FULL TRANSCRIPT

did you get it out of your system?

Okay, great. Well, I'm not going to waste time with the preamble because I think I just want to get to the substance of the debate and I will just speak to the audience. I have obviously had an audience since we've been covering this case. People know that there was a personal friendship between me and Charlie. um and diminishing the pursuit of something that makes sense regarding what happened on September 10th by throwing it to this is just people who are conspiracy theorists. These are people who are just trying to generate clicks. I I'm don't think that people should be satisfied by that. I want people to remember that it's important to think we've been lied to by the government a great many times um over I mean just the last couple of years if you just think of the things that we've learned about our government. Um, and I do want to say this. What's been the most disturbing element, I think, for everyone, is that not only does the narrative not make any sense, which I'm going to demonstrate. I need to waste time with the preamble going through the points or trying to insult you or pretending that I've been running a podcast saying it's just dreams and vibes like I'm Miss Cleo, and that's the reason why it it's taking so many influencers, it looks like a billion-dollar industry of influencers, um, to dispute everything Candace says. It's not because I'm on my platform saying, "I had a dream last night." I don't think that that I think that diminishes you as a as an argument. Obviously, we have presented a lot of evidence. You just presented a text message and said, "This is evidence." Well, that's how this entire thing began. Uh you're talking about how Israel got into the conversation. It was because immediately after Charlie died, uh one of the first things we saw was this push to make us all think and remember how much he loved Israel. because the prime minister of Israel who's fighting like a 27 front war felt that he needed to come do a little mini tour and to be strangely to to state that I did not kill Charlie Kirk when nobody um was having that thought that I can remember nobody was going I wonder if BB Netanyahu killed Charlie Kirk and then we had a round of influencers who lied and said Charlie was not changing on Israel that he wasn't having any disagreements regarding that topic that the day he died, he just loved Israel so much. And I demonstrated via a text message, which you just mentioned, uh, and you're now contextualizing and pretending it was just about Tucker Carlson, which is is not true. It was a part of a broader shift that Charlie was having over the last, I would say, actually on your show, it began um since October 7th, which is when I began asking myself more questions about Israel as well. Uh, and so yeah, when all of these things happen in the immediate aftermath and then I drop a text message after everyone is denying that, Tucker Carlson then comes out and confirms the conversations that he had with Charlie. Megan Kelly then comes out and confirms the private conversations that she had with Charlie. People then begin to ask a reasonable question, which is why are we lying about this? If they were forthcoming with that and they had said, hey, yeah, Charlie was starting to ask questions. I think after October 7th, it's reasonable that people are starting to reexamine our relationship uh with Israel, we wouldn't be here today. But it has been lie after lie after lie, debunk after debunk after debunk. Yes, I did share that I had a dream that Charlie was betrayed. It's not a dream anymore. It's a reality. I look at what the organization has become, the people that they are partnering with, the lies that they are telling, uh the extraordinary people that they're sending out to say that I never I hadn't speak to Charlie since 2018. and it begins to look like a conspiracy. And just as a historical fact, that entire term was created by the CIA to gaslight people after the assassination of JFK. So, it's not exactly one uh that makes me nervous. Like calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is essentially saying that they demand further answers. They're not accepting the Fed slop. So, um I'm grateful that you came today. I don't need to, like I said, take cheap shots and uh discuss your manner of debate or your strategy. And I'm also grateful that you shared that you had that text message today because everybody watching knows that I I have been demanding not a debate, just a open conversation with Turning Point USA. They should be here. It shouldn't be you in that chair. It should be the person that took Charlie's place. Maybe Erica Kirk, maybe Andrew Kovat. He's a spokesperson. And rather than doing that, they send us another influencer. So, let's see how it goes. Just out of curiosity, are you between 0 to 100? What is the likelihood that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed him?

0%.

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

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

Uh for what my percentage

Yes. Which I'm hoping we're going to get to all of the evidence that he feels that he has. I mean I don't I'm not even convinced that Charlie was shot from the rooftop on Losi that day based on the evidence that has been

I I do not think that Charlie was shot from a 30 six from

I don't I don't know. I I think that a projectile hit Charlie and I'm open to other people's presentations, but I have not seen any compelling evidence that Charlie was shot by a 306.

Yeah, sure.

He was definitely hit with a projectile of some description. If we're talking about was he shot from a gun, a 306, I would say definitively no.

It defies it defies common sense to think that he had a Superman neck. And even if he did have a Superman neck, which has been demonstrated, u I think actually recently a YouTuber actually set up Spalhalla steel cages and shot it and it went through. So under no circumstance will I

Definitively not a 300 ft. No,

with maybe a smaller

Yes.

I spoke to the owner of the restaurant.

Um and I u have seen the receipt. I know the conversation that I had and uh I think it's enough that you know it will be presented obviously if this goes to trial but yes I do believe that he was in Panguage which is near his grandparents home.

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

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

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

Okay. So, just to start with your point about saying that the gun was found near him, I mean uh near Loy Center or I guess off in the woods that gun. Did you watch the the testimony? Did you I'm sorry. Did you watch the preliminary hearing?

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

the bullet analysis.

Okay. So, that's kind of the most relevant part. Okay. I'm not denying I've never denied on my platform or anywhere else that a gun owned by Tyler Robinson was found near the crime scene. Right. That doesn't that doesn't remove if you think somebody set up as a pathy. I you could take a gun out of this room right now and you could walk out and plant it in a woods near a crime scene. That's not convincing evidence to me.

So you I think have said on a platform that you were a gunsmith.

Okay. And for how many years?

For many years. You also said that you

were an army sniper.

Okay.

sorry. Your wife tweeted that you were an army sniper.

Army sniper is a colloquial term.

Okay. Um what did you do in the army? Did you teach this? She then— I corrected it and said you taught rifles in the army.

Okay. Mhm.

As with your expertise, when she uh gave testimony on the stand, Samantha Carer, that there was dust and there was debris—

That was found in the gun barrel.

Uh, and then when we had the person who, and this was, I believe, Caitlyn Oliver, who explained painfully about the DNA, the prince [prints].

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

No. Well, sure. If you want to respond to— I want you to respond to two points. I want I want you to start with two points. Okay. Dust and debris in the gun barrel.

Secondly, the fact that there were five sets of prints, five plus actually by the end of the testimony. Five sets of prints uh for which we already had the woman who worked for the FBI forensics testify that above two prints if you're taking a sample it it's no longer a science, right? She testified that when they took the sample of what was on the trigger they saw five plus prints and among those five plus prints Tyler Robinson's was the most degraded. So I would like you to explain how Tyler Robinson's prints could be the most degraded when she said actually you could have DNA on something that you've touched. You could have DNA on something that you've never touched. And to get DNA degradation, we've— they've looked at pieces um items 20, 40 years on that don't have degradation. Yet, Tyler Robinson's prints amongst five plus other prints were the most degraded on that weapon.

Okay. That I I— You think there could be debris? Uh, I'm sorry. Debris and dust.

He just fired the weapon.

Okay.

Okay. And the prince [prints]?

We do. It was It was excruciatingly long testimony.

Uh well, when she gave the testimony— no, hold on. First, let's go to your first point because that's wrong. We can get a fact check on that. What do you mean we don't know until it goes to trial about the degraded prince? She testified and this is the person who who took the prince.

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

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

You should grant it because it's a fact.

What do you mean so what?

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

You're the— you're the gunsmith.

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

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

Well, I think that what it would prove is that it is a more viable theory that people who had stronger prints on the gun may have used it more recently.

They named Matt Robinson explicitly and then— and this was a part of the testimony where she was speaking about how they got samples of um elimination samples from the home of Amber Robinson, Matt Robinson, and Lance Twigs. Those were the three names they named.

Would you like me to finish my statement?

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

This was a portion of her testimony where she was explaining how they got elimination samples from the home. And she named Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson, and Lance Twigs as the elimination samples that she was using. Um, and so she explicitly said— she said some of them— some, so we can assume two out of the three uh were— their prints were found on the gun. She explicitly named Matt Robinson um as someone who had prints on the gun and then said there were five people that they had taken that sample from. And again, what's also relevant here is the earlier testimony uh which came from uh the FBI forensics analyst. I believe it was on day two where she said that when you're using those mixtures and those samples and you get up to five plus, it's really hard to make any sort of a determination. So, both of those things are relevant. If you can't explain why his prints are the most degraded and you're saying he is the shooter, it's not really a so what, it's an open-ended question that people have a right to pursue. It's not a conspiracy. It's actually proof of my claim that there is evidence that he was set up as a psy [patsy]—

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

Hang on, hang on, hang on. I didn't cut you off, right?

I I'm saying that it could be Matt Robinson. It could be Amber Robinson. That sort of information is going to come out during retrial [the trial].

Yes. Because if his is the most degraded prince and the information that I shared on my platform is true that this gun was given to Tyler Robinson as an heirloom— I had conversation with members of the Robinson family, Twigs family, both of them. You know, like I said, we're not just dreaming. Um, and if we're having those conversations and they told me that that gun was only given to Tyler Robinson because it was a family heirloom. Okay. So, it was his grandfather's gun or great-grandfather's gun. I don't remember the difference. Uh, I don't remember which one it was. And so, he got it because he's the firstborn. So, but he's not much of a shooter is what I was told. Uh, and so he has this because he inherited it essentially. So, if I get something from my grandpa and I put it up on the shelf and I own this, you could see that could be—

You don't let me ever get to the end of the sentence. So, how could we get to the psy part if I can't get to the end of the sentence?

So, that could be a reasonable explanation as to why there was dust in the barrel because he doesn't often shoot this weapon and he is indeed a fisher. Um, and it could also be a reasonable explanation for why we have Matt Robinson's prints on this. Obviously, Lance Twigs, even if he has prints on things, they live together. That doesn't really mean anything. But that could demonstrate that somebody took his weapon and put it somewhere. His prints are the most degraded. Somebody else's prints— there there's more presence of somebody else's prints and that could demonstrate that somebody is taking items from his house and putting it into very—

Okay, I just described that for you. So I'm not— I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you, so I'm going to move on from that. Uh but to just go back to your point about this is not evidence— uh you can't make that claim because you're— the entire basis for why you think that there is evidence for Tyler Robinson being the person that took the shot is based off of a hearing under Utah 1102 rules. Meaning that they are doing the exact same thing that I am doing. This is the state. You said you're here to represent the state. Well, did you watch the preliminary hearing?

The state's position you think is strong and convincing.

Which you said in your opening statement [is] based on the evidence presented so far by the state. [The] state has presented evidence under Utah's 1102 rule.

No, that's very important because that rule is hearsay. So you can't say at the same time, "Candace, you're not allowed to." And and what that means under the Utah rule, which I'm sure you know cuz I'm sure you watched the preliminary hearing and yourself understand what that means, is that the entire hearing was hearsay. It means none of that information that was presented is going to be allowed— the majority of it, the overwhelming majority of it, is is not going to be allowed at the trial. They're allowed to present when it's this appropriate hearing.

Okay. You didn't watch this case. But not only that—

[You] need more than a fact check. This was every single day. We want to go there.

Okay. And I don't— I'm not disputing that he could have been hit with a projectile. I— we're not disputing that. So, I don't know why this was brought up as a fact check. Uh could you bring up 1102 Utah rule? Cuz this is an unbelievable point that you're making by saying that I am not allowed to infer off of evidence.

No, but your your entire reason— like you you asserted that you believe there's overwhelming evidence on the basis of what we saw in the preliminary hearing. The entire preliminary hearing was hearsay.

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

This is how you got to shooter— the— Tyler Robinson did it. The same way you got to— Yes, you did. You You— again, we— This is something important. So, we should pull up a fact check about what the 1102 Utah [is]— and under their constitution for the sake of a preliminary hearing, they do not have to have hard evidence. They don't have to put people on the trial where they met. But no, no, that's why the entire hearing was basically hearsay. Officer back [Bagley] and—

The overwhelming majority. I mean outside of the one that you don't— that you don't want to give me though.

It means that your entire brand of saying "you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence" falls apart when the entire preliminary hearing is based off of hearay [hearsay]. In fact, Lance's testimony— before, they had about an hour debate, actually maybe it was more than an hour debate, before he sat, and they said, "This is not going to be allowed. You wouldn't even be allowed to do this. We'd be able to cross-examine him. Uh the questions that they're asking Lance are all leading." And what did he say? "Well, I'm the magistrate. Under Utah Constitution, you know, 1102, it is my job to allow all of this so we can see if the state has enough here that we can then move to a trial," which will then— they would not allow this stuff. They would say we get to cross-examine Lance. Lance just can't say—

No, but the entire substance of your argument is that people can't infer off of evidence. That's what you're saying to me.

So here's what the position is. I'm asking [for] 1102. I am doing exactly what the state did. I am looking at a piece of evidence and I am saying—

Describe to the audience what rule 1102 [is]. So this— just so everybody who's watching this at home understands what I am saying, even if he doesn't— what Andrew is arguing is that I don't have the right to extrapolate from a fact like—

Can I show my evidence? You just showed yours. "Reliable hearsay. Reliable hearsay in criminal prelim— preliminary examinations." The entire uh preliminary hearing that you just saw was on the basis of reliable hearsay. And what that means essentially is the people who are making the statements can just say "Patrick told me that he did this on Monday"— Patrick's not here— uh and that is— they they can allow that into the hearing. That's just it, because it's just meant to be probitative [probative], and so it's the state saying here's what we have inferred. So you are allowed to take a piece of evidence and then you are allowed to infer off of that evidence. Okay, case in point— that's a demonstration of— to give you— that's a demonstration of what I just did. I said the prince were the most degraded off of Tyler Robinson. And from that what I am inferring is that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson was set up.

That's not a point in contention.

It's not a point in contention.

It's not the point in contention. I'm telling you that was what the entire hearing allowed for. So the evidence that he is describing, that he is using to argue his case, is all based on inference, not fact.

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

What I am telling you is it's the exact same way that when you tweeted "I think that this evidence is overwhelming"— when they say that looks like Tyler Robinson's car, he drives a similar car, okay, they are inferring that that's Tyler Robinson.

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

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

Because what I am saying is that it shows that somebody else had more DNA presence on that gun than Tyler Robinson did. So it is plausible, which is all they're doing— they're presenting plausibility based off of the facts. Okay. It is plausible that somebody just took his gun and put it there. That's it.

That's how it works.

I think that's the reason why most people are exploring when things don't make sense. So yes, at the beginning of that— this is how— this is how the court process works.

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

My whole claim was that there is more evidence that he is set up— that he is set up as a psy.

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

To say I'm going to look at the evidence and I'm going to infer an alternative theory. So you just saw the state's and you're accepting it. And they are— they have not presented any concrete facts. You listed on your own Twitter that what you found to be convincing was something that looked like his car pulled into the driveway. A blurry image.

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

Can we get a fact check on that? Let me pull up his tweet where he goes over—

When you— you actually didn't say "it's what convinced me" but you said this is the evidence that you found to be overwhelming and you you named I believe actually five things. I think you said it was his car, uh you said it was—

So we're going to get a fact check on that. You did— um you said the blurry images coming up the steps. Quite literally, when officer Bagley testified— they talk about— when I'm talking about making inference, this is the most— I thought was the most absurd testimony I've ever heard, and pardon me, it was actually Hull, David Hull. Uh they asked him a question: How did you know the guy in the maroon shirt was the same as the guy that came up the stairs later that was wearing the American flag black shirt? And he said, they're wearing the same shoes.

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

The idea that on a college campus two people wearing the totally different outfits but both wearing Converses can't happen is such an absurdity that I don't even need to like argue that. I'm just going to let people just concede that point. Obviously it's an absurd thing to say: I know these are the same people because they're both wearing Converse.

But you just told me I couldn't.

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

It was the car and it was definitely the staircase photos and it was when the—

Somebody said, "So give me the clear evidence right here. I want you to provide it right here. All I heard from the investigator was we believe this to be Tyler Robinson. Is belief something you go as a fact?" You wrote the car pulling in. That's a totally blurry image. um Robinson getting out of it. You have no idea if that's Tyler Robinson. The fact that he is seen four other times on camera, the fact being just a standard white boy with brown hair was seen getting walking up staircase. The DNA on the roof. We should discuss that. And on the screwdriver that he left behind, it's overwhelming, man.

Well, just so we're clear, you did tweet it,

Actually, that's not what I said.

Why are you pivoting? But just say you want to just say I was wrong.

I didn't say it was exhaustive. I just said you said it. And on top of

Are you uh

You're okay. Actually, I'm glad you were asserting that you're okay. I wasn't worried about your health. I'm just saying that I just said you tweeted this. You said no, I didn't. We got a fact check. And now you're like just going to gaslight me and pretend that I said

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

I didn't say you couldn't have said more. But I would like to address the what you said.

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

That's not actually in fact what happened in that exchange. I was here for it. So what's your position here?

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

Well, we're we're addressing your claim that the evidence is overwhelming and this is a tweet where you listed what you felt was overwhelming. I think that's fair. I feel like that's fair,

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

Um, but yeah. So, going back to that, all of that as you say to me, well, Candace, why are you addressing and making inferences off of the testimony?

Okay. So, I would like to know how you got to the conclusion. Uh, and I'm just gonna throw it right back at you because for some reason you permit yourself to do it and that's what I'm demonstrating is that you permit yourself to do it and then you say when I do it, it's a conspiracy, right?

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

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

But why do you think it is? Cuz you make everybody what I'm trying to explain to you. Okay.

I'm sorry. I actually think I really did miss that. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just I don't remember him saying you're going to see me in parano

Sorry.

Did you have a dream? Just kidding.

Okay. Uh, so let's address those multitude of evidences. The first one we're working on a fact check on because I I do not ever remember him tweeting that's me in the stair I mean or tweeted texting that that's me in the staircase. I think that I I

Yeah. Could we get a fact check on that? The second thing you said was Lance's testimony where, and actually what Lance says is, "I'm not 100%."

But in terms of what he wears, again, me pointing out the absurdity. Uh, he wears Converses, he wears sneakers. If his boyfriend is not 100%, I'd like to understand why Andrew Wilson is overwhelmed by it. That's what I'm trying to get to. And lastly, I would like to remind you that Lance's statement would not be permitted. This was a huge part of the preliminary hearing that they were leading. All the questions that were ask asked of him were leading. So they would be struck down at the actual trial. And also I would like to remind you that he got use immunity for that use immunity.

which means like

and I'm wondering why it particularly happened for Lance in this testimony. And I would also like to point out that something that's remarkable about this, again leaning to my perspective that Lance has a lot more uh which I have said many times, Lance has a lot more involvement than the feds are are um letting us know. I think more is going to come out because they interviewed him on September 11th and then for whatever reason just ahead of what was supposed to be slated as the preliminary hearing which was initially supposed to be in May, they bring him back to do this interview which in my opinion should have never been allowed and I I actually agree with the defense that it's a violation of his constitutional rights not to allow them to have cross-examined him. But I understand Utah 1102 do what you do. It's all hearsay. Uh but to allow it in that way for him to just be able to also have use immunity knowing that he's not going to be he's not gonna get in trouble. He could literally get up there and lie about anything and he's not going to get in trouble because the use immunity was given to him in April. I believe April 28th is when they uh gave that testimony to the defense. I think they shot it in like April 20th of 2026. That is not compelling to me for somebody who has use immunity to give a testimony and to say I'm not really sure but definitely like he wears jeans and stuff.

He did actually. You can get a fact check on that.

Okay. I literally said to you, it's not an oof. I said I didn't remember this and I'm I'm happy to have a fact check on that. Okay. That I I didn't call for the fact saying you're wrong. I literally said I don't remember that from

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

Wait, what are we saying? It's not here.

It was hearsay. They said it in the trial.

Okay.

It so the issue with his

So the opposing party which down the line, like I said, they talked about this for about an hour and a half and they discussed how if Lance was in court and he was giving his first party, you know, giving his testimony as the opposing party, whatever, all this would be fine. They had an issue with how the questions were being asked and that they were not allowed to cross-examine him. So that is why his video testimony would not be accepted in the main trial. And what I said to you is this entire preliminary hearing is under Utah's 1102. So they are allowed to just use hearsay instead.

Yeah.

Well, I mean, and that's I'm I'm leaning now into my opinion that some scientific aspects which they kept asserting like the federal rule 403 or 402. Some of those parts were quite

No, I'm not backtracking at all. What do you feel? Let me help you. Where do you feel like I'm backtracking? It was It literally was done under Utah's 112.

Yes, it was. Yes, that's a fact. I'm not backtracking on that at all. How many times did I You watch here. It's like they constantly I'm 11:02 11:02 11:02 11:02 11:02. And the reason for that is because it's allowed. I'm not saying it's illegal. It's allowed at this stage. But I'm just reminding you that when you're going to sit across from someone and your claim is going to be where is your hard evidence? This is what I heard and I agree with what I'm watching. you are watching the state put on a hearsay preliminary hearing and that and all of those things are not going to be allowed, right? Even when they got into witness statements and things of that nature, there's a reason why they swear you in and they say, "Do you swear the truth, the whole truth? Did you, you know, write this statement?" So, it's the overwhelming majority of what you saw was hearsay because other people were representing other people's statements. They were saying they had conversations. We don't know where it came from. Allowed at this stage, okay? But it's hearsay. So,

But the evidence that you're speaking about, like when you're just when you say that we're going off vibes, you don't know Tyler Robinson. Okay. His boyfriend is not 100% it was him. So, I'm going back to your points that you made that this was overwhelming evidence for you. That doesn't make sense to me.

you can't consider another option that there could have been another white guy wearing Converses on campus.

Yeah. And I find it to be completely unconvincing.

I understand that I looked at those blurry photos that they presented and said

he's wearing Converses and he also That's just crazy.

Well, you said that in your Twitter.

Right. But the question that was asked of you was pretty direct.

That's not what you said in the tweet. You can tweet longer, too. It's not like we're limited now to 240 characters.

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

do okay is there something you have you find to be more overwhelming that question okay go ahead go on what do you find to be more overwhelming

what you find to be more overwhelming.

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

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

Okay. So, first let's just go over legally what the point is of a probitative hearing. The defense is not putting on they're not there to say or to argue or to defend themselves at all. They have to address what is being presented by the state. Okay? So, they're not here to then say, "Let me give you an explanation for these text messages." The relevant portion of what the defense did do was actually before we got to the preliminary hearing, I I had mentioned that it was initially supposed to be scheduled for some time in May. Uh they asked for an extension that that reading through those filings of why they were requesting an extension and why I actually believe their extension should have been granted. Uh because they did not receive discovery on their text messages. That was one of the reasons. There were many reasons why they wanted to have an extension, but this was crucial, right? So, forget just the general sense that these messages feel off and and yes, you are allowed to have an intuition. You are allowed to have a sense and just go, "This is very weird." We're being told this kid had like above a 4.0 Tyler Robinson. He wanted to get away. I mean, the tech text tech messages almost run headtohead with themselves. Like, he wanted to get away with it. So, he thought the best thing to do would be to text a full confession of what he did uh down to what I didn't even remember saying, "Yeah, and that's also me in the surveillance footage." It it felt a little too on the nose. I just people have common sense. You just don't text message. But then we're also supposed to believe that he put a note under because and burn this and get rid of the

evidence, but don't worry about that cuz I'm about to text you a full confession. That it felt off. It felt weird off the bat. The manner in which they were texting. We're told he's like a gamer who's using a Dremel uh to carve expressions. Catch fascist, but then suddenly he's writing like a 1700 novelist player.

Yeah, I'm not a gamer. So, we'll say that if we start debating that, you'll be way over my head. But yes, but my point being is just that just first just a general sense of why people had a reaction to these messages uh that seemed like they were written by Jane Austin rather than like a kid who games and writes capture intuition that is I am I just said that I said just put parking aside the intuition of just something feels wrong here which you should follow your intuition you should actually do that if you say vaccine is running out feels like it's coming out too fast and there's too many celebrities telling me to do it I'd like to take a pause that's good that is you are allowed to do that I believe intuition,

that's why we're parking it aside intuition is the first step something feels off right

that was my first step with co I don't like the way it's being pushed it shouldn't require a celebrity campaign by the way another element of that is why people don't feel good about the Charlie thing Why do we have so many influencers saying things? It's over. Why are you guys all using uh the same adjective? Can you switch it up? I'm overwhelmed. I'm overwhelmed. Like chill. Like you could say, I found some parts compelling. I think this should go I found I found some parts compelling. Maybe we should, you know, see at the trial. That would be kind of

Everyone on the same day of watching this trial, which was I would say not overwhelming at all. Nobody came in medium, right? No one came in like there were some interesting aspects. This was a little suspect. I I but I do think it's enough to go to trial. They all came in like they were passing away and we're going to die from being overwhelmmed.

Okay. Well, actually in that scenario, they're they're looking at the preliminary hearing and have a reaction to it. It wasn't their intuition. But like I said, parking aside, just getting to the substance. Parking that aside, parking aside, just a general intuition that some might be sex messages. Then we look at the filings which came from the defense and they were requesting an extension saying we have gone to the prosecution and we have requested all of this stuff in discovery. Yes, you are saying that you took Lance's phone, okay, and that you uh collected his phone on September 11th and that you sent it off or whatever. You took a picture of the text messages and we are being given these text messages to review. Crucially, Kathy Nester said, "I have not even been given access to my client's phone during this hearing." She said, "Have you been accessed my client's phone?" She can't tell you as a part of their discovery request is it's not enough to say to me, "Uh, Candace, I just got a text message from Candace." And I say, "I didn't send that text message." Maybe that's what our client's saying. We don't know cuz we're not at the trial, right? Maybe he didn't send those messages. Could there be someone who logged into his Discord? Could there be someone who logged in to his Apple? George could be sending text messages right now. We are married. He has every login that I have and remember he's up for a death sentence. So if I'm able to seow reasonable doubt with common sense, he may come during the trial and when they actually have to address these points say I did not write those messages. I was here Lance my boyfriend was logged into my phone, logged into my Apple ID and my iCloud sending messages. I know that we have the capability because my husband does it. He has the capability to send messages from my phone. It is not convincing to the public when for whatever reason the FBI would not FBI combined with the SBI, it was not the prosecution's fault. They made that clear during that hearing would not allow them that discovery request to be able to see where did that message come from because you're saying my client was here, right? I want to know if that message actually was generated from his iPhone when he was waiting to retrieve his, you know, rifle, hoping that the pooch doesn't have a bad sniffer. Like just weird messages. I want to make sure that yes, it was actually him. He was holding his phone and his boyfriend didn't just log in to his computer when he was home. Lance was his boyfriend. That is a that is a crucial fact here. That discovery was not met by the time we got to preliminary hearing. So I remain unconvinced by these text messages. Just as you feel convinced by them, I feel unconvinced by them.

I I I I it has not been proven that these messages are valid and they don't sound valid to me. I don't think anyone even if someone was selling like a I don't know pot on the corner would be smarter than to write a full-fledged confess confession. He even writes, "I thought I would get get away with it and I was hoping never to tell you until old age." And then we're being told that he wanted to commit suicide and Okay. But he just said he wanted to get away with it, but he's not smart enough to um I don't know, maybe not text a like it it's such a confession. Like we've never seen I think this would be like the first time ever somebody has start to finish written an entire here's I'm in the surveillance footage and I'm here and I'm wearing my Converse. You know, I'm being a little facicious here, but it was a little ridiculous. It didn't it didn't pass a sniff test for me.

I do.

Well, two things. I can answer that. And if you if you watch my show, I keep telling you it's not vibes. So, right after the shooting happened, uh Lance Twigs, you know, the FBI put him into a house, safe house they paid for. They went to the parents as well to Matt Robinson and Amber basically said, "Your life's at risk. There could be somebody who jumps up and wants to avenge Charlie Kirk and, you know, we're going to watch you." And they went into a federal safe house. Uh what happened next is that they started thinking that the feds were maybe going to like maybe not as honest as they thought. Um and

So you got to you got to watch the show, right?

I I I had a source within the Robinson family.

Do you find it to be reliable hearsay?

I'm just doing what the process

It's not watches. You must have hated watching.

Recanted what? They have no statement from the parents.

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

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

The the father confronted what?

And where did you learn this? that the title

but I'm saying but when you say official documents, do you mean you saw this on CNN or you saw this play out in the hearing?

Are you talking about like the charging documents?

I can I can already tell you what you're talking about the charging documents because this is where we had to figure out where this story came from because everyone was operating under the assumption that Matt Robinson turned him in until we got to the preliminary hearing and we understood like I said even for that when you are charging someone you can use hearsay it's all probitative right nothing so they didn't have statements it's not like Matt Robinson even though he was interviewed that night Amber Robinson was interviewed that night by a fed separate rooms uh Tyler Robinson was interviewed by a fed they did not produce statements saying, "My son did this. My son I believe my son did this." Um, but what happened was they did interviews, but also the crucial person here who you just brought up is Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell is the biggest unknown in this entire case. Everyone keeps saying they heard from Mike Mitchell this, they heard from Mike Mitchell that. So, when the person wrote up the report that night, and it was Brian Davis who wrote up the what became the charging document, he uh after they transported uh Tyler Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's County office uh up to I think it's Salt Lake City at I think it was 4:00 a.m. in the morning that they got up there. He then writes the uh charging what becomes a charging document. So, he's basically saying, "We all spoke to a bunch of people and here's the information that we got." Right? We've not seen that. So it could have come from Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell could be saying

Why wouldn't they just correct the the correct information? It doesn't negate the point. The point is is that we now have got the preliminary hearing. If the parents were the ones who said I'm turning my son in because he's guilty.

Yeah. This I think you're talking about the over. You said it's been the narrative. Everybody's known this. The narrative initially, which I think you agree with, was that, you know, Matt Robinson knew his kid was guilty and turned him into the police station. What actually happened in terms of Sheriff Brooksby, who was present there, and gave a press conference. What happened was this Mike Mitchell character uh essentially peer pressured him. And we can get a fact check on this. We can find Sheriff Brooksy's uh press conference. And he said, you know, they they know it's you and you're going to come in uh peaceibly or people are going to be banging down your door. He was a undercover cop, which I don't like that. I don't know what he did undercover. It's very hard to find anything about Mitchell, but he worked with them for 20 plus years, the police officers. Uh the reason why Tyler Robinson knew him was because he lived nearby and he was also his boy scout.

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

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

confronted him.

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

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

Well, you were I was just providing an answer. We were coming back in from a break because you were talking about the text messages as something that you felt was concrete. So, it was just my rebuttal to you that it's not concrete because they haven't had a chance to actually answer that and she didn't even get to see your client's phone. So that's effectively again the state saying these messages are real. You don't get the discovery on these messages just yet.

It's called it's called winners and losers. They may not be fabricated. But by the way, as as as what they are saying, like I said, if there was somebody logged into his phone, they may not be fabricated. That's the point. So let's get to the point. the parents fact check that that so I was saying I I believe what you're talking about was derived from the charging dock which was signed off by Brian Davis. Uh if let's see if that's correct.

Yes. So, this is proving my point. Is this This is from the charging document, correct? Yeah. So, what I'm saying to you is that three people got interviewed on that night. Mike Mitchell got interviewed, Amber Robinson got interviewed, and Matt Robinson got interviewed. Of the three of them, only one of them actually wrote a statement, which was referred to in this preliminary trial. He came in, I believe, in March, Mike Mitchell, and he wrote a statement, which I find to be very shady that they decided to bring.

Well, first off,

First off, the parents are not going to ever play in court, play to the cameras in court when they have a legal team that is going to be advising them not to speak to the court because you could your son could go to prison for

I I'm I I I'm not going to address that.

Well, what I I I did not say to you that I just said I have a source. So, I want to be very clear and take it from somebody who is involved and permanently sued. Uh when I have to take my lawyer's advice, I mean, there's so many things that I want to respond to when people are speaking about.

I I am telling you that you would ner find a lawyer who would advise you to go to the media and these this mother, especially when your son is thought that my kid was up for death.

Yeah. I that I'm That's for you and your wife. But when a judge issues a gag order in a case and your son is up for death and your lawyers could be advising you that if you say anything you could blow the case, you would have a more responsible consideration.

And and and we're and we're speaking opinion here. You're like, "Well, I wouldn't care. I'd violate it and I'd violate the judge's orders and see what happens."

I didn't I I'm not speaking to a source, but I am saying to you is speaking just relevant to what this is. We have not seen any proof that that statement that is included in this charging document. I think it is highly likely on the basis of the preliminary hearing that that all came from Mike Mitchell and Mike Mitchell would be a part he said

it's him saying the parents told me this the parents could dispute that that's going to come down the line right they're going to be able to seat the parents I I will say this putting together context clues if the state had it on you know 100% certainty that Matt Robinson and Amber Robinson said it a fiveday preliminary hearing would be a good time to say we have enough evidence and I can tell you why Matt Robinson uh made this statement and here is his statement that he signed. That would have been a good time to present that evidence.

That's the wrong time.

That is completely the wrong time because what they're doing is they they already said they didn't receive discovery. They literally can't. They literally can't cuz they can't. They did not receive that information.

That's not the text messages.

Yeah. We're talking about the information that we just reviewed. That's not the text message. They never presented it. The state never never put it on.

No,

No, no, they're not allowed to.

No. In a preliminary hearing, the def the defense is engaging with whatever evidence the state decides to put on. They did not put this on as evidence. Brian Davis was up there. Uh,

They're responding to the state's

They are allowed to say

No. It wouldn't be the right time for that.

the appropriate like what you're doing at this stage of the hearing is the state is saying we have enough evidence that we think this needs to go forth with the trial. Hence the reason that there's this extraordinary we allow hearsay because it doesn't really need to be perfect. It can be enough that we feel like we can move forward, right? Um and okay, I disagree with that in general when somebody's rotting in prison, but whatever. Uh the next phase is for them to meet in court and for the defense to essentially present an argument to the state that says we find this filing to be defective in and of itself. We don't even have to defend ourselves because you the state have enough uh you know what the laws are on the books and this filing is defective and you should get rid of these charges because they don't make sense based on what you can decide based on a law on the books. So then that's why they then file the dismissal. Right? So in the dismissal, what they're doing is they are engaging, and this is what was widely misinterpreted.

So you're saying all of these

So that's what I am. You're saying

But I'll even concede this whole point to you. Let's just say maybe this was misconstrued, right? There's um there's a little bit of reason to doubt it because we're still waiting for the evidence for trial. If that's the case, then why not take the same standard for the evidence that you present? You're just waiting for trial.

Wait a second.

My argument to you is what?

Well, that's actually my rebuttal to you is that you are saying, why are people engaging in what you term to be conspiracy theories? I I I term it to be thinking. They're just thinking because they're recognizing there are a lot of holes in these stories and that this is not strong evidence. Right? This is the reason they're doing it. I'm I'm explaining to you this is the reason that they're doing it. I'm I'm addressing what you view to be overwhelming evidence. And and by the way, I want to be clear

What? Yeah. Well, but thus far every point that you've brought up, would you did you feel like this is beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, you're

it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just what I find convincing is what I find overwhelming. So, why are you so upset when people say they don't find it?

Okay. Um I not sure I really care if you have a problem with what I think in my own spare time. I don't I don't understand this like lecture that you just gave. Um but beyond that, what I am saying is that the state is allowed to use this is what my this is what my problem is. You guys are not Yeah, you guys think while it's still illegal. You actually you can you are allowed to do that. So um but anyway, going back going back to you saying I wouldn't have a problem.

That's not the case. In fact, People look and they say, "I'm looking at the gun and I see and I'm inferring this." And someone else says, "I'm looking at the gun evidence and I'm inferring that." They're both doing the exact same thing. You're just saying, "I want to do it for the state."

Explain exactly how

but you felt like you were convinced,

They did not. That's not true.

Yeah.

Yeah, that was that was not that was not 100%. That's why that they're caging that by saying what's reasonable. There was I mean there was an entire and we can pull this up like we should now play the Kathy Nester clip because that that's from there. So and they were basically saying you don't need it at this stage meaning it's reason it's not reasonable that you're asking for this when we're going into a hearing that's just going to be based on hearsay and stuff things of that nature but of course by the time a trial comes you're going to get all the discovery cause yes so that's what they're saying there.

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

And then, by the way, just now that the hearing is over, and you can also fact check this, they now at the at the end of the preliminary hearing dropped like an insane amount of the discovery stuff they gave to them like the week after. You guys can give me the exact amount. I don't want to say cuz I don't know my uh um I don't remember how much it was. It was an absurd amount of stuff that they gave to them right after the preliminary hearing that they had been asking for. Because that was one of the things that I kept saying on my show is as we were watching that preliminary of the preliminary, why not just give them the stuff now so they can engage in these arguments is I feel like you. It's like I want to hear what they have to say about the text messages. I want why can't you just give them what they're asking for so that they can actually engage you? And uh it didn't happen. So, but the judge ruled that it wasn't necessary at this stage and that was the whole point of that uh

Yeah.

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

Why are we having transcendental conversation now? Because I mean your your entire thing was about looking at the evidence which never made sense to me again because all of the evidence that you felt to be overwhelming was hearsay. That was bizarre to me. You told me that I could take as much time as I wanted to question your

And I do still want to hold you for going through because we've discussed the gun. We've discussed your uh

Yeah. Agreed.

Well, just to be clear, and I'm happy to to have you talk about, like I said publicly, you want to engage in some conspiracies, but I said I want to make sure that we get to the substance of our debate. The substance of our debate is the major is me demonstrating that all of the quote unquote evidence that you feel that you have, which demonstrates that Tyler Robinson, I mean, that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk,

It's well, it's been invalidated by the by the testimony that we saw. And in your answer for when I explain to you that he had the most degraded prince was, I don't know. Okay. Well, there then there lies my ability to process that.

you're conceding,

Okay. Yeah. I mean, sure. I do doubt the state's theory. I also am welcome to say what I think. Now, if you want to move into opinions, if you want to talk about Erica Kirk, if you want to talk about Turning Point USA, like to talk about all that and get into it, I'm totally happy to do that. But I just want to say that like I do not feel cuz I've said what's important to me is that we exhaust this topic first of our actual debate claims. I do not feel that you sufficiently have argued that the evidence is overwhelming.

That's a great question. Um, so I actually expected in this preliminary hearing actually the almost the in inverse of what he was saying is true, right? So the this is now the time the state is putting on their evidence. That's the purpose of this hearing, right? The state is using hearsay, but they're also putting on their evidence. So I was just expecting some sort of a slam dunk. Like we got them on camera taking the shot. At least we have them clear on camera. You're telling me this guy drove 13 hours all around. Like we can definitely show you a picture that it's going to be beyond a reasonable doubt before we even get to the trial. people are going to see and go, "Oh crap, like it was really Tyler Robinson." Um, I was expecting to at least see evidence that because I had reported early on that uh the source was saying that Tyler did not step foot on campus that day. It is my perspective that he had something to do with something. I I do believe he was putting like disposing clothes at at this stage at this phase. I do believe he was disposing clothes. He was involved somehow. Um I I find Lance to be more uh suspicious if I'm being honest with you. Uh, and also like I said, the use immunity that was given to Lance by the feds. The fact that the feds didn't ask him any questions. The fact that I spoke with Lance Twigs's family, and they were like, "It's very weird that the feds are not asking him more questions. He's exactly the person um that I would imagine to be involved in some stuff allegedly. I'll say allegedly." Uh, but uh when we got to the preliminary hearing, there was no there was not a single piece of evidence that I felt was slam dunk. I was waiting for that. a photo. I mean, anything would have made me go, "All right, I think this this could be the guy." Uh, if they had handed over the discovery on the text messages since that was their big, "Tada, we've got the text messages." That would be the first thing that I would hand over. But actually, who was holding them up? Like I said, it wasn't the prosecution. They're right to say we we were handing things over and we heard the defense argue on behalf of the prosecution saying, "It's not them and it's not the FBI, it's the FBI that's holding on to things. It's the FBI took everything. The FBI took the gun. The FBI took initially the screwdriver and then when I heard testimony about the things that they didn't that they found that were suspicious. Um example being the backpack. That's something that really bothers me. Uh that they say they traced the shooter. They traced the route that he went on and then there was an abandon. We know like it looks like he's wearing some sort of a backpack. We know that there was an abandoned backpack found at the bus stop in front of a library and they felt that this should be taken into evidence. They took it. uh the FBI. Uh this was the testimony of Amanda Baker, I believe her last name is, but you might want to fact check that because I think I'm blending last names. Uh she so she was the forensics for the FBI. And then she says she gets a call on the 13th and they stop testing on this backpack because they find that the backpack actually belongs to somebody on Charlie's team. But if you know the map of the layout of the campus, you're going, "Well, what the hell are they doing all the way up? This is nowhere near anywhere." And by the way, that's not an acceptable answer for why you just gave it back. That's not that's like why would you give it back? You're acting like no one's ever been killed by somebody on their team before, right? So I found that to be very strange that it was on the exact route that the that the alleged gunman ran and that their excuse was we just gave it back because we heard that this was some this belonged to somebody on Charlie's team. So that to me is you this is why the the investigation itself feels underwhelming when you learn and this is completely crazy to me that the some of the artifacts that Charlie was wearing were immediately returned to Erica. That's absurd. That is absurd. Everything should be in evidence. When you learn that the car that they carried Charlie in to go to the hospital, they had immediately towed, cleaned, and back up for resale. That's absurd. That should be sitting in evidence. And any police officer that you speak to will say or person that's been involved in a crime will say, "I didn't get my stuff back for years. Had nothing to do with anything. It was just around." And I and they kept it into evidence until the trial was over and it has to be approved. I think somebody said by the attorney general has to sign off on giving you those objects back. And we were told this is all fine. And we see and this is just one example. Erica holding the uh crucifix. Uh that's that should be an evidence irrespective of if you feel bad for her and think she should have, you know, have it and it's sweet, that should be an evidence. Uh immediately paving over the crime scene. Is this is like the craziest thing ever? You're it's this like defies common sense. You immediately and when you heard the guy who did it actually go up on a podcast and explain. I got the call. They said it was a paver emergency. I don't I've never in my entire career heard of a paver emergency. They had already had someone come up and dig up the dirt. So by the time he got there on Sunday, the dirt had already been dug up for him to lay down pavers. That is what people are looking at and going, "This is weird. There needs to be answers for why this was done. And he tells us the call came from the feds and the governor's office. UVUs wa washed their hands of it. And what he's saying sounds true because we heard during the testimony uh one person described the regions of who was in control of everything, the feds were in control of the courtyard. So in order for anybody to have paved anything, that was federal territory, so to speak. I'm maybe not using that the best cop term, but the feds were in control of the courtyard. So these are things that I think should be answered for. Why? Why are we doing things differently than you would in any other criminal scenario of keeping the evidence until we know more, until we're confident? Uh, you know, the various decoys. I did it. I did it. It just doesn't look right.

something if they had I was expecting here we have him. He took the shot. Here it is. And then I'd be like, great. A clear image of him on the staircase. I'm like, that's definitively Tyler Robinson. He was on campus. We got nothing. We got literally nothing. But hearsay of people saying,

What?

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

One clear image of his.

just I don't disagree with that we haven't heard the defense just a good evidentary standard and then of course I would change my mind

You want to get into it?

Take an ad break. And then we'll talk Erica Kirk and TPUSCA

Wait, wait, before we get into that, I would like to just reply to that. So, just to be clear, we agreed to debate our claims and then I agreed publicly that I have no issues having a conversation with you about other things that I've discussed that were outside of the court hearing and things like other evidence that's come across our lap and things that we've been speaking about. But I just do want to make it clear to viewers that for whatever reason you think that you have a right to sort of depose me.

but this is but this is what you're doing right so this this part to me feels like a bit of

I'm going I've already said you can ask questions but I made it very clear to you via email and with you in conversation that we should be speaking this isn't like you get to sit and I said if you want to depose me you should join defense team but you're This is a legitimate question. Can you answer it? Blah blah blah. It's like I don't know what you're going to ask and I'm going to answer issues with it because I'm not

We can't say that for for certainty.

I I already answered that in the first part. We can't say that for certainty. I told you the context of which they spoke about those things.

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

We can't say that for certainty.

U we can't say that for certainty. I actually can't say that for certainty. If if your if your energy here is going to be like you're my dad and you can tell me how to speak or what I'm supposed to say, you're you're you're just going to come up against the wall. I I'm I'm familiar with this debate strategy. Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no? We're not debating anymore. We're having a conversation. So, I already addressed that in the first half of this about why

No, it's not a debate. Now, this is you saying I want to probe things that sit outside of the evidence. I actually already addressed this. You asked me. You're not going to go like we're you're you're sitting and I'm on trial. I'm not on trial.

Sure.

Yes. That's why I reported it to the correct officials in government. That's what I was told and I handed over that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office.

Well, it was

It was told to me by somebody who is high up in the French government. I passed off that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office. I also passed it off to Trump's office, Donald Trump's office. Um, and that's all I can tell you. I I wouldn't be able to probe any evidence because I don't have the power to do that. I'm not the federal government. And I would also like to say that this becomes this this other piece of what you do, which is when people say this, I was told this and this is the evidence that I have and I'm willing to have that conversation and write the email to the correct government body that deals with this. Like, I can't hack into Emanuel Mcronone's bank accounts and say whether or not the information, but then you go, well, where's your evidence? It's like, well, my evidence is that I I reported it. I did the right thing that you're going to do. So, if somebody calls and says, hey, Andrew, there's a viable death threat against you. and that person definitively has the rank to be able to tell you this and you say, "Well, what I'm going to do now is I'm going to report that to the feds." Then I go, "What's your evidence?" It's like, "Well, I got the information and I gave the information that I got from who I got it to the right body of people." And that's what I did.

And that's why I said I want to know what you're doing now because this has always been the thing. It's like we actually can't win on the overwhelming claim. So, we're just going to go and bring up everything that I think can try to embarrass her. I reported exactly.

I have not said. Yeah. Go ahead.

Yes, we can pull up the clip.

Go ahead.

Can you give me the context for what you're are you talking about like when I say generally speaking why people think that Israel is involved? Okay. Where's your question?

Well, I couldn't say Israel was on the ground and shot and killed Charlie Kirk. I would say that there are various things that we're trying to establish, one being a motive. And since I don't believe that Tyler Robinson and his transfery uh is a convincing motive uh because he was fired up about politics, which Lance testified that he never spoke about with him, nor do I believe that he was, you know, so into LGBTQ issues since Lance testified they never spoke about LGBTQ issues, that he stopped and ate at Chick-fil-A, which if you are into LGBTQ issues, wouldn't be your lunch before you go kill Charlie Kirk for LGBTQ issues. Uh because, you know,

I'm I'm I'm answering the question as I feel like I want to answer it. Like I said, you don't get to for an hour and a half pepp. And again, I already explained this at the top of the show, but the reason why people find Israel to be an interesting question is because truthfully, Charlie's perspectives were changing on Israel. And he was starting to realize how much pressure was being put on not just our government uh to constantly fight their wars, but also being put on his organization personally. If people had come out and been honest about that, uh, rather than rabid claiming he never flinched and everybody's lying and this is not true, you would probably have people that just go, "Eh, that's life. People change their opinions."

Then then there was the rabbit. I mean, not even that. It's like everything was about trying to convince the public how much he liked.

I have already said and if you're watching my show in the context of what I said this is the general sense of why people think Israel's involved. We don't nobody has made the claim that is Israelis there were also you know obviously

well Joe Kent who I I think would uh have the right to assert it uh noted that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground that day. I think most people would like to probe that. Now, it could be maybe there were students, you know, and there were Israeli students in Utah that day, but we'd like to probe that narrative because what we've seen after coming from the Israeli government, the Israeli prime minister, uh, kind of denying that he did it, which wasn't really necessary, he's quite busy, uh, the phone call that happened, which no one wants to discuss in the Hamptons the week prior, uh, or not the week prior, I think it was around August 5th or 6th that took place. And again, the almost desperate lies about Charlie shifting opinion on Israel lead us to believe that there could be an Israeli angle in this. Uh, but we cannot say for certainty that Israel called the shots and this is how it happened. But it is definitively, I think, a threat that a lot of us would like to say.

I I whatever you want to say, however, positive, negative, however you want to say it. I don't have a conversation. material evidence and other evidency building. There's no reason to lie about these things and yet people are lying. Uh BB ain't acting right. The Hampton's thing was weird. And the way they tried to shove the is Israel narrative down our throat immediately. I mean the day he died posting a picture of him with an American and Israeli AIed photo on the president's feed doesn't feel right.

I've never said they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk. So, how could I say that I have evidence they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?

I never have said that statement. So, I'm not going to get you to ask me personal questions about things that I've never said on record.

I don't know what the video is.

Yeah. You said evidence that I that they killed him. I said they're This is why people think they're involvement. Involvement.

I also involvement

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, I think is involved Israel. Yeah, I I I mean the person that gave me that thing that I reported said that uh French foreign legion were on the ground that day. Again, this would be this would be at a professional limitation for me to then go and probe that information that I handed over. I can't do that. I'm not the positive evidence of that. I don't you Can you just stop? It's It's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying positive evidence. I've just asked me what I think and I just tell you yes, I think they are involved. No, I said here's what here's what I think.

I literally just said I think and I am allowed to think in a claim. I have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think.

What I'm asking is what's your issue that? What is your issue with the statement? I think that Israel is involved.

you think that if you had full confidence confidence to think when you think

I actually don't have to walk you through why I think. Um I can also I can give you something that I think with full confidence. I think with full confidence that you know you lost the substance of this debate and now you're moving toward things that I have said that I think which I can do. I'm allowed to pertinent to this debate that it's not exactly pertinent to this debate. It's not pertinent because our debate

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

Hey, but you did you do not get to structure how I'm allowed to reply or ask me why are you

My I have full confidence that you do not feel that you represented your claim well. And so now what you came prepared to say to present yourself like a professor of fallacy. I just want to know

seems like you are disputing that.

I've already explained to you. I explained at the beginning of this why I think Israel is is is ultimately going to be proven to have involvement in this. Um I just explained to you in the middle and now you're wanting me to structure the sentence or provide evidence. You don't have to. You're just allowed to think and I've explained to you my thought process. I don't need to structure it in a sentence. If you feel like a professor today, you picked the wrong day.

That's why they watch my podcast.

it's not dripping. I every time we come across any of these discussions, they're watching this in context and they know why I'm saying it. So, for example, when you're bringing up, well, Candace, where's your evidence for France doing this? I just told you someone who was high ranking in the French government, right?

So, there's good reason. So, it's not a conspiracy, though. If I then took it to the federal government, like you can't just go out there making a claim to the federal government. You get in trouble for making false statements and things of that nature. So, and then you go, "Well, I'm going to probe that." Well, how can you probe that? This happens.

This is my podcast. I am sharing my life and my experiences and what has happened to me and you're basically coming in like you're going to what regulate what I how I'm allowed to say it.

questioning a bit like a professor trying to regulate and say Candace

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

But I would like for you to actually go through every clip that you guys have prepared because I it's pretty I I I think with full confidence people will recognize the strategy that you're trying to employ. So let's get to the next clip you have prepared.

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

They said that the French Foreign Legion was involved and on the ground that day. I've already said that. You just don't like hearing it. No.

Tulsi's office. Yes.

and I have this and I have this information and of course if they wanted to open a file on it, which I thought was quite mysterious that Trump's office never got back to us. It was kind of weird about like from maybe that maybe they're not the correct office to. I did receive a response from uh Tulsi Gabbard's office, but I I don't think there was ever any investigation into what I said.

The email was I've been told I have information." Yeah. That that that the French Foreign Legion was on the ground during Charlie's assassination. Um uh and that I mean I it was a lot of information, but like

Not in the first email because I figured they would like

I would absolutely give them as much information.

Yes. It's very strange to me.

That's why I did it in writing

so so if they and right away in Trump's office his like Margot got right back to me. She said it was on his desk. So he has that. There's no.

Yes.

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

I've asked that many times on my podcast.

More of the information. It was a long file.

Well, I just I sent the email assuming that's I'm saying like you go and you you make a report. you if think they're going to come back to you and say, "Hey, what's more information? We're investigating this." And that didn't happen, which is what I raised. I found that especially because this was at a time where they were saying that they wanted to explore every possible lead with I even texted Dan Bonino. So, actually, it was three it was three offices. Let me ask you, Dan Bonino and uh the and Tulsi Gabbert's office.

Mhm.

It wasn't that wasn't about Israel. Those are two separate things.

It was they were saying the French foreign that person as a part of it was saying that it was the French foreign legion that was on the ground that day.

I do as well

because who would want to make a report like I mean I've never made a report with the federal government.

Uh so in terms of Israel I mean what I've said is what I publicly have said here. I do think that at the end of this we are going to find that Israel was involved. I do. Uh now when in terms of any of the hard evidence that's been presented, I think this has been a huge problem that a lot of us have have had is that they won't even explore um anything else that was going on in Tyler Charlie's life personally. So if we're not satisfied that Tyler Robinson did this in any way, then every alternative theory should be explored. Other evidence should be brought forward, we've done that in our in our capacity. Like when people keep saying she has no evidence, it's kind of crazy. I think we've broken like more stories than any news source in the world. I mean, down to pictures, details, police officers, uh, what the dog's name was, because we're not we're not the only people that believe there's a conspiracy here. The police officers that are were involved, the many police, sheriff's offices, um, that were departments that were involved that day all believed there was a conspiracy. Down to the US marshals believed there was a conspiracy. They were uh, my sources at the US Marshalss were saying they were basically sent in a wild goose chase that day.

You're not allowed to have sources. Well, the thing is CNN allowed to have sources.

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

Talking to PBT.

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

By whom? I'm not committing a crime, am I? By just like saying what?

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

Well, they're not answering our questions. So, it's also fair that they don't answer them. So, you're Kovette should be in this chair. He's not.

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

Oh, so inferences are allowed again.

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

Well, I I think they're doing a pretty good job themselves if I'm being honest. Uh you can blame it on Candace all you want. The thing is funny is people act like I'm I'm ground zero. I'll be fair ground zero of people not trusting Turning Point USA. I think there was some PR there. I think there was some PR there.

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

Hypothetical. Um

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

Because they gave back the backpack as as just one example. Uh they gave back the backpack. They gave back the um

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

that quickly. I I I'm not comfortable with that investigation. It's a pretty big organization. There's a hund00 million incentive. people. This is

What I'm saying is his organization like it had grown to I think it was 100 million

Yeah. Per year.

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

Yes. So sewing this narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty. So you're chopping up clips. Like I said, you didn't have the confidence coming up. We are showing a clip of her on Barry Weiss, which I can't remember the date that she did that interview. Uh and Erica, when she is asked, are you, you know, do you do you feel with 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson did did this? And she says, I do. Then again, context matters. I sit down with Erica for 4 hours under the assumption that she had some evidence, right? like like I'm like I actually this is why I did not engage in any like Erica everyone's questioning what she's wearing and all this stuff. I was like I'm going to wait here because I don't know just it feels weird to think that do I did I think that some of her mannerisms were weird and stuff like that. Yeah, but that's not you can't convict somebody on weird mannerisms. And then when I sat down with her and I was expecting for her to say, "Well, you know, I'm obviously the victim on the case and we got to see the shot, you know, taken or this or that, whatever it is." Great. You know, that's why she's being that's why she has that much confidence two months ago. And when I sat down with her, it was nothing. It was nothing. Okay. So, this is a conversation.

Complicit. And again, you said complicit in the death of Charlie.

Well, if you let me finish my sentence, I could tell you that. But my point being is that then you take a look at this and you go, "Okay, well, this is weird. Why Why would you have this confidence?" And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, "Okay, great. I want to go out there and defend you now. I want people to know that you can't say this stuff publicly, but you know more things." And she just blanks. And then she says, "Well, I'm going to call the lawyer." And she called the lawyer. Again, all this is on my show, so out of context clips is not going to work cuz I know what I say on my show. So, we call her lawyer and her lawyer says to us, uh, she calls him on the phone, pardon me, and, uh, it's me, her, and Justin Strife. And he I'm like, "Okay, great. What do you guys have?" He goes, "Well, we don't have anything yet. That's not We're not at that phase yet." And I'm like, "Well, what do you mean you don't have anything?" And he says, "Well, don't you know how it works? It's a probable cause hearing." So, basically, the state says that they're going to bring this forward. And now our people go out and they look for the evidence to uh assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty. And so I asked her directly, her lawyer directly, the phone's in between us. I'm like, "Wait, so just so I'm clear, you haven't seen anything that the public hasn't seen?" And he says, "No." So I'm going back in my head and I'm going, "Okay, so why is Erica saying with such a degree of certainty, like she was sent out to convince the public?" And and people bit, by the way. I remember even Megan Kelly was like, "Uh, you know, let's wait. She's going to have access to things." I did think she had access to things that we didn't have. Why express that confidence to the public as opposed to just being like, "We don't know yet. I'm I feel confident he's probably he's involved. They make the arrest."

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

I I I do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not very close.

No. There I mean there I like I would say it's totally normal. Like it's not like there was any issues at all. Uh she was always we were always nice to each other. It just is our life went to a different phase, right? So Charlie and I hitting the ground, running around, traveling 4 days a week. Now I get married. I I find love of my life. I get married and I get pregnant. I've been pregnant. I haven't stopped being pregnant. And what you want out of life changes. You don't want to be running around for 4 days a week. And traveling on a plane non-stop. You suddenly want to start building at home and live. I was desiring that suburban life.

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

it transformed when she lied.

Yeah. So, when I say Erica's complicit, that's my opinion. When you tweeted Erica's too to kill her husband.

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

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

You don't think calling somebody too

Oh, you're being tongue tongue and cheek.

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

Do you think still think she's too

Okay. But you had an issue with Turning Point being led uh by a bunch of femots saying talking about the feminist angle and then suddenly you go to the headquarters. You come you go into the headquarters now all of a sudden you've got text messages that you're sharing with them. You say that your you and your wife are getting involved with management.

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

Yeah.

Okay. And then you said you sat down with Erica.

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

Okay. For Is that when you gave her the hug?

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

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

I feel like if I was going to release that information

maybe to the media they could release it they could release it to PBD they decide to release it to a guy that called Erica too in June.

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

They just don't have they don't have the courage to have the conversation. If they were just releasing something in good news to answer questions

that I think it's going to register as really obvious to the public that rather than presenting that throughout the course of everybody wanting to know what Charlie was going through through his last days, they decided to give it to you to come to my house as some sort of a surprise. Do you think the public's not smart enough to see that?

talking about terrible PR?

Yeah. I I I just do not believe a that you that they are doing this in good faith. I don't believe that anything you have done has demonstrated that's in good faith. It demonstrates that you walked into Turning Point USA headquarters and came out a different man because you were critical of the organization. You were critical of Erica and now you're sitting here going, "Candace, I want to interrogate you for an hour and a half about everything."

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

uh too I I I feel like if you think that she's dumb and you Let's just talk about your record. I mean, you're a person that has spent

time in what most people would term to be the manosphere talking about feminis

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

Yeah. I'm actually No,

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

No, that it makes sense why you would go home to your kids, just so you know.

They don't have a parent. They don't have a parent and they've just suffered a trauma. You don't go into the office.

legacy is his children, not the organization.

No, it it

That came out of your mouth.

Girl boss came out of your mouth.

I'm pointing out that there there, by the way, she's not qualified to take over his company.

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

Yeah.

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

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

No, it doesn't seem that way cuz you can always start a clip at the beginning of a sentence like you're just sort of like it's completely out of context.

Like I said this this the I don't need to say what's happening here cuz the internet will clock it. But uh in this episode we are now going and that's why I said we're now going to look at some alternative theories. I made it very clear that this was a theory that I didn't want to look at. This is I believe because I don't have every episode on my head and but I'm pretty sure this is an episode where we presented the evidence that was in the car, the photos of what was in the car, right? And so we are now inferring off of what we see in the car that this very much does look like uh that we are see a bunch of shattered road microphone which was an early theory that I was actually interested in but couldn't really wrap my head around what was uh the shape charge explosive as I say at the beginning episode like I just it was just not my expertise and I was concerning myself with timelines and stories and statements that didn't make sense. without question, Cheryl Farnsworth uh is is someone who made me think that we were missing a big part of the story. So, I'm walking them through uh John Bray's theory if we started to insert what we are actually observing with the evidence that we're taking a look at and what took place that day. So, we're completely in the hypothetical right here. Uh and you're now introducing this.

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

I think John Bray's theory should be explored? Yes.

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

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

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

Yeah. And I think he's qualified to say what he believes he saw. Uh we we should actually since they're pulling clips we should run that clip of Rob O'Neal and what he said and what he observed and his experience.

And also there were people who tested like immediately spoke to the media that day who said the same thing that they thought that something happened under his shirt. That was actually if you go back to like my first episode when I was just observing what I saw with my eyes. I was asking the serious question. I was seriously saying why is it like somebody shot him from underneath? Why is his shirt moving first? It doesn't make sense to me. And uh I'm

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

It It can.

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

We We can fact check that. How many How many How many pounds of energy is it? a 306 uh being shot 150 yards away. That's a great question for Grock. I'm going to say when we looked at it, it was between 1500 and 2,000. I'm pretty sure pounds of energy coming at you and you just go upward and to the side.

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

Well, because

Well, why are you able to assert your pos?

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

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

If a not about whether it displace air, it's where it dispersed the air underneath his shirt here.

The bullet's this big and you're telling me it's going to hit his neck and then shirt starts up here and the collar's moving and then you see the wave here as he's moving backwards.

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

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

I don't think that there's any quality version of video that would get us to be able to answer that question other than Terrell's 4K footage that he has from the front. So, there's a lot of um if you look at the Israeli pagers, it's assumed that they it's a similar, if not the same type of explosive that was used inside the pagers that would have been used inside of this road mic. I think that you should, since you love debating, you should debate someone like John Bray, who's worked on that theory for 11 months and ask those sorts of questions of how a shape charge would work. Uh, I presented the evidence of what was in the car. And I also at that episode that you're clipping said, "John Bray has done an unbelievable amount of work on this." And I think he has debated a ton of people actually regarding this topic. So that's the route that I would send you on the purpose of Yeah. For the purpose of my show, I I do believe to answer your question that it is a hypothetical. I mean that it is a a theory that should be thoroughly explored.

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

Well, I just feel like 5 minutes ago you were arguing that it was because the bullet carried air. Now you're saying you don't see the shirt move at all.

that's not what I saw. And clearly, it's not what he saw. and he thinks that there could be an explosive. So, I'm just saying to you when you people disagree with you, your your opinions on a fact. That's all.

I think that's a good place for us to if you if we have another a break and then we can keep answer answering your questions.

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

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

is in fact the case. We're all going to make mistakes. I'm going to make mistakes and I've already— I've already—

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

I've already conceded that. So—

Sure. This is like the Erica Kirk— like you like—

All right, you could just sit down with me, Erica, but we can do it this way.

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

Yeah. So that's the show intro, and "straight to jail"— "straight to jail" is a Monopoly term.

Yeah.

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

Um, no. Actually, that would be a great thing for the spokesperson of Turning Point USA to say — that she's already— I mean, my guess would be she hasn't, cuz they returned everything to her. But I—

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

Do you know if they have been?

Yeah. If you're— if your entire—

If you're— No, it's not junk.

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

Yeah. And you're not sure if she has been either. So, like I said, I feel like now you're just kind of filling the air with Turning Point's "like we want— make sure that you go in there and you defend Erica." And I have to say, I don't think you've done an extraordinary job with that.

The thing is though, that since four out of five of the clips that you had on the ready when we asked you guys ahead of time— I mean, I want to just assert how professionally we have dealt with this debate. As you can see, we have not planned any gotcha clips for Andrew. I expressed to him that what we were going to do was just to use people for fact checks, and it— because I might not remember something, um, or I do remember something and you're saying no — and that is what I think will register to people as very fair. We did not take out-of-context clips of Andrew to try to bring— you— no— when you said you were going to bring claims that you want me to speak to. You didn't say "I intend on sitting you down with out-of-contexted clips," to which we said to you before in an email: any clips you want to share with us, send it over. Let's assert a debate claim so that we can both be ready to respond to it. This just—

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

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

Say yes or no. Well, we were supposed to be dating— uh, be debating the case and whether or not there was overwhelming evidence.

No, you then admitted that— that now you're getting into another sphere and you're— you want to talk about the transcendentals and things that I've said through— and like four out of five of your clips are about Erica Kirk. So, the general perspective even is— your Turning Point's horse— quite a few of them were. Were— was there three or four?

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

Three. Okay. Three. I said four.

Well, okay. But the point being is now you're veering into trying to get me to defend my opinions, and then you completely shirk responsibility when I point out yours. No, they're not claims. When America is too— you go, "that's just whatever." And then you move on.

Yes. Sure. I— that's me responding to your criticism of the claim. That's all I'm doing here.

And I'm happy to get into also the patsy stuff now if you would like to. Your team has one more clip they want. They got one more clip.

They want to hit the minimum of four clips, you were saying, with Erica. So, 100%. This is absurd.

Yeah. I— I mean, can I ask a question? I know it's been— or— or like, can I ask a question, or we—

I've never said you can't—

You've been able to respond to every question I've asked you. And by the way, the— the other thing is, is like— let's have it your way. I want it to look like we've done everything Andrew wanted, so that people can fairly assess the situation. So you have it your way. I will not ask a question.

You said no.

Did this crime? Okay, because Lance Twigs, my fine— Lance Twigs has his DNA on the rifle. Lance— and to be clear, Lance Twigs' DNA was not as degraded as Tyler Robinson's DNA was—

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

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

Correct.

I'll show it on my show. But that's— that's what I'll do. I'll show it on my show.

Well, because I want to drip out the evidence.

I don't know if snark serves you so well. I'm just saying, like, um— yeah, I'll— I'll— I'll release it there. Um, yeah, that's— that's my intention. But yeah, I'm fine with closings if you want to do closings. Well, I also would just— if— if I may ask a question — is— is that permitted?

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

Yeah.

Yeah. But of the seven charges that he's— he's being charged with—

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

Yeah. But— but like, that's— can you name one? Because my— my general perspective is that you don't actually care about this case. You're not following it. That's the— that's the question. You're just not following it. It seems pretty— like, if you're going to engage and you're going to say the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson is guilty, I just think that you should— like, can you tell me one?

No, no, no. You just got to ask me— play clips out of context, put me in the hot seat. So please just answer the question. All seven, since you've been following the case.

Yeah, you name all seven. I'm happy to do that, but can you name one?

That's actually incorrect.

He doesn't even— this is like—

And— and— and I— I—

I— I can.

Sure.

You don't have to put your fingers up. I—

Yeah, sure.

Uh, the first charge is aggravated murder, because that's what carries a death sentence in the state of Utah. No, that's not— that is literally not murder. Okay. And so, just so people— No, don't— I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on. And just to explain to people the difference of why that really matters, and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all — is because aggravated murder, uh, it's— it's narrowly defined and it carries a death sentence. I'm not— I'm going to answer the question. You're just going to recognize that your strategy of thinking that people are intimidated when you try to put a time constraint doesn't work, and you'll be better the next time you debate.

If— the more you cut me off, the longer I'll take. Do you want to just wait for me to finish of why that's a big difference, so that people—

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

I'm— cuz I'm speaking. You just got to—

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

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

The next two charges are for witness temp— tampering. And the final—

That is them. Obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice. Witness tampering. Witness tampering.

Well, we— I can tell you why he's being—

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

The last charge is uh violence in front of a minor.

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

I said offense in the presence of a minor—

You can check my phone.

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

Full permission to go through my phone. I don't need to cheat.

Mhm. I haven't even read my text messages.

He's reading them.

All I have is Signal. You can check that too. I only have Signal. Telegram I used in Russia, and that was it. I downloaded information.

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

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

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

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

I just said the opposite — that I said there— there is—

I— the receipt was published online.

The person working on this story—

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

I— I would say the receipt with his debit card number — it would be some hard evidence if that— I agree with that. So that's it. But you're questioning me.

He paid— if you're asking me did he pay with a credit or debit card, the answer is yes.

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

Yeah, we've been building a timeline with things that we feel are—

Utah 1102 approved? I think speaking to the owner, knowing that there's a receipt, seeing the receipt, uh, is good enough to put on our timeline.

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

Well, yeah. Beyond that, because they didn't even have receipts. They were like, "Bob told me."

I just want to say, you're holding me to a higher standard than you are—

Yeah. I— I— I've been very forthcoming. I've told exactly what happened. I spoke to the owner. I got the tip and I—

It's in my timeline. It's my show. And we can add and subtract what we want. And we do, if we get—

Yes, you should. If we're trying to build a timeline, you should. Yeah.

—and you should remove it if— if someone somehow debunks it. But I think that the— there is very strong evidence that that is where he was, and that—

You know, I'm— I'm actually all good with being— I— I— I feel like I've sufficiently answered your question about how I got the information, what happened next. Uh, would the next stage of this investigation being somebody accessing his— knowing what his debit card was and confirming it? Yes. And I do believe that that will happen. And if it does not happen and it gets debunked, I'll remove it from my personal timeline that I share on my show.

Officer Bagley.

Christopher.

Well, he talked a lot about that during— his camera died. Yeah.

No.

I— if we're just going on my— am I allowed to have an opinion?

Uh, at this stage, I would say that I— I don't buy his um assertion on the stand that he didn't check to see if anybody went onto the rooftop before um he got up there. I— I do think that it's possible— it's at least plausible— that the uh screwdriver was planted. I don't believe him. What I can say strongly is that his uh cam died at just the right time. His body cam died at just the right time. I think that, as you were just grilling me about whether or not I had got the merchant receipt for a debit card — that kind of makes difficult that we just have to sort of trust that a screwdriver was found and we don't have any should-be evidence of a police body cam. But like I said, you accept that stuff and then are like, "Did you call the merchant and get—" Like, it just seems like you—

What do you mean official timeline? This is my timeline. I made it at home.

Well, yeah, it hasn't even been discussed by the prosecution, so it's it's not like you're debunking that it happened.

I've been following it very closely on X

Wait, you think I'm calling owners of state houses and having a conversation you're following? I literally followed the entire trial or the preliminary live. I was live with an attorney. We covered all of it. You think because I have a momentary or lapse where I'm like, "Oh, it's murder." No, it's aggravated murder. Come on.

No, it doesn't mean that

It's a ridiculous sentence.

It's mine.

It would be Candace. I just don't know what his issue is with my timeline.

You know nothing about the case.

I feel like saying that I spoke to the owner of the steakhouse is me like not just being on X looking at opinions, but actually doing the leg work. Um, and that's why I, like I said, if you think this builds up a rapport with your audience and makes you seem like a serious person, I we don't have to keep belaboring the point here. I feel like I've demonstrated that I did as much as I could to confirm this when it came in. I spoke to the owner of the restaurant. Um, you know, obviously took down everything he said, noted that there was in fact a receipt that he pulled. Um, that receipt that was published is real. Uh, a debit card and a credit card was used. If for some reason somebody misidentified something down the line or we find out it's a different Tyler Robinson, uh, I'm happy to remove it from my timeline, but for right now, I I think that there's enough under the Utah 1102 rule for me to keep it there. I don't really think we need to keep going into circles about this receipt. It's it's my timeline.

because you were constantly cite things that are said in that courtroom that have less evidentiary support than me contacting and speaking with the the um the owner of the restaurant. It's not like I dreamed it as to use your expression. So, it's in my timeline and I'm going to keep it there if that's

Okay. Thank you. I think

Of course.

Uh, well, I think that is quite a conclusion admitting somewhere. Maybe we stalemated. It probably signifies what I've been saying from the beginning that you didn't feel that you were strong on the actual facts and the EV evidence which I was willing to engage with you. I wanted to go over the screwdriver. I wanted to go over the tal and things that you've mentioned and you wanted to then move the conversation into a defense of Erica Kirk and her character um and what I've said about Erica which is my opinion and I have not edited that opinion after discussing with you. Um, I would like to extend a compliment to you for being willing to sit down and to have the conversation. I still walk away feeling that the people who are jumping on the bandwagon about this case don't care about this case. They don't care about Erica Kirk. It tends to be follow that they take a meeting with Turning Point USA and they come out and suddenly have a lot of junk to say about Candace Owens. And I do want to also stress that Turning Point USA tried to pepper him with something as a surprise. He showed clips that were meant to be a surprise. I did no such thing. I stressed to PBD from the beginning that I was grateful he was taking Mana and that I wanted this to be a clean debate because I believe I can win this on the merits and I believe that I did win this fully on the merits by engaging the evidence of what has happened. Um, I do still believe that there is more evidence which supports that there are more people involved and that Tyler Robinson has been set up. Uh, and that none of the evidence that was presented was in any way overwhelming, which is why I think you wanted to move to end that discussion quickly and to speak to me about France and uh, to talk about this Panguage receipt and my timeline. I I want to remind people that a lot of the athome investigators which you were open to as you called them internet sleuths I think it was on a show that you did right after Charlie was assassinated that internet sleuths would solve this. Uh this is the reason why Charlie a year on is still a conversation every single day trending on Twitter. I knew Charlie, I cared about Charlie. I care about um finding out what the truth is here. My heart is in the right place. I think anybody who watches my show or even just watched this debate knows that if I get something wrong, I'll instantly correct it and own it. I don't I'm not arrogant. I don't need to sit here and pretend that I didn't misspeak on the Lance thing. It hasn't been ruled out. Uh but you saw that he just really wanted to hammer that point. You know, part of being a well-meaning person is to concede when you are wrong, to take something off a timeline when you know it's not right. And I would like to think that that is why I have earned the audience that continues to follow me because they know my heart's in the right place. that I deeply cared about Charlie and I deeply care about the answers. Um, I want to thank Andrew's team who were providing the fact checks. It's a very small room that they're in. Um, I want to as always thank my team who worked really hard to make this happen and flip the set. And for to you, uh, PBD just for being a great moderator, I think very fair, letting us both speak and making sure that Andrew got out of this what he wanted, which is a little more than what I wanted. But um I'm very content with how I dealt with this and I I won't let I trust I don't need to convince the audiences with the magic trick of what they need to think about this debate. They can watch it and draw their own conclusions.