is just — she's obsessed with the conspiracy." Come do that, Blake. Take me up on my offer. I don't understand why you wouldn't do this. You seem so stressed out.
If I had a position on something and I knew it was true, I would go, "Yeah, I'd love to come on your show and explain how you have it all wrong."
Grie Blanco, second biggest comment, writes: "How ironic that Andrew Kulvette wants the FBI to investigate Joe Kent, but not to investigate Charlie Kirk's murder." Yeah. You would think he'd be at least moderately upset that Kash Patel stopped Joe Kent. No, they're angry at Joe because Joe exposed them by that pesky little thing — he told the truth. He seems like an honest guy and they can't stand it. It drives them crazy. They lose sleep over honest people.
Blake, let me tell you — do not quit your day job, man. You do not have what it takes in Hollywood. Nobody was buying those theatrics. A little too much hand action there. The conspiracies are so obsessed with their conspiracy. It just wasn't working. And I don't believe that they have suddenly, since I met with Erika on December 15th, found all of this evidence that you are somehow privy to and wouldn't just share with the public.
Seven Sheets writes: "Why is TPUSA rushing to convict an obvious patsy, a mere participant, rather than trying to answer the questions that Candace is bravely trying to investigate? That alone is extremely suspicious." Yeah. And that goes back to — you should watch Baron's entire statement. Baron does these monologue statements that are really great on his show. But this is the game they play. They've lost, and so they're trying to win with this cheap path of landing upon some gotcha, waiting for somebody else in the universe to get something wrong, as opposed to just responding. When you're right, you're right. You're just right. You don't have to go through all these hoops to prove that you're right. The truth is on your side.
Klaus Was Eaten writes: "The staff at Daily Wire are watching on top of Ben's intractable brows while the staff at TPUSA are sneaking a peek from behind Erika's hair. Your search for truth is contagious, as is your battle bun." Baron was sporting his last night. Yeah, I love him. I do love when he crashes out. Just those ranting little moments where I'm like — he crashed out. It's great. I'm going to take it and play it on my show.
Jennifer Delo writes: "Baron's red face. He's going max." He does. You could just tell — his kids, man, they were getting disciplined in that Catholic household. I'll tell you that. He's got like eight kids.
C Jonesy writes: "We need this. Candace, I can only thank God for giving you the intellect and articulation to set us all free. Bless you and your loved ones." Now, you already were endowed with that, man. That's that gut instinct. We all knew something was wrong. I'm putting it together, but I'm not putting it together alone. Like I said, group project — very obvious. If I did not have that tips inbox and people being like, "Yes, yes, yes, this or that," I would not have been able to do it. I had the passion because Charlie was my friend. And I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I couldn't believe — you're just hearing Andrew — he was very upset about the interview. They were just going to let Ben take over Turning Point or something. Erika just let him open. Worst-kept secret in the history of the world is that Charlie Kirk couldn't stand Ben. Very few people can. And they just were letting it happen. And so I was just sitting back going, I can't believe this. And I can't imagine this for anyone's life — to be so instantly betrayed by the people who would not exist in their careers without you. It's so ugly. And the only thing that can motivate people to do that is money. A lot of money. That's what I believe a lot of these people were motivated by. Somebody came with a check.
BC writes: "Miss Candace, please interview the great Catholic non-interventionist Pat Buchanan." Dave Smith tells me often I should interview him. He coined the phrase "Israel's Amen Corner" in the early '90s. Yeah, I should get him. Actually, Dave Smith gave me a book of his but I haven't read it yet because it's a big one.
Anna writes: "I remember days after Charlie was killed, one of the TPUSA guys — I did not know them — Andrew Kulvette said that a large donor called Erika right after Charlie Kirk was shot and asked if she knew everything about Turning Point USA, and she said yes, and he decided that she would replace him. Who was this donor?" I don't know. My guess off the bat would be — he's on the board and I think he's a donor. Yeah, that would be my best guess, but I don't know. I'd have to go back and find that episode. And she knows everything — that was what she was conveying in the immediate hours and days after.
Man, I wish I could go back to being ignorant. I wish I could go back to when I was able to assume that she was aggrieved — before I knew about the Zoom calls. When I was assuming that things were crazy because she was trying to get a handle on things and people were pulling her in different directions, and that maybe she really did want to get to the bottom of everything. I wish you could go back to those days. Because now we know so much.
Which, by the way, makes me laugh even more when they suggest that Joe Kent was trying to set up Erika. Nobody — at least not me — thought Erika was guilty until — I know some of you guys, I mean, the TikTok had her clocked. But I was like, "Okay, you don't like her pants. You don't like her hot pants next to JD. You don't like the way she's hugging. Is her hair — are her fingers in his head? A little disrespectful. It's the Vice President of the United States. Don't put your fingers in his hair. Just as a rule of thumb." But I thought you guys were going a little too hard on that. And I was like, we don't know what's going on. Now I've got the giggly emojis, the Zoom call, the merch hats, and it just — I wish I could go back.