Candace Owens vs. Andrew Wilson: The Charlie Kirk Debate | PBD Podcast

And for the audience watching this, you have to know when you see this final product, there's a lot of stuff that happens behind closed doors. There was still communication till midnight, even some of the stuff this morning, like it's like you're trying to sell a company. It's the last 24 hours that the deal doesn't work out, but kudos to the both of you guys that you made at work. The topic of discussion today, how this got prompted is Andrew, you said there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk. And Candace, your position was he's a Patsy, Tyler Robinson is a Patsy. So of course, we'll talk about a lot of different things, but that's kind of how the whole thing got started. For the audience watching, I think this is truly for three different people. Number one is anybody out there that loves Charlie, respects Charlie, his legacy, what he did. We have a lot of love and admiration for what he did. He changed the lives of many people, young men, young women, you work with them for many years. You guys were friends. You've said a lot of good things about Charlie, respectful towards him. You guys may have disagreed on something, but you had a lot of respect for him. The second audience is the folks out there, you, that's watching this. And so for you, you've been wanting something like this to take place and kudos for Andrew for coming out and saying, Hey, I want to have this conversation and for Candace to accept it. So you have the ability to say, I agree, I disagree, comment to all the stuff that you're doing online. And if you want to see more of these things, any of the three channels subscribe to the Candace show, the Crucible. I'm sure some of the people from Crucible are watching as well in the P.B.D. podcast. The more you subscribe to this, the more we're able to deliver these types of conversations to you. And a last but not least, it's about the two of you. My goal is to speak as little as possible, 99% of the time it will be you guys speaking. And the audience will be able to see it. If I jump in just so everybody knows on the back end, both have agreed in the back, there's three people representing Andrew and three people representing Candace to do fact checking and so at any point, if somebody makes a claim, the other can say, can we fact check this? I can jump in and say fact check this, even if folks in the back can say fact check this. So it is a very fair conversation that we're having here. And so with that being said, kudos to Michael Knowles. Your name was mentioned a lot. You missed that right now. The last 10 minutes we talked about you, there's a lot of love and respect here mutually from both parties, all three of them here. And then of course, the great Joe Rogan that started this conversation and he also volunteered, but it ended up being this format that we have here today. So with that being said, Andrew, your claim is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk opening statements, opening comments. Sure. And what I mean by overwhelming is I just find it very convincing. That's, I think that's what most people mean when they say overwhelming evidence. So I have a brief opening statement on September 10th, 2025, Charlie Kirk was murdered. Many of you already know a lot about the events which occurred after Kirk's death. You remember the ghoulish laughter, celebrations and madness we saw from leftists all over. From TikTok invasions, debates, posts on social media, destruction of memorials and things like this. Within weeks of Kirk's death, a cottage industry began to form peddling various alternative theories on how he died. What special interest may have killed him, what nations were involved and was our own government one of them. Because this was the first nationwide traumatic event in Gen Z's lifetime, the demand for answers was severe and palpable. The leading theory from the conspiracy verse is that Israel worked with the United States government to murder Charlie Kirk. Within a day or two of Kirk's death, Ian Carroll claimed that Israel killed Charlie Kirk. And the conspiracy caught on like wildfire. This theory was built on one misleading piece of evidence that in his final days on around September 8, Charlie sent a text message reading, "Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause." This was sent in the context of a platforming dispute regarding Tucker Carlson. From this scintilla of misleading information, it was speculated that Israel killed Charlie Kirk because he would have successfully opposed the Iranian war. Now, that's a fun theory, then who doesn't like a good, fun conspiracy theory, I like 'em. But there is no evidence that Israel actually killed Charlie Kirk. And if Candace has some, I'd like her to actually show it to me. I'm open to suggestions, but to date, there hasn't been any. There is, however, tons of evidence that a leftist killed Charlie Kirk, just as Charlie feared they would. I believe Charlie Kirk, and I have the receipts. No, I didn't have a dream where he came to me and told me that the left killed him. But no, he didn't come to me a dream and say, "Candace Owens betrayed him," that never happened. In fact, I don't need dreams of any kind because I hold in my possession, never before seen messages from Charlie Kirk to security team on September 9th, 2025. I'm going to share the message with you today, which is the first time this information's ever been publicly revealed. On September 9th, Charlie security team wrote to him, "Yes, law enforcement has been fully supportive and agreed to security plan and posture. Tomorrow's event will be covered by both my team and the campus PD. If additional support is required, patrol units will be available. I have 11 on site." Charlie responded with this, "Okay, great. Remind them that they are there for one person's security only because I'm somewhat worried the left is trying to kill me." That was a message sent September 9th. Whatever could he have met by that? Well, I think he meant exactly what he said that he was worried the left was going to try to kill him. Now, we'll discuss this more later on in the debate, and maybe I have more and ever before seen evidence that exposes just how wrong and, in my opinion, I idiotic many of these conspiracy theories have been. But that's what happens when you rely on what's called the evidence of the gaps. In other words, they don't have evidence. They seem to just make up evidence. What did they make up? Well, in my opinion, kind of whatever lined the pockets. I think it's ghoulish to profit off of the death of a good man. We came here today to debate, and so let's get to it. The debate topic today is, "One, my belief that there's overwhelming evidence to Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, and two, Candace's belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson was a patsy and didn't kill Charlie Kirk." In some, the audience is going to decide who has more evidence supporting their theory. My theory is that the state is correct that Tyler Robinson is a killer, at least based on evidence so far. And Candace's theory that Tyler Robinson is not the killer, and he's a patsy set up by the feds. To be clear, this is not a question of reasonable doubt. If it was reasonable doubt, and that's all it was, and that's all Candace was proffering, I wouldn't even be here having the debate with her. It's fair to have doubts, as a trial has yet to occur, and the state hasn't even begun to try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But Candace makes a more forceful claim. She claims that there's more evidence that Tyler is not guilty of murder, and was set up as a patsy than there is for the state's case. And I just think that that's absurd. And she will not be able to demonstrate that in any way. In fact, she has almost no real evidence at all of her theory, whereas my theory is supported by compelling witness testimony, physical evidence, multiple confessions, all of which are independently compelling, but which are even more convincing as each piece of evidence corroborates the others. You'll notice the term overwhelming was included in both theories. This is because Candace demanded I defend my use of that term, which I think is fair. In describing the evidence against Tyler Robinson, she, on the other hand, only wanted to defend her theory is merely viable. That is until I showed her clips in which she said she believed the evidence of her theory. That Tyler Robinson's patsy was supported by overwhelming evidence, only then did she agree to defend that position. Regardless, we're both defending the claim. There's overwhelming evidence on our side, so it's worth defining that term when I say the evidence against Robinson's overwhelming, all I'm saying is that I mean that as of right now, I find it very convincing. I see almost no evidence at all in the speculation on verified claims and suggestions of things that could merely be hypothetically possible, dreams, vibes, feelings, things like this, almost done by the way. I have no problem defending the state's case and welcome Candace bringing up any challenges she would like, but if I'm honest, the reason I was willing to pay the $300,000 was this for this debate was to finally have a chance for someone to demand Candace be held accountable for the unbelievable theories and claims she's been making. Candace's investigations, indistinguishable from a leftist operation, she couldn't be doing more damage to the right if she were trying. She uses her considerable platform to relentlessly attack one of the most influential conservative outreach organizations for young people, and she's making a mockery of the online right-wing commentary class. She's Army Republicans in an election year by dividing them. She's attacking the very organization, Charlie's been his life building, and she's attacking the people he loved, including his wife, and it cost me $300,000, but today I hope that she finally answers for some of that. Thank you, Andrew. Candace. You did? I did. 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 we'll 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, 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 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 over just the last couple of years if you just think of the things that we've learned about our government. 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 and I need to waste time with a preamble going through the points I'm trying to insult you or pretending that I've been running a podcast saying it's just dreams and vibes, like I miss Cleo, and that's the reason why it's taking so many influencers, it looks like a billion dollar industry of influencers, to dispute everything Candace says is 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 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. You're talking about how Israel got into the conversation. It was because immediately after Charlie died. One of the first things we saw was this push to make us all think and remember how much he loved Israel. It's 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 state that I did not kill Charlie Kirk when nobody was having that thought that I can remember. Nobody was going, I wonder if BB Netanyahu killed Charlie Kirk. 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 being a text message, which you just mentioned, and you're now contextualizing and pretending it was just about Tucker Carlson, which 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 since October 7th, which is when I began asking myself more questions about Israel as well. And so, yeah, when all of these things happen, they meet at 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 re-examine our relationship 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, the extraordinary people that they're sending out to say that I never 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 that makes me nervous, like calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is essentially saying that they demand further answers and they're not accepting the Fed's love. So I'm grateful that you came today. I don't need to, like I said, take cheap shots and discuss your manner of debate or your strategy. And I'm also grateful that you shared that you have that text message today because everybody watching knows that 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 Cole, that 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 zero to 100? What is the likely that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed them based on the evidence right now? I don't know, I'd say 75 85%. Candace. Zero percent. Zero percent. I'm at zero. So with what we've seen in terms of the evidence, I'm at zero percent. So not not only, you know, that maybe somebody was behind them as a patsy influencing them, you're not even saying that he didn't even shoot Charlie Kirk. Right. I would, if you said was he involved that day as I have consistently sent on my platform, I would say, yes, he was. I don't know what role he played, but as the shooter, zero percent. Do you have any evidence for for what my percentage that he didn't, he didn't shoot and kill Charlie Kirk? 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. Do you think he was shot? I, I do not think that Charlie was shot from a 30-odd six from Losi. Yeah, but just shot it all. I don't, I don't know. I think that a project I'll 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 30-odd six. Can we see? Maybe if we're going to have an olive branch to each other, if maybe we can establish what we consider the facts of the case to be first. Yeah, sure. Okay. So you don't, you're not sure if he was actually shot. You're open to alternative theories. I mean, he was definitely hit with a project dial of some description. If we're talking about was he shot from a gun, a 30-odd six, I would say definitively no. Okay. 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, I think actually recently a YouTuber actually set up Spauhalla steel cages and shot it and it went through. So under no circumstance, well, I so at least not a 30-odd six. Definitively not a 30-odd six from low sea 150 feet. But you're not necessarily closing off the avenue that he could have been shot at all with maybe a smaller, smaller caliber. Okay. And then there's some things that I'm going to make concessions on that I do think we need more answers on and I'm fine with that and we can get to those things as well. The other thing is in the timeline, one of the things that we dispute, I think, on the timeline is that you think that Robinson drove hours away to a steakhouse and the timeline is that correct? Yes. Okay. And what's the compelling evidence that you think you have there? I spoke to the owner of the restaurant and I've seen the receipt. I know the conversation that I had and I think it's enough that it will be presented. Obviously, if this goes to trial, but yes, I do believe that he was in Penguins, which is near his grandparents home. Did he give you an unedited copy of that receipt? I have seen an unedited copy of that receipt. It was not given to me from the owner, but I want to, before 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. Well, I think that that's a piece of evidence. It's in dispute and that's why I'm yeah, but we're trying to get to whether there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did this. Yeah, I want to use the first, if you want to use the first part of that for the internal critique. Yeah, we should go over the actual evidence that we feel the first reason that I think in I think it's compelling evidence is that Tyler Robinson's rifle was found near the crime scene. So I would consider that to be very good evidence and also the fact of the matter is is that I dispute this claim that a 30 out six could not have made this wound. I think that that's absurd. 150 grain remington core locked absolutely could shatter when it hits the neck of any human being when you say that there's some steel neck and it's a smaller caliber, you have to make a counter explanation. Why wouldn't a smaller caliber also go through bone? It could. I didn't say it can't. Right. Exactly. So if that's the case, then ammunition is going to be the critical key here. And if we have frangible ammunition, which we do in this case, a flex tip round, well, I'm sorry, not a flex tip, a soft point round from 150 grain remington core lock. That's just a small jacket that goes around the actual lead piece. These did this thing could have split apart in air for all we know, but definitely upon impact. And we have the medical examiner who confirms this in a summary. My team can bring that up the summarization, which means he would have to be a part of some kind of conspiracy as well. Okay. So just to start with your point about saying that the gun was found near him, I mean, near low Z center or I guess off in the woods, that gun. Did you watch the the testimony? Did you watch your preliminary hearing? Okay. So forgetting what the summary of the medical report was, did you watch the testimony that was given by the Caitlin Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha Carter, any of those people who went into the science of, yes, I recall you're talking about the analysis. Yeah. When they went into the DNA. 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 patsy, I you could take a gun out of this room right now and you could walk out and planted in a woods near a crime scene, but that's not convincing evidence. I concur. I concur with the fact that that's a possibility. So you are, you I think have set an platform that you were gunsmith. Okay. And for how many years? Many, many years. For many years. You also said that you were an army sniper. I wasn't a sniper in the army. Okay. And I never said that. Sorry. Your wife tweeted that you were an army sniper. Yeah. I don't know. Like 15 years ago. She said something. Does it change 15 years later? She said that it was colloquial. So army sniper is a colloquial term. Yeah. I'm not a, I was never an army sniper. 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? Not, no, I didn't teach rifle. No, I taught rifles as a private citizen. Okay. Uh, and I was an in our instructor for many, many, many years alongside my, my country as with your expertise. When she, uh, gave testimony on the stand, some at the corner, that there was dust and there was debris. That was found in the gun barrel. Yeah. Uh, and then when we had the person who, and this was I believe Keatlin Oliver, who explained painfully about the DNA, the prints. - Well, let's start with a point in time. - I'm not done, you said something, so I'm gonna finish my thought, right? - You don't wanna do a point in time. - No, well sure, if you wanna respond to it, but I want you to start with two points. 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 for which we already had the woman who worked for the FBI for Run's Ex-Testify, that above two prints, if you're taking a sample, 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, they've looked at pieces of 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. - Yeah, so let's get into all three of the claims, first with debris. When it comes to debris, firing rifle, doesn't always blow the debris out of the barrel. - Okay, so I, you think there could be degree, I'm sorry, debris and dust, he just fired the weapon. Okay. - No, that, he left it for us. Now, I don't know if you agree with me, but if you leave a rifle in a wooded area, it's also possible that debris could get in that way. But I'm not even sure that that's what the case is. I think it's far more likely that you fired the shot, it just didn't blow all the debris out, and it often doesn't. You'll find this if you take grandpappy's dirty rifle, and it's all dusty inside the bore, and you go fire it, you'll often look down the bore, and there's still dust. - Okay. - Happens all the time. - Okay, and the prints? - Yeah, so the prints, we don't know all of the details on just yet. - We do, it was excruciatingly long testimony on the prints. - We don't, because they haven't gone to trial, so we don't know on the print front, but Tyler Robinson's DNA was on there. You made the claim that Lance Twig's DNA was on there, and it was not. - Well, when she gave the testimony, no, 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 prints? She testified, and she's the person who took the prints. - Yes, but the problem is, is that inside of this particular testimony, you agree with me that there's going to be much more of the DNA analysis of trial, right? - But you also would agree that her fact is not going to change, that among the prints, his was the most degraded. So I'm asking you to trust that. - But let's just-- - How could that be possible? - Let's give it, let's just grant this for a second, as a possibility that his fingerprints were degraded. - It's not a possibility, it's a fact. - I'm just granting it for the sake of bargaining. - You should grant it because it's a fact that she presented it. - Okay, so now it's granted. So what? - What do you mean so what? - Yeah, so what, what does that prove? - It proves that if his prints 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. - Yeah, so wait a second, you're saying that it's an impossibility that if his fingerprints are the most degraded-- - I'm telling you to explain it. - You're the gunsmith, so explain it. - Wait a second, how would a gunsmith give an analysis on fingerprints or DNA? Do you think that I've working on a DNA laboratory with fingerprints? - So your answer is, I don't know. You can just say you don't know, but I did, but I did. - But I did. - No, you said so what? So say, I don't know. I actually don't have an explanation for that, Candace. - What would that be? - It's my question. - 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. - Did they tell, did they say who else had fingerprints on the gun? - We named Matt Robinson, explicitly. And then this was a part of the testimony where she was speaking about how they got samples of elimination samples from the home of Amber Robinson, Matt Robinson, and Lance Twig. So those were the three names they named. - So, dare you say that Twig's-- - Would you like me to finish my statement? - I just want to make sure I'm clarified. - I'm trying to finish the answer, but it can't be clarified until the answer comes out of my mouth. - Okay, go ahead. - 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 Twig's as the elimination samples that she was using. And so she explicitly said she said some of them, some so we can assume two out of the three, where their prints were found on the gun. She's explicitly named Matt Robinson 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, which came from the FBI for Runs X 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 on a conspiracy, it's actually proof of my claim that there's evidence that he was set up as a Patsy. - That wouldn't prove anything about him being a Patsy. - It said it's evidence to support the claim that he could have been set up as a Patsy. - So this is why I said earlier, so what? Because even if it's the case, this doesn't have an explanation for it yet. That doesn't actually give you any evidence in your corner for Tyler Robinson being a Patsy. - Okay, hang on, hang on, I didn't cut you off, right? You would need to actually explain how this would demonstrate Tyler Robinson. This is tied into Robinson being a Patsy. Are you claiming that these fingerprints were lance twigs or that he had any DNA there? - I'm saying that it could be Matt Robinson. It could be Amber Robinson. That sort of information is gonna come out during the trial. - How would that tie into the idea that he's a Patsy? - Yes, because if his is the most degraded Prince and the information that I showed 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, like I said, we're not just dreaming, 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. I don't remember which one it was. And so he got it because he's the first born, but he's not much of a shooter is what I was told. 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-- - How do we get to the Patsy part? - If you don't, let me ever get to the end of the sentence. So how could we get to the Patsy part? - Okay, I'll wait until the end of the sentence. - 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. 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 lived together that doesn't really mean anything. But that could demonstrate that somebody took his weapon and put it somewhere. His prints were the most degraded. Somebody else's prints, 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 pretty places. - But it also could demonstrate nothing. So the problem that you have here is that this is pure conjecture. This is hang on, this is not evidence that Tyler Robinson is a Patsy. It's only evidence that you have conjectured up that well, if it's the case that these are the more degradated prints, then therefore that means must be Patsy 'cause parents, dads, fingerprints on gun. - I didn't say it must be Patsy. - Describe how this actually links in to Robinson being a Patsy. - 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 gonna move on from that. But to just go back to your point about this is not evidence, you can't make that claim because the entire basis for why you think that there's evidence for Tyler Robinson being the person that took the shot is based off of a hearing under Utah 11.02 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? - No, I was here to represent the state. - The state's position, you think is strong and convincing. - No, I'm not here to do is represent my own opinion. - You said you're opening statement. - Based on the evidence presented so far by the state. - The state has presented evidence under Utah's 11.02 rule. - But this doesn't demonstrate any Patsy. - You know, that's very important because that rule is hearsay. So you can't say at the same time that you're not allowed to and what that means under the Utah rule, which I'm sure you know, 'cause 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 not going to be allowed at the trial. They're allowed to present when it's just a probative hearing. - I don't think all the evidence that was put in was hearsay. - Okay, he didn't watch this case. - Not only that, no. - No, no, no, this is a huge point. - I want to, well, we can call this a fact check. - Yes, we need more than a fact check. This was every single day Utah rule 11.02. - We want to go there. So they said there's a medical examiner's explanation of the shooting that's in the back. Rob, if you want to pull it up and then Candice, if anybody from your team wants to pull something up, no problem was well, but they're requesting it. If you guys got it, pull it up so we can show it. And in the interim, is that it? - Yeah. - So I'll read this. - What are we looking at just so we know? - Yeah, so the bullet, or at least part of it, sequentially perforated the interior left of Mr. Kirk's neck, strap muscles of the left side of the neck. This is a summary, by the way. Left common cartoid on the left internal external jugular veins, the bullet also obliterated the left side C27 vertebrae, transacted the cervical spinal cord. Medical examiner observed, a significant portion of Kirk's cervical spinal cord was dramatically absent. Mr. Kirk suffered from other severe injuries, including bilateral, apical and posterior intercozule hemorrhages, pulmonary apical hemorrhages, multiple disruptions to the thyroid, et cetera, et cetera. So the summary of the examinations that he was shot, okay. That was what they were pulling that up. Okay. And I don't, I'm not disputing that he could have been hit with a projectile. We're not disputing that. So I don't know why this is brought up as a fact check. Could you bring up 1102 Utah rule because this is an unbelievable point that you're making by saying that I am not allowed to infer off of evidence. You can infer. I'm trying to follow the inference. But no, you're, you're entire reason. Like you, you asserted that you believe there's overwhelming evidence on the basis of what we saw on the preliminary hearing. The entire preliminary hearing was hearsay. Yeah, I'm fine with your inferences. But no, you just literally said I couldn't do that. Yes, I can. No, I didn't. I'm just saying from your inference, how do we get to Patsy? This is how you got to shoot her. The Tyler Robinson did it the same way. No, no, I didn't get to just shoot her from that. Yes, you did. You, you, again, this is something important. So we should pull up a fact, a fact check about what the 1102 Utah and under their constitution for the sake of a preliminary hearing. Yeah. They do not have to have hard evidence. They don't have to put people on the trial. I agree they don't have to. But no, no, that's why the entire hearing was basically hearsay officer back. But not all of it, like I said, the overwhelming majority outside of the one that you don't want to come off outside of no, that is what's in dispute. 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 hearsay. In fact, Lance's testimony before they had about an hour debate. Actually, maybe it was more than 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. The questions that they're asking Lance are all leading. And what do he say? Well, I'm the magistrate under Utah constitution, you know, 1102. It is my job to allow all of this. 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. But your argument thinks I'm not disputing. 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. When you say Candace, you give me the argument, which they fact. Yeah, I'm not saying that off of that. Didn't say that Tyler could have been a patsy. You're just you're just making literally making stuff up. So here's what the position is. I'm not making stuff up. I'm saying, I'm doing exactly what the state did. I'm looking at a piece of evidence, and I am saying. But you're not showing me how you get here from the audience. Yes. So this just so everybody who's watching us 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 he's purely making it up. I'm asking based on your based on show my evidence. You just show George reliable hearsay reliable hearsay and criminal preliminary examinations. The entire 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. And that is they can allow that into the hearing. That's just the it because it's just meant to be 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 prints 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 doesn't that's the pointing contention. That's not a point in contention. That's the pointing contention. It's not a point in contention. If you're saying it's the pointing 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 just writing asking you that he is using to argue his case is all based on inference, not fact. Great. We're just inferring off of the facts. So again, we're going to take this. And I'm just going to even grant it because it's irrelevant. I'm asking how you get to the inference that even if you dispute that piece of evidence, that means patty. I'm looking for the logical chain for how you get to that inference. 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. Can you walk me through the inference? So I understand. It's not a fact. It's not a fact. When you show a blurry image, which you kept saying that we have. No, I'm not your inference that the fingerprints, even if they're degraded equals patty, how do you get that inference? I didn't say equals patty. I think it is enough evidence that it should be explored, which is exactly what this preliminary was in the inverse not in dispute. What's in dispute is when you said, I'm using this as evidence that he could have been a patty. I'm asking, how do you get the inference to patty from that? 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. Is there equally that that's how it works? And is there equally a hundred other plausible explanations? 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. If there's a hundred other possible explanations in Candace, why is it that we should go with this idea that it was a patty? I'm not saying that we should go with the idea that it was a patty. I am saying that there is Oh, I thought that was the whole defend the your whole claim. No, my whole claim was that there is more evidence that he is set up that he is set up as a patty. How does that equal evidence of patty? I don't know how many times I can say this like I am saying that I am using the exact same mechanism that you are accepting for some reason in the Utah courtroom. Yeah. Right to say, I'm going to look at the evidence and I'm going to infer an alternative theory. So you just saw the states 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. No, I didn't. The standard white guy coming up the steps that could literally be anyone. This never happened. You can check it. Yeah, check it. I didn't say that's what convinced me when 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. You said it was there's multitudes of things that I find. You just said you didn't say we're going to get a fact check on that. You said going you said the blurry images coming up the steps quite literally when officer badly testified the talk about when I'm talking about making inference. This is the most I thought was the most absurd test I've ever heard in part of me. It was actually whole David Hall. 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. Why is that absurd? That's how you decided these two are the same people. Oh, wow. What a scientific. They're both wearing converses. Okay. 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 stand. I still don't understand how that would be absurd. If somebody for instance, if somebody works to change their clothes, but keep the same shoes on, wouldn't she utilize the shoes to try to track that person. The idea that on a college campus, two people wearing this totally different outfits, but both wearing converses can't happen. It's such an absurdity that I don't even need to like argue that. I'm just going to let people do it. Why is it just can see that point? Obviously, it's absurd. I'm not I'm not sure these are the same people because they're both wearing converses. Yeah, I'm not sure if in context. That's what happened. But it is. You can get a fact check on it. But even if it is again, if we're utilizing inferences, whenever we're dealing with logic, when we're dealing with making a logical inference, we're going to take the entire collaboration of evidence and then we're going to make inferences from that. You would do that with any type of logical proposition. Otherwise, you could never have a true or false claim. You just told me I couldn't. I never that never happened. You just making stuff up. So anyway, when we're talking about logical inferences, what I'm looking for is the logical inferences that you have that Tyler Robinson's Apache based on the totality of evidence that you have. We can keep going through your other evidence. But we should find this tweet where he pleased where he lists the reasons that he was convinced. So let's start with the 30 out six. I think that that's fine. Your team's looking for do you remember how long ago that was the tweets of the five that you delete it or no. No, I don't need to wait. Okay, cool. I just look for he said the it was his car. It was his it was the car and it was definitely the staircase photos. And it was when the trial was going. Okay, she has it. Okay, if you got it, Skylar has it. If you want to pull it up, so we can see it. 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 blur image. 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. Yeah, but that's not an exhaustive. We'll just so we're clear you did tweet it. But it's not an exhaustive. You said you said I only said this one thing and said that that was overwhelming, actually. It's not what I said. It is you can even pull your own clip. Can you can you new fact check. If that was said or not, I did not hear or so. So the thing is funny here is like, we still aren't getting to any of these inferences. So why are you pivoting? But just say wrong. I'm going to say I was wrong. I was. I'm not wrong. So back to the tweet, the tweet aspect here was really funny. That's not an exhaustive list of why I find it. I didn't say it was exhaustive. I just said you said it. And on top of the vote, no, you didn't. You said that I only said this one thing and then said based on that, it's over. Why didn't you? You didn't mention that I mentioned the screwdriver, DNA, all these other things. You'd never mentioned any of that. So no, you're actually incorrect there. But on top of that, moving over to the actual evidence, so are you? Are you? Yes, I'm okay. Anyway, back to the evidence. You're okay. I'm glad you're starting 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 exhaustive. I never said that. I just said you did say this. Zero gaslight. I didn't say you couldn't have said more. But I would like to address that what you said in a time, if this is how you want to spend it interrogating my position, you can do it that way. I'm just addressing what you asserted on your Twitter was like the hard evidence that convinced you was overwhelming. That's literally not what you said. That's not actually in fact what happened in that exchange. I was here for it. So what's your position here? Yeah. So my position is that based on all of the evidence, which has been demonstrated at least all the evidence to my knowledge that I am actually not seeing anything that's compelling as an alternative theory. I'm not seeing anything which is convincing me of something otherwise than what the state is presenting is evidence. That's my position. Okay. And that's what you're asking me. So just going back to what you did actually tweet is it fair to like to for me to ask questions about that. That's the only tweet you're going to ask me about. Well, we're addressing your claim that the evidence is overwhelming and this is a tweet where you listed what you thought was overwhelming. I think that's fair. I feel like that's fair. Sure. But not exhaustive just so you know. I never said it was exhaustive. I know you said I did. Sure. But yeah. So going back to that, all of that as you say to me, well, Candice, why are you addressing and making inferences off of the testimony? No, I never asked you why you're making inferences. I asked you how with the inference you made, you got to the conclusion. Okay. So I would like to know how you got to the conclusion and I'm just going to throw it right back at you. Yeah. That's fair. Because the 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? No. So to infer off of blurry staircase images, that that is Tyler Robinson. Yeah. So in that particular case, what you do is you take that evidence, you combine it with other evidence. So it's not just that Tyler Robinson is seen in the staircase. Why are you calling him Tyler Robinson in the staircase? That's what I want to get to. Yeah. Because I mean, we'll just use this. If you don't agree that that's Tyler Robinson, then you would just have to humor me. I think it is. So I'm using the name. But why do you think it is? Because you make everybody call that. That's literally what I'm trying to do. It explains you. Okay. I'm asking for my inference. Why I think it's Tyler Robinson's because a Tyler Robinson said in his text messages, you'll be able to see me on security footage at the campus, said it in his own messages. On top of that, twigs. Yes. You can pull them up. If you want to fact check that, he did say. On top of that. Yeah. 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. I'm paranoid. Yeah. But it was. Yeah. I know. And by the way, twigs himself said that he had some. Maybe a tiny bit of doubt, but it sure looked like Tyler Robinson inside of these various surveillance footage that he saw. So lands. Sorry. Hang on. So there's multiple reasons why it is that I believe that that's Tyler Robinson, not just because of blurry footage. Did you have a dream? Just kidding. No, it's because I combine multiple teams of evidences. Okay. So let's address those multitude of evidences. The first one we're working on a fact check on because I do not ever remember him tweeting. That's me and Mr. I mean, or texting texting that that's me in the staircase. I think that. I didn't say I didn't say that. I said he I literally didn't what I said is that he texted over. You'll be able to see me in footage at the at UVU and I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he said. Yeah. Could we get a fact check on that? You can find it. The second thing you said was Lance's testimony where and actually what Lance says is I'm not 100%. I agree. But in terms of what he wears, again, me pointing out the absurdity, 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 I were asked 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. I understand. Which means like that happens by the way all the time. And I'm wondering why it particularly happened for Lance and 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, which I have said many times. Lance has a lot more involvement than the feds are 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 is 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 actually agree with the defense that it's a violation of his constitutional rights, not to allow them to have cross-examant him. But I understand Utah 1102, do what you do. It's all hearsay. 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 going to be in trouble. He'll literally get up there and lie by 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 gave that testimony to the defense. I think they shot it in April 20th of 1026. 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. That's not what he said. He did. Actually, you can get a fact check on that. Yeah, and that's not the thing you said. That pulled it up more than you want to. So a couple of things we have. We have rule 801 Tyler's messages that says it's not hearsay, but first go to what Candace is asking about scholar. I think you have it. You just texted me. If you want to pull it up, you said you have the text. If we can put that up on the screen. Thank you. It was me. Look at the pictures from a surveillance footage. It was me. Okay. I literally said to you. It's not. Oh, if I said I didn't remember this. And I'm happy to have a fact check on that. Okay. I didn't call for the fact you're saying you're wrong. I literally said, I don't remember that. Well, I'm just saying to you like trying to be concise for you. Okay. The 801 that you just said. What was the other one? Yep. The 801 Tyler messages saying it's not hearsay. If you have that as one, there you go. Wait. What are we saying? It's not hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay. It was hearsay. They said it in the trial. Hang on. Hang on. Okay. Is consistent with the decorant's testimony and the decelerant denies having made the statement or has forgotten or is consistent with the decelerant's testimony and is offered a rebut express implied charge that the decelerant recently fabricated or acted in recent improper influence or motive and testifying. So then wouldn't that mean that a bunch of this wasn't hearsay? So the issue with his. I just want to make sure that that makes you would that mean that a bunch of this wasn't hearsay. The opposing party, which, like I said, they talked about this run 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 and so the judge would be said, most of it was hearsay actually. Yeah. It was overwhelming. Majority. Well, I mean, I mean, that's, 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 scientific. Sounds like you're backtracking quite a bit. Oh, 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 on Utah's 1102. Yeah. Nobody disputed that. Okay. That's a fact. I'm not backtracking on that. What are the things? I mean, watch the preliminary hearing. Yeah. It's like, they constantly, I'm 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102 and the reason for that is because it's allowed. I'm not saying it's illegal. It's allowed at the 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 you swear yourself the truth, the whole truth. Did you, you know, write the statements 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 all out of the stage, okay, but it's hearsay. But even a lot of that stuff may not fall under hearsay under what we just read, right? But the evidence that you're speaking about, like when you're just, when you say that we're going on 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. Well, overwhelming just means you can't consider another option that there could have been another white guy wearing the converses on campus. Yeah. Do you agree with me that I said that what overwhelming means to me is that it's just very convincing to me. Yeah. And that's fair because I understand that I looked at those blurry photos that they presented and said. >> Your statement on right now is that he's wearing converses and he also, that's just crazy. >> But these are the evidences that I find the most convincing. >> Well, you said that in your Twitter. >> That's not the only thing I've ever said on my Twitter about this case. >> Right, but the question that was asked if he was pretty direct, right? What did you find to be? >> And this is not an exhaustive list of all the things that I find convincing. >> Well, that's not what you said in the tweet. You can tweet longer, too. It's not like we're limited now to 204 kilometers and more. >> So, wait, so anything that I tweet and all other tweets that I've ever made are now excluded because I use the word overwhelming in this one, even though all of this information, I've said so publicly, over and over and over again, is what informs my position for why I'm convinced on the case. That's bizarre to me. >> I feel like this is Andrew versus Andrew. Somebody asked you a question, what are the points that you find to be the most overwhelming and you answered? >> You mean from that day, from that particular day of the hearing that I was responding to? >> Okay, this is something you have, you find to be more overwhelming? >> Well, he has that question. >> Yes, that's what I was saying. >> What do you find to be more overwhelming? >> Yeah, so we do this, do we want to get into it or do we want to do a quick ad break? Are you guys good to keep going or- >> I'm fine to keep going, but we can also- >> Would you like a quick break? >> Doesn't matter to me either way. >> If we're going into a different topic that may be another 30 minutes, 40 minutes, I don't want to stop. >> Yeah, let's let's end it. >> Yeah, yeah. So, for me, it's the confessions, the text messages, all of that is what I consider to be, from my opinion, that's the most convincing for me. >> Okay, we should discuss the text message confessions when we get back if you'd like to. >> Okay. >> That's a good idea. Folks, we're going to take a quick ad break. We will be back in three and a half minutes. Thank you. >> All right, you guys, for nearly 2,000 years, Christians have lived continuously in a small village just outside of Jerusalem called Function and Luxury. We had the choice to make it fast. We had the choice to make it cheap. We chose knife, instead, we chose Tuscanero. We chose true Italian craftsmanship, each pair touched by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending 2 years perfect in every detail, and we chose the finest quality at every step, introducing the future looks bright collection. It's rushed, not disposable, not ordinary, rather intentional, luxurious, timeless. The beautiful thing about DC bands, you know how quickly it goes, like this, is everybody ready to get started. >> I've helped over 10,000 business owners grow in the scale of their companies. I'm just passionate about watching entrepreneurs create great business. >> When you get guys like Jerry Raj, that was his work out there. We were able to do some great things on the football field. The single most important trait I had was a healthy dose of delusion, and that delusion is sometimes also referred to as self-belief. And I can do something that I love that is good for business, and I can make content out of. That's my trifecta. >> It's hot! >> Okay, we're back, fantastic. I think we're back. By the way, just NFY for those of you that are watching, the crucible, there's 30,000 concurrent, they're watching support Andrew Wilson. That's your fans of it. Click that subscribe button and help some grows business. If you're watching Candace, I think there's 225 to 250,000 concurrent right now. We'd like to see that 300, 400,000 number on their click that button as well to subscribe and share it with your friends and family. And if you're watching and on PVD podcast, do the same there as well. This allows us to have more conversations like this. The mainstream media hates the fact that we're having these conversations right now, just so you know, they want to control it. This is free for all. This is what's best for the audience. That's what we like freedom of speech. Having said that, let's go back into the text conversation you were having, right? Let's stay there and then we'll go into the cross-examination stuff in about 30 minutes. >> Okay, that sounds fair. Okay, so yeah, I used basically three pillars for the totality of the evidence. Okay, so if you want to know exactly what those three pillars are, this is going to be the testimony with the text messages and the confessions. This is going to be the physical evidence. And this is going to be the totality of the summary of the case, okay? So right now we're focusing on one of these pillars in my defense, which is fine. I understand that I have to defend my claims as well. So when we're talking about the messages themselves, they seem totally valid. I have no idea why they wouldn't be valid. And I have not heard any good explanation for why it is that these messages should even be questioned. The defense hasn't questioned them as far as I'm aware. Nobody has actually questioned that these messages came from Robinson to date, except perhaps you and other people who are kind of in that camp. But why should I question these exactly? I'm not sure. >> Okay, so first let's just go over legally what the point is of a probative 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 had mentioned that it was initially supposed to be scheduled for some time in May. They asked for an extension. That, reading through those filings of why they were requesting an extension and why actually believe their extension should have been granted 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 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 message is almost run head-to-head with themselves. 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 down to what I didn't even remember saying, yeah, and that's also me in the surveillance footage. It felt a little too on the nose. I just, people have common sense, he 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 because I'm about to text you a full confession. 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 to carve expressions, catch fascist, but then suddenly he's writing like a 1700 novelist. >> Also as a held downer's player, he did actually get the 500K code, correct? >> Yeah, I'm not a gamer. So we'll say that we start to bang that, you'll be way over head. >> But yes, but my point being is just that just first, it's a general sense of why people had a reaction of these messages that seemed like they were written by Jane Austen rather than like a kid who games and writes catch fascism. >> Yeah, but do you see how that's intuition? >> That is, I am, I just said that, I said just parking aside the intuition of just something feels wrong here, which you should follow your intuition. You should actually do that. If you say, the COVID vaccine is running out, feels like it's coming out too fast and there's too many celebrities on me to do it, I'd like to take a pause, that's good. That is, you are allowed to do that. I believe in intuition. But hang on, hang on, I'll respond a little bit here because you've been going for a minute. Let me at least respond to a little bit of this. So the first thing is, when people bring up the COVID vaccine, not trusting the COVID vaccine and mass was the science, that wasn't just intuition, that was the science. There was tons of competing science. Now they tried to suppress it, that's true, but there was tons of competing science for why you shouldn't take a risky mRNA vaccine and massing things like this. >> Well, nobody did it in the science. >> When you're talking about intuition though, when you say trust your intuition, I'm actually giving a different message. You actually should be very wary about trusting just your intuition. It is true that intuition can be useful, but it has to be tempered with logic, reason, explanatory power, and evidence, not just intuition. >> That's why we're parking it aside. Intuition is the first step, something feels off, right? That was my first step with COVID, 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 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 some parts compelling, maybe we should see at the trial. That would be kind of-- >> Don't you think that's lots of buzzword for the other, for the counter industry? >> But everyone on the same day, I've watching this trial, which was, I would say, not overwhelming at all. Nobody came in medium, right? No one came in. There were some interesting aspects. This was a little suspect, 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 overwhelmed. >> Well, trusting their intuition? >> Okay. Well, actually in that scenario, we'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 this up, parking aside aside, parking aside, just a general intuition. That's how it might be. Second, 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 collected his phone on September 11th and that you sent it off or whatever. You took a picture of the text message. messages and we are being given these text messages to review. Crucially, Kathy Nestor said, "I have not even been given access to my client's phone during this hearing." She said, "I haven't been given access to my client's phone. She can't tell you as a part of the discovery request is, it's not enough to say to me, Candace, I just got a text message from Candace and I say, I didn't send that text message." Maybe that's what her client's saying. We don't know because 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 so 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 FBI. 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. 'Cause 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 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 crucial fact here. That discovery was not met by the time it got to preliminary hearing. So I remain unconvinced by these text messages. Just as you feel convinced by them, I feel unconvinced by that. - Okay, so then the idea here is the reason that you don't think that these are valid text messages, and you don't, right? - 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, I don't know, pot on the corner, would be smarter than to write a full-fledged confession. He even writes, I thought I would 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, I don't know, maybe not text a, 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 and 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 facetious here, but it was a little ridiculous. It didn't pass a sniff test for me. - You have kids and you love them more than anything. - I do. - If it was the case that you thought that your kid was innocent, wouldn't you be outtelling everybody in their brother that you thought that they were innocent? And also wouldn't you say, wouldn't you maybe recant and say, hey, I didn't actually, he didn't actually confess to me. He didn't actually, none of this happened the way that they state is presenting it. What would have prevented the parents from testifying? - Well, two things I can answer that. And if you watch my show, I keep telling you it's not vibes. So right after the shooting happened, 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 gonna watch you and they went into a federal safe house. What happens next is that they started thinking that the feds were maybe gonna, like maybe not as honest as they thought. And they-- - How do you know all the any of that? - So you gotta watch the show, right? - Yeah, no, how did you know that? - I had a source within the Robinson family. - We have a source, an anonymous source, of course. So there's no way for us to verify that what you're saying right now is actually even true. - You find it to be reliable here, say? - No, I don't find it to be reliable at all. It's just a source. - I'm just doing what the prosecutor said. - What you're doing is a cool story. - It's not a close, well, it's not. - You're giving us a cool story. You're saying that according to your sources, that the reason that the parents haven't recanted any of this. - Recanted what? They have no statement from the parents. - Wait, I just wanna make sure that if it was the case, it was being reported in mainstream media that your father came to you and said, hey, is this you? Is what's going on here? And then he and one of his buddies took you in where you turned yourself in. You wouldn't go out and be like, no, that's not what happened. - That isn't what happened though. You're just wrong on this. - Okay, maybe I'm paraphrasing. - So what is your, sorry, just so I'm clear, where is your evidence that the parents turned him in? - Well, no, no. I didn't say that. - You said there's an mainstream media. - I said with a share of friend. - Yes. - My brother did confront him. - The father confronted what? - Tyler Robinson. - And where did you learn this? That the Tyler confronted him? - Well, I mean, that's part of the official documents. Our fact checkers can pull that up, but yes. - But I'm saying, when you say official documents, do you mean you saw this on CNN or you saw this play out in the hearing? - No, this was one of the things that I went through in fact check pre-debate. - Are you talking about the charging documents? - I think it was in the, it could have been in the charging documents, but I did, but I do, we can pull them up. - No, it is. - And yes, are you disputing this? - Yeah, I'm out. I'm going to end up back to pull it up. - And 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 on 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 probative, 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. 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. 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 what became the charging document after they transported Tyler Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's County office up to, I think it's Salt Lake City, I think it was 4 a.m. in the morning, I think I got up there. He then writes the 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 I could have come from Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell could be saying, I don't know how this negates the point though. Why would the parents? Because you don't have a statement from the parents who are, you are going. And when they just correct them, the, the, the, the, it's not correct. >> 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. >> I mean, say they turn them in. >> 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, essentially pure pressure to him. And we can get a fact check on this. We can find Sheriff Brooksby's press conference. And he said, you know, they, they know it's you and you're going to come in, uh, peaceably, 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 Mike Mitchell, but he worked with them for 20 plus years, the police officers. The reason why Tyler Robinson knew him was because he lived nearby and he was also his boy scout leader. Isn't it great that the parents could write this second? And by the way, if you, if you have the evidence that point, I'm just saying that your, your first point, which is that the parents did this. Yeah. We don't know that the parents, I never, I didn't say that they did ever. Never. You're quoting the parents as having said, you said that Matt Robinson said that his kid was, you say involved. I don't want to misquote you. Confronted him about, confronted him. Yes. And I'm telling you that we have not seen any evidence that that is true. We can fact check that. Okay. Because we do have evidence. And I'm saying it's the charging dock, which could have been derived from a statement Mike Mitchell said. Two thing to have ready in the back. When is the charging dock? And the other one is a video of Kathy Nestor saying she hasn't seen Tyler's phone. Okay. We can run Kathy to go back and then just to go back. Yeah. Kathy first in court saying she didn't get her client's phone. Yeah. And then I think we'll go to the thing, not dispute. These are all things that are not even disputed. Okay. So we don't show it. We never get to the thing that I am disputing. Well, you were, I was just replying in answer. We were coming back in from a break because you were talking about the text message to 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. She will join trial. They will actually get that message. That would make their case fall apart if it was the case that they weren't able to actually pull the data off the text messages. Do you think the prosecution would go to court with fabricated text message? 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, they just could be somebody else. The parents fact check that I was saying, I believe what you're talking about was derived from the charging dock, which was signed off by Brian Davis. Let's pull it. Let's see if that's correct. What are we looking at? Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, I'm sorry. Can you zoom in a little bit? She is the charging dock. I see it. Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the shooter used match the rifle that was given to his son as a gift. As a result, Robinson's father contacted his son and asked him to send a photo of the rifle, which makes sense with the text messages. Robinson did not respond. However, Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Rob Robinson, Robinson applied, he planned to take his own life. Robinson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home. Yes. So this is proving my point. This is from the charging document, correct? Yeah. So what I am 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. Got it. But why aren't the parents disputing that? No, no. 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. But they're planning to somebody else who's your source? I'm not going to address that. They're planning to someone else is your source, but won't go publicly tell the media this is not true. Well, what I did not say to you that I just said I have a source, so I want to be very clear. And to take it from somebody who is involved and permanently sued, when I have to take by lawyer's advice, I mean, there's so many things that I want to respond to when people are speaking about it. Yeah, but it's bizarre that they would utilize the source, which would get the information to you, but wouldn't just go to the media and be like, actually, that's all wrong. I am telling you that you would narrow find a lawyer who would advise you to go to the media. Oh, this, this, this, especially when your son, if I thought that my kid was up for death, if I thought that my kid was in any way, shape or form, going to be a, you couldn't shut me up. Or my wife, she would be like, that's not true. That's ridiculous. There's no possible. That never happened. These people are lying through their teeth. They'd be public whether you like it or not. Yeah, I, 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, but if you say anything you could blow the case, you would have a more responsible consideration. I see. 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'm not violating it with them. 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's saying. Well, it's been 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 five day preliminary hearing would be a good time to say we have enough evidence. And I can tell you why Matt Robinson made the statement and here is his statement that he signed. That would have been a good time to present that evidence. It also made a good time for the defense to say that's just totally fabricated. No, it's not. It's the wrong time. Why couldn't that? That is completely the wrong time because what they're doing is they already said they didn't receive discovery. They literally can't. They literally can't because they can't. They did not receive discovery. You're saying that they didn't receive that information? No, no, they just received the text messages. But in order to. That's not the text messages. The probative information. Yeah, we're talking about the information that we just reviewed. They never presented it. The state never never put it on yet. They didn't the defense could easily still still have presented this. Yeah, no, they could have said they're, no, they're not allowed to know it in a preliminary hearing. Yeah, the defense is engaging with whatever evidence the state decides to put on. They did not put this on as evidence. Ryan Davis was up there, so they're not allowed to present anything. They're responding to the state's evidence. Are they allowed to present anything? They are allowed to say that there was a conspiracy that they could prove right then in there. Would they present that in one of these hearings? No, it wouldn't be the right time. I disagree. I think that they, I think that they not only could do it, but they would do it. In fact, when I talked in depth with my attorney, they said that's exactly. If you had actual evidence that there was fabrications by the feds, that's exactly when you would introduce that. So when in the document that they filed yesterday or a couple of days ago, the appropriate, like what you're doing at this stage of the hearing is the state is saying we have enough evidence. Yep. That we think this needs to go forth. 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? And okay, I disagree with that in general when somebody's running in prison, but whatever. 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, 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 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. Well, yeah, they're engaging as though as it's a hypothetical. If this is hypothetical, true, then they're saying, all of these charges, I'm not disputing any of that. So that's why you're saying, because what I'm asking specifically is like, who could shut a shut parents up, who are like, no way, there's no possible. This never happened. This is ridiculous. They would be shouting it on CNN. They would be shouting it from the rooftops. They would be losing their minds and you're like, no, the gag order would be enough to keep them quiet, not enough for them to talk to your source, but enough to keep them quiet. I think that that's quite ridiculous. But I'll even concede this whole point to you. Let's just say maybe this was misconstrued, right? 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. Well, you didn't do that. Wait a second. Wait a second. Wait a second. I just want to make sure that I got this right. That's your argument to me, right? My argument to you is what? Sorry. My argument, your argument to me is that, hey, wait a second, Andrew, there's not enough here. That convinces me, right? 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, 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 addressing what you view to be overwhelming evidence. And by the way, I want to be clear, that which convinces me, what, yeah, well, but thus far every, every point that you brought up, every point that you brought up, would you, did you feel like this is beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, you, you remember what I said, my opening to be, 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 convincing? If that was the limitation of the claims that you made, if it was just, wait a second, there's a little bit of problems. There's some problems in this case that I have questions for that I want answers to. Nobody have a problem, actually, at least of all me, I would be the least likely person to have an issue with you, any of your fans, anybody saying, in fact, they've had tons of discord calls about this. My position's always been clear, of course, conspiracies exist. Some of them have way better evidence than others, but I've seen them myself. I know conspiracy. In fact, the federal government has hundreds of thousands of laws about conspiracies. They see them everywhere. We both know this, right? That's never the, what the problem is. The problem is when you make claims outside of, well, wait a second. I'm just questioning evidence here. I'm just questioning what the state's case is here. I'm just asking questions. It's when you make claims outside of that where you claim that there's good evidence or good standards, you should believe because, and then it turns out that it's all nonsense or it's wackado stuff or it makes no sense. And when we have a chance to cross examine your evidence that you've presented, I'm going to show a lot of that. A lot of this conjecture that's based on literally nothing that leads from no inferences whatsoever. You couldn't even infer it logically. That's the problem. The problem has never been whether or not you just said, you know, there's not enough in this case so far until we get to the trial. I remain unconvinced. I'm sure there's tons of people who remain unconvinced yet until we get to the trial. I think that's fine. I think it's fine. There's people who are convinced too. That's never been my problem. My problem is the claims which are external to that. Okay. I'm 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. It's like lecture that you just gave. But beyond that, what I am saying is that the state is allowed to use, which is what my purpose is what my problem is. You guys are not alike. Yeah, you guys think while it's illegal, you actually, you can. You are allowed to do that. So, but anyway, going back, going back to you saying I wouldn't have a problem, I think I just demonstrated pretty thoroughly that what you claim that you have a problem with is exactly what the state is engaged in at this stage. So it doesn't make, it just doesn't make sense. That's not the case. In fact, so if people looking, 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. They're not. You're just saying, I want to do it for the state. That's propositional. That's not propositional. Now, it is the case that every proposition is going to have a true or false conclusion period. That's just logic, right? It's a law of excluded middle. All propositions are going to be true or they're going to be false. When we get into when we're making inferences, we're making inferences based on on propositions, we can make, we can actually come to true conclusions with false premises inside of a proposition. In fact, what we're talking about here is not whether or not you feel that you're convinced by this evidence. But you felt like you were convinced. Right. Sure. But here's the thing. When you asked me my reason, Andrew, why are you convinced by this? I can give you my reason. reasons why I'm convinced by it, why it seems reasonable and rational to me to be convinced. You could even say, but Andrew, I'm just not convinced by it. If that was the limitation of your claims, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. That's why I wanted to have the conversation, in fact, was so that we could move into your actual claims that you've made, which transcend the idea of, I'm just asking questions. Before we get into that, your team has one thing they want to show before you go into that. If you want to pull that up, this is the prosecution file and showing defense had full discovery by April 1st. Ooh. They did not. That's not true. Wait a second. Yeah. To date, the state's prosecutors have disclosed all evidence that is presently and reasonably available to them as required under rule 16, Utah, our criminal to be more precise as of April 1st. Yeah. That was not that was not 100%, that's why 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's from there. So they were basically saying, you don't need it at this stage, meaning it's, 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 of things of that nature. But of course, by the time a trial comes, you're going to get all of it. Where's the show cause? Yes. So that's what they're saying. Yeah, I understand. Okay. And I'm even fine with it. Yeah. We all know. And then by the way, just now that the hearing is over and you can also fact check this, they now 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 because I don't know my, I don't remember how much it was. It was a certain 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 as I feel like you. It's like, I want to hear what they have to say about the technical issues. I want, why can't you just give them what they're asking for? So that they can actually engage you and I didn't happen. So, but the judge ruled that it wasn't necessary at the stage and that was the whole point of that because it's a preliminary to the preliminary. Yeah. Would you like to play the Kathy video? Well, he's saying he's not disagreeing. So I don't think we need to. No, yeah. There's no disagree with that. That she said that. Yeah. So the, yeah. So I guess the disagreements now would move into the evidences that you have stated on the record, which transcend elements of reason. Why are we having a transcendental conversation now because, I mean, because you're, 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, was art to me. You told me that I could take as much time as I want to take question. You know, but I'm just asking you just to lay the groundwork of what you're saying. Because you made many, many claims into something else and I do still want to hold you for going through because we've discussed the gun. We've discussed here. And you can hold me to those things, but I would like to get into the things that you've said. And I'll explain exactly what the groundwork is when you make claims which pass the idea of I'm just asking questions because the state's evidence is not convincing. I think you have to answer for those claims because they are in regards to this case. You're saying I have a claim. It is in regards to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is what we're talking about. Not just the case of Charlie Kirk is assassination. You should have to answer for the claims that you've made in regards to the assassination itself. You should. Yeah, agreed. So if that's the case, then I would, I would like to finally dive into some of that evidence and dive into it. Well, just to be clear, and I'm happy 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 part of this is the major substance is 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, you don't find convincing again. It's well, it's been invalidated by the testimony that we saw. And in your answer for what I explained to you, he had the most degraded prince was, I don't know. Okay. Well, then their lies, my ability to process that it's just fine for you to not be convinced up to this point. All of your viewers, everybody watching. So you're just, you're conceding. Nobody's giving you dispute that if all your claims ever were, were just up to now, the evidence that the state's given, I'm just kind of not convinced. That is not what's been happening. What's actually been happening is that you've made tons of claims in regards to this case, and in regards to the Kirk assassination, which are far above and beyond, I just doubt the state's theory. Oh, okay. Yeah. I mean, I do doubt the state's theory. I also am welcome to say what I think, you know, 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 of it. And get into it. I'm totally happy to do that. But I just want to say that, like, I do not feel, because 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. Sorry. But I am sorry, you feel that way. Candice, one question. What evidence do you need to see for you to say Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk? That's a great question. So I actually expected in this preliminary hearing, actually the, almost the 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. Yeah, 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 they're going to see and go, oh crap, like it was really Tyler Robinson. I was expecting to at least see evidence that, because I had reported early on that 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 do believe he was putting, like, disposing clothes at this stage, at this phase. I do believe he was disposing clothes. He was involved somehow. I find the lens to be more suspicious, if I'm being honest with you. 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 to exist family. And they were like, it's very weird that the feds are not asking him more questions. He's exactly the person that I would imagine to be involved in some stuff, allegedly, I'll say allegedly. But when we got to the preliminary hearing, there was not a single piece of evidence that I felt was slammed on. I was waiting for that. A photo. I mean, anything would have made me go, all right, I think this could be the guy. If they had handed over the discovery on the tech message, 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 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. 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, example being the backpack. That's something that really bothers me. That they say they traced the shooter, they traced the route that he went on. And then there was no band, we know 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 that they took it. The FBI, this was the testimony of Amanda Baker, I believe her last name is, but we might want to fact shock that because I think I'm blending last names. 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, how 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 good. Like, why would you give it back? You're actually 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 alleged gunman ran and that their excuse was we just gave it back because we heard that this was some, it was belonged to somebody on Charlie's team. So that to me is, you know, 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 a person that's been involved in a crime will say, I didn't get my stuff back for years. That nothing to do with anything was just around 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, this is just one example, Erica holding the crucifix, that's, that should be an evidence. In respect of if you feel bad for her, I think she should have, you know, hold, have it and it's sweet. That should be an evidence, immediately paving over the crime scene is this is like the craziest thing ever. It's 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. UVU's washed their hands of it. And what he's saying, sounds true because we heard during the testimony, 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 paid anything, that was federal territory. So to speak, maybe not using 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 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, you know, the various decoys. I did it. I did it. It just doesn't look right. Okay, so go back to the question. So what would you need to see for you to say? 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 from like, that's definitively Tyler Robinson and he was on campus. We got nothing. We got literally nothing, but hearsay of people saying, but you're basically getting no case. You know, you basically no case of landed earthy, you get the sure. Oh, we got a picture here with the murder weapon. Here's him taking the shot. Most most of this doesn't take place on a college campus that has surveillance everywhere. Yeah, but I understand, even when you're asked, if you're asked the question, what would it take to convince? It'd be the same question. Be asked to me, Andrew, what would take to convince you that the oppositionals, right, that he's a patchy or something like that. Just good, clear, concise evidence that's been presented, right? And is being presented that I could go through and link all together to see if there's actually some clear picture of there being a patchy. That's what it would take for me. Okay, I don't disagree. We haven't heard the details. Just a good evidentiary standard. And then of course, I would change my mind. So just to qualify this, so there is a possibility in the next few months that you may come out and say, guys, it's done. Tyler Kilda. So you're saying yesterday, yeah, I think it's very important for the audience. You're done for you. Without question for you. Is there anything that you could see for you to say? Yeah, this guy was a patchy. We got more. So I'm going to always follow evidence. So my whole thing is just this. It's really important to me. I don't mind people being true seekers and justice searchers and the internet has helped solve tons of crimes. There's no if answer, but it's about that, right? However, there's also people who, you know, they they not only don't solve crimes, but they just come up with conjecture and they what's called flooding the zone. You flood the zone with tons and tons of conspiracy based ideas and they go nowhere, right? And in fact, they actually take away from a legitimate investigation. Now, I'm not even saying anybody hears purposely flooding the zone. That's not even the claim. All I'm saying is is that the claims made absent, absent. Oh, this is just me not being convinced by the state's evidence. Those become claims and claims have to be defended. Just like mine have to be defended, years have to be defended. And that's what we're going to get to now. Yeah. You want to get into it? Which I'd like to take a break. And then we'll talk Erica Kirk and TP USA and can and they conspiracies that have been conjectured by Candace Owens in regards to this case in the Charlie Perfect. Folks, we'll take a three and a half minute break and now we'll be back soon. All right, you guys. You have probably seen all the buzz around to create a shoe that blends comfort, function and luxury. We chose knife. Instead, we chose Tuscanero. We chose true Italian craftsmanship. Each pair touched by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfect in every detail. And we chose the finest quality at every step, introducing the future looks by collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary, rather intentional, luxurious, timeless. The beautiful thing about these events, you know how quickly it goes? Like this. Is everybody ready to get started? I've helped over 10,000 business owners grow and scale their companies. When you get guys like Jerry Raj, that was his work ethic. The single most important trait I had was a healthy dose of delusion. And that delusion is sometimes also referred to as self-belief. When I can do something that I love, that is good for business and I can make content out of, that's my type of factor. Hey guys and gals, Vincent O'Shauna here. My faith over fear line is taking off and it's all thanks to you. We've got hats, shirts, hoodies, you name it. We also got brand of designs and new apparel dropping all the time. So if you want to rock some faith over fear gear, hit the QR code on the screen or click on the link in the description and remember guys, if you have true faith in God, you have absolutely nothing to fear. God bless and the future looks bright. Many times when people think about value-taming, all they think about is a podcast, but it's a lot more than that. It's nine companies working together on an 11 acre campus. If I was to give you a virtual tour here, you'll see the HR department hiring, talent acquisition. We have full stack developers that are working on maniac and hire metrics. We have a full-fledged events team that puts together events with thousands of people. We have a merch department designing the latest product. We just launched the FLB Shoes made in Italy. We have a marketing department and if you go to the Complete Office Society to build 50, 60 people making calls working for Bitcoin Consulting, sales, setters. And then on the Complete Office Society campus, there's a full-on production company with editors, shooters creating content doing podcasts. And it can drive down a couple miles and go to our private boardroom, cigar lounge, with members only. Regardless of what it is, working at value-taming every day is a surprise. You could be walking into work and right next to you is a governor, is a billionaire, is an athlete. We are hiring aggressively, but vitaminism for everybody. For the right person, this could be the last company you ever work for. So if you're watching this and you want to learn more, go to vt.com/curriers and apply now. Okay, so we're officially back, Andrew, before we go into the other issues you want to talk about, is it fair to say you're good defending your position of the overwhelming evidence? Yeah, okay, beautiful. You take the lead, go for it. Yeah, so I have a bunch of questions for you and I want to make it super painless, right? So no traps, no gotchas, I'm just going to ask them direct and I think that as long as they're not loaded, if they're loaded, you should not respond yes or no, but as long as they're not loaded, if I just directly ask them, I'm hoping that you'll just give me a direct answer. So here's the questions that I have. Well, 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 lab 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. I'm not deposing. I just want to ask you some questions. You literally said that I want to be able to question you. This is a meta-meda conversation. Right, but okay, so now we're transcending. Like I let's just use the word to use the word that you're saying, but this is, but this is what you're doing, right? So this this part to me feels like a bit of my allowed to ask the questions. I'm going, I've already said you can ask questions, but I mean, very clear to you via email and with you in conversation that we should be speaking. Yeah, I know, but I want to ask you questions. If you want to depose me, you should join me. I'm not deposing you. This is part, this is the last question. Can you answer it? Well, blah, it's like, I don't know what you're going to ask. I know, and if you have issues with it, I'm not, I get it. Yeah, I get it. Just so we're clear. Usually in the debate, if something's not loaded, I'm just direct. Because you kept saying I'm joking. They have no evidence. And now you're like, let's move away from the evidence. Yeah, actually, yeah. Okay. Anyway, so direct question. Super easy. Was Lance twigs DNA on the rifles? As far as you know, we can't say that for for certain, as far as you know, 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. So no, as far as you know, we can't say that for certainty until we know what other the five sets of prints. So that would be no as far as you know, we can't say that for certainty. You can say no as far as they know for certain. I can't say that for certainty. If you're, if your energy here is going to be like, you're my dad and you can tell me how to speak or I'm supposed to say, you're, you're, you're just going to comp against the wall. I'm familiar with this debate strategy. But I am just telling you, 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 now we're still definitely debating. This is still a, no, it's not a day now. This is a client to you saying I want to probe things that sit outside of the evidence. I actually already addressed it. You asked me. Uh-huh. You're not going to go like we're you're, you're sitting in I'm on try. I'm not on trial. Okay, great. So let's talk about. conversation as we agree to, let's talk about the foreign Legion. Sure. There was a foreign Legion. Do you believe trying to kill you? 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. What's your best piece of evidence for that? Well, it was positive evidence. It was told to me by somebody who was 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. And that's all I can tell you. 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 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 Emmanuel Macron's bank accounts and say whether or not the information that. But then you go, well, where's your evidence? It's like, well, my evidence is that 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 and 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. That's what I did. Got it. I just want to make sure. I'm not trying to trap you. Well, I just want to make sure I get it clear. And that's why I say I want to know what you're doing now because this has always been the thing is 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'm not trying to embarrass you. I just want to make sure that I get the positions clear. I have not said, yeah, yeah, go ahead. Now you have stated multiple times that you believe that Israel's involved in the death of Charlie Kirk. Can you. Yes, we can pull up the clip. I'm sorry. I'm just saying. I finished his sentence. Go ahead. Can you give me the context for what are you talking about? Like when I say generally speaking, my people think that Israel's involved. Okay, where's your question? Yeah, do you have any positive evidence whatsoever that Israel killed Charlie Kirk? 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 transferring is a convincing motive 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. Because, you know, they have positive evidence. 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 pepper question. But the question I'm asking is about positive evidence. I'm telling you that in any case establishing a motive and what I 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. Sure. And he was starting to realize how much pressure was being put on not just our government to constantly fight their wars, but also being put on his organization personally. If people had come out and been honest about that, 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. I understand. And then there was the rabid. I mean, not even that's everything was about trying to convince the public how much you liked it. So the other thing intuition, how you feel about things. Do you have any evidence? Israel was involved in killing Charlie Kirk. I have already said. And if you're watching my show and 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 is rallies. And there were also, you know, obviously, Joe can make the claim. Well, Joe Kent, who I think would have the right to assert it 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 they were students, you know, and they 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 kind of denying that he did it, which wasn't really necessary. It was quite busy. The phone call that happened, which no one wants to discuss in the Hamptons, the week prior, 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 shipping a pain on Israel lead us to believe that there could be an Israeli angle in this. But we cannot say for certainty that Israel called the shots. And this is how it happens. But it is definitively, I think, a thread that a lot of us would like to say there's no positive evidence. Whatever you want to say, however positive, negative, however you want to say it, positive evidence would be material evidence and other evidence is what we've said is on our show is what we've said, which is we this feels like a conspiracy building. There's no reason to lie about these things. And yet people are lying, a BBA in act and right. The Hamptons thing was weird. And the way they tried to shove the Israel narrative down our throat immediately. I mean, the day he died posting a picture of him with an American Israeli AI photo on the president's feed doesn't feel right. You have any evidence that Erika Kirk or TV USA participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk? 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? Okay. So then you don't believe that they did. 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. Okay, fair team. Your team is sending messages in the back saying they have a video they want to play. Okay, go ahead. I don't know what the video is. If you're. Yes, you said that there's a video you want to play that Candice said she has full confidence. Israel was involved. Yep. Yeah, he said evidence that I that they killed him. I said there. That's why people think they're involvement involvement. If they have the clip, they can play the clip. They're referring to a clip. Yeah. Via who? My guess is Pierre. Erika, I think that there's a reason Pierre knew that Charlie was dead first. I think there's a reason he was a priority. How? Why? I think France and Israel are involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination. And I'm going to put that out there with full confidence. I also. I understand. Yeah. So you think you with full confidence, you think that? Yeah, I think Israel. Yeah. I mean, the person that gave me that thing that I reported said that French foreign Lee Jim 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. But you don't have any positive evidence of that, right? 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've just told you. Yes, I think they are involved. No, I said here's what here's what I think I have every right to ask you about your claim. Yeah, but if there's positive evidence for your claim, I literally just said I think and I am allowed to think. Yeah, you're allowed to think what you're making a claim. I have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think. I agree you're allowed to think nobody's disputing whether I can. But like you're you're you're you're you're I'm asking you, but you have. What is your issue with this evidence? I think that Israel is involved. That's not what that's not just what you said. You said I think it's with full confidence. Yes, that I think that if you had full confidence to think when you think if but if you if I said, for instance, I think I'm going to be late to work, right, with full confidence. I would say my evidence for that is that I'm 20 minutes away and I need to be there. And that's how you would know whether or not. Yeah, let me finish. Let me finish. If it was the case that I said I have full confidence, I'm going to be late to work. I would say my evidence that I'm going to be is that work is 20 minutes away, right? And I have to be there in five. So I have full confidence. That's why I would think that. So I'm asking if you think that Israel and France were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk and you say with full confidence, I'm just asking for the evidence or at least walk me through the mindset of why it is that you can think that with evidence. I actually don't have to walk you through why I think. I can also I can give you something that I think with full confidence. I think with full confidence that you know you lost a 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 think that it's not exactly pertinent because it's not pertinent because these claims made out made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. That's the complete substance of the debate. No, actually, would you like to remind him of what our debate claims actually were? And would you like to remind that you said I could ask you about any of these things to my heart's content. I said, feel free, but you didn't you do not get to structure how I'm allowed to reply or ask me why are you allowed to reply? I'm just asking you direct questions. I have full confidence that you do not feel that you represented your claim well. And so now what you came to do is to present yourself like a professor of fallacy. I just want to know and to say you're not allowed to say that you can say whatever you want. Well, nobody's disputing that. I'm asking. I'm asking specifically why you think that? I've already explained to you. I explained at the beginning of this why I think Israel is ultimately going to be proven to have involvement in this. 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. Don't you think that like tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people would want to know what Candace Owens positive evidence for why it is? No, I don't. Israel and France were involved in the most traumatic public assassination of Gen Z's lifetime is. That's why they watched my podcast. So you're just going to drip to them like here's why I think that 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 what Candace, where's your evidence for France doing this? I just told you someone who was high ranking in the French government, right? Who's nameless? Of course. Of course. Of course. So there's good reason to doubt this. 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 to me. I can ask you, well, that's what I'm hoping specifically. 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 when I how I'm allowed to say it. If I'm allowed to say anything, I'm asking a very, very clear question, like a professor trying to regulate and say, Candace. You sound very defensive, like you just don't want to answer questions. I did answer your question three times literally saying in the way that you want me to say it. You just kind of obfuscate and you run away from it. But I would like for you to actually focus on every clip that you guys have prepared because I, it's pretty, 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. Sure. They can pull up whatever clips I heard. Yeah. Whatever it is that you guys have prepared. But I would still, I, on this point, I just want to make sure that you have full confidence that France and Israel are involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and you have no evidence for it at all that you'll give us. Well, I already did tell you where it came from. Like I said, I can explain it to you. I can't understand it. Get that same higher up. Tell you that. You're just going to kill that France killed Charlie Kirk or just that you were in danger. They said that the French foreign Legion was involved in on the ground that day. I've already said that you just don't like hearing it. No. Candace just had a curiosity. Yes. When you pass down that message to a Tulsi or Trump Tulsi's office. Yeah. Tulsi's office. Are you giving them who told you that or you're just saying, "Here's what I heard from somebody." And I have this information. Sure. 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, maybe they're not the correct office too. I did receive a response from Tulsi Gabbard's office, but I don't think there was ever any investigation into what I said. So the call was, hey, I've been told some the email. Yes. Email was, I've been told some. I have information. Yeah. That that the French foreign Legion was on the ground during Charlie's assassination. And that, I mean, I was a lot of information, but like when you didn't give specifics who it was from. Not in the first email because I figured they would like. Yeah. So if they do contact you, are you comfortable given 100% who it is? I would absolutely give them as much information as possible. If whoever's the US government, why are you not? Yes. It's very strange to me. You know, so if that's the case, now they may respond back and say, we did, you know, that's their position. I did. That's why I did it in writing. And so I'm glad that's the case. Yes. Because. 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. And if you do say that and they contact that individual, obviously, you don't have to leak your sources here. Is there enough credibility where that person would be willing to talk to them and explain to them exactly what their sources are? Yes. Okay. I mean, that seems reasonable. And so why he's asking me to defend that is like, I'm not. Never mind. I think those are two different things. That's more something. I'm really differently. Why are they not reaching out to you? I asked that many times on my podcast. What do you think about that, Andrew? What? The fact that she emailed, she gave it and nobody reached out to want to contact the sources. They probably didn't think it was actionable as my guess. But even if they did think it was actionable, great. Every lead should be followed up on within the confines of what's rational and reasonable. It's fair to say that this is maybe a different individual because this is a person that was involved. With TPO, we don't have a relationship, which are, no, no, her relationship like this isn't just anybody. So if an average person sends it, yes, but I mean, we don't know who the source is. We don't know any of them. If it wouldn't you, if you were in that department, wouldn't you want to, even you assign it to one of your. There's no guarantee they didn't look into it. How do we know? How could they? They didn't come get the information more of the information because it was a long file. This is a separate. There's nothing to do with the guys. This is more on on. Well, I just, I sent the email, assuming that you go and you make a report. You 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. No, I'm asking. Did you send the source to the client? Especially because this was at a time where they were saying that they wanted to explore every possible lead with, I even texted Dan Bungino, so I actually, it was three, it was three offices. Let me ask you one question. The executive office, Dan Bungino and the, and Tulsi Roberts office. Okay. So follow up to that is the following. If they contact you to say, is that specifically to the French government or Israel's involvement in the killing of children? It wasn't that wasn't about Israel. Those are two separate things. It wasn't about Israel. They were saying the French foreign, that person as a part of it was saying that it was the French foreign liaison. That was on the ground. I'm surprised. I'm called. Then I find that to be very strange too. 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. I mean, I did. But we just asked one question. Let me just ask one question and I'm going to bring it to you. Sure. The question is in regards to, I've not seen that clip. So I'm seeing it now. The full confidence. I believe that Israel, French was involved. Is that also based on a source that somebody told you that Israel was involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk or is that a gut feeling? 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. 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 had as they won't even explore anything else I was going on in 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 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, 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 were involved, the many police sheriff's offices that were departments that were involved that day, all believe there was a conspiracy down to the US marshals believe there's a conspiracy. They were, my sources at the US marshals were saying they were basically sat in a wild goose chase that day. But do you see how you say my sources, you're not allowed to have sources, well, the thing is fun. So you see in a lot of sources, if I said, I have sources that claim none of that's true. In fact, my sources claim that her sources are lying. My sources claim that there is none of them believe that there's a conspiracy. My sources claim all of them really think that Tyler Robinson was a lone gunman. If I just said that is hypothetical, wouldn't you say what? Yeah, I think what probably adds weight is like them when I drop photos of the car that no one was supposed to see people go, okay, her sources are legit. So and then when I'm what I say is then proven in court and nobody knew those things, people are recognizing that my sources are legit. When I say Charlie was scared in the last days and then I drop the text message, which you've just learned about a couple of weeks ago of him saying he was leading 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 report 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 doing the lateral crawl, then they're going, I don't think these are just vibes. It seems like Kansas sources are legit. So I've proven myself in the market. Yeah, I'm not sure that that would legitimize your sources as being legitimate when it comes to the idea that, oh, they all believe that there's a conspiracy going on, which is actually what your claim is now. How would that actually hang on? I'm almost done. I'm not talking to PVD. How would that legitimize? Well, it's not his debate. How would it legitimize these sources that even if it's the case that you get some court footage or some things like this, why would it legitimize that your sources are telling you all the marshals believe it's a conspiracy out the police believe it's a conspiracy. Everybody believes it. How would that legitimize any of that? Well, 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 is I have because people trust me compiled a lot of information and presented it to the public and this information has been proven true. We've presented photos. We represented videos never before seen stuff. The public has never seen it. 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 not here to tell you that you have to watch my content or believe everything I'm saying. Well, don't you think the questioner should get questioned as well? By who? I'm not committing a crime. Am I? I just like. Well, I mean, most of the people he asks questions, I'm not actually committing crimes. What do you mean? They should answer questions where like at a police station? No, just like if you're, if you want people to come in and answer questions for you, I have questions about this and the investigation. I have questions about this. I have questions about that. You want them to answer your questions. Doesn't it seem totally fair that you answer back the questions people have for you? Well, they're not answering our questions, so it's also fair that they don't answer them. So you're. That's why I said you should call that should be in this chair. He's not. But isn't that a double standard? No, it's not because he's not doing it. Yeah, but what that would still be a double standard. If you're requesting that he does do it, then that seems to infer that you think he owes answers. Oh, so inferences are allowed again. They never weren't. So that seems to infer that you think that he owes you answers. If that's the case, then don't you owe answers? Well, I feel like I'm answering your questions and his questions about, I mean, I'm talking about Andrew Colbert. He is a position as 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 zone of distrust, I would imagine and forget answering my questions because I doesn't need to be made. Aren't you showing a lot of those seeds of distrust? Well, I think they're doing a pretty good job themselves. If I'm being honest, you can blame it on Candace all you want. Well, you know, the thing is funny. People act like I'm around zero. I'll be fair with how crown zero people not trusting Turning Point USA. I think there was some PR there. Sure. They could have done better. Absolutely. I'm not disputing any of that. One thing though that I am, I want to just directly ask you is, do you actually believe that anybody in TP USA or Erica Kirk or Erica actually participated had four knowledge of or facilitated the murder of Charlie Kirk. I'm not going to get myself into a legal pickle here. Everything I've said is on my podcast. 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. Okay. What does that mean? Is that mean that you do think so? I think it was not a sufficient investigation into what is what we know to be true of 80% of 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. How do you know that was never considered? Because they gave back the backpack as just one example. They gave back the backpack. They gave back the that doesn't show a conspiracy. Well, I mean, it shows that the police trusted everybody and didn't just hold things up for a second. They rule them out as suspects. That quickly, I'm not comfortable with that investigation. It's a pretty big organization. There's a $100 million incentive. People, this is $100 million. What I'm saying is his organization, like I had grown to, I think it was a hundred and a hundred plus per year. Yeah, per year week. If that's something you want to find. Well, he wants to play video. If you don't mind, there's a there's a video that want to play of Candace said it's impossible to not believe Erica's complicit if you guys want to play that video. That's also disastrous. And so right now their guys are going out and they're going to look for evidence. And then by May, which is fortunately around the corner, then she'll see what they found. So what the F is that performance? How could you sit up there and say, I, I, yes, I 100% believe Tyler Robinson did it. That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erica Kirk is not complicit somehow because what? That those two thoughts actually don't even follow. How would it be the case that even if Erica Kirk did believe that Tyler Robinson was a 100% responsible for the death of Charlie Kirk, let's say she believed it with every fiber of her being believed all the evidence because she did. She just actually did. When it then follow that somehow, she's complicit in his death. I didn't take implicit in death. You added those two words. Okay. It's what she complicit in. 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. Okay. Well, tell me what does complicit me. We are showing a clip of her. I'm Barry Weiss, which I can't remember the date that she did that interview. Erica, when she is asked, 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 four hours under the assumption that she had some evidence. 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 of 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. I'm 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. How would that make her complicit? Complicit. And when I'm 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 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 save us 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 of this is on my show. So out of context clips, it's not going to work because I know what I say on my show. So we call her lawyer and her lawyer says to us, he calls them on the phone, pardon me. And it's me, her injustice and strife. And he's, 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 don't have anything? 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 assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty. And so I asked her directly, her lawyer directly, the phones 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. I'm going, okay, so why is Erica saying with such a degree of certainty, she was sent out to convince the public and people bit by the way. I remember even Megan Kelly was like, 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 feel confident he's probably he's involved. They don't understand how would any of this make her complicit and what I've already told you. She was she's complicit in trying to fool the public in the thinking of some open and shut case. How's she trying to fool the public into this if she believes that if she believes that that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk, if she believes that, how would that be complicit in anything? I do. Are you saying that you think she doesn't believe it? I don't believe that at that stage, she's out down with Barry Weiss that that's what she believes. No, but that's my opinion. Right. But so when you just say complicit, you just mean she believes that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk. 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. You explain everything. Yeah, but then why not just play the full thing? Like why? Because we don't have like infinite amounts of time. I'm guessing you probably don't want to watch. 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 doctor clips and getting there's no doctor anything. I'm just making sure that we got this right. That what you're actually saying is that Erica was in 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 through 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 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. 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. Have you addressed what that lie was? Yeah, I've talked about we have a list of lies that we've been told by Jay. We can not find that. I'm sure. And the meeting with her. Well, no, I didn't want her to cage up. I didn't want to do this. And because I didn't know what I to expect. Like 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 the organization and I don't know what I'm doing. Like I didn't know. I didn't want to. Just out of curiosity. Before anything happened with Charlie, how close were you and Erica? Not very close. So there's not a relationship. 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. She was always, we were always nice to each other. It just is our life went to a different face, right? So Charlie and I hitting the ground running around traveling four days a week. Now I get married. I find love in 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 four 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. Did you guys ever do the double dates? You, George, or Charlie? Was there ever double dates between the four days? I was 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 are 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 wing woman 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 that I didn't really need to get to know of this person. So it was just kind of normal that by that time because of where I was in my life that I wasn't spending Anytime getting to know Erica So the complicit part about Erica to you. Is that a gut feeling you think it transformed when she lied you can take the lead I'm just asking questions. Yeah, I don't go forward. I actually don't understand what she's do you think she's complicit in yeah So when I say Erica's a listen, that's my opinion when you tweeted Erica's too retarded to kill her husband Yeah, would you like to explain how you developed your evidence your positive evidence for the fact that Erica was retarded? Yeah, sure. So I just think all women are retarded. Oh, so you're allowed to just say stuff. Who knew? So I just by the way and what dramatically transformed your opinion of Erica after Going to the headquarters because you were pretty hostile about I wasn't hostile towards them You don't think calling somebody too retarded. No, come on. That's like normal tongue-in-cheek stuff for me online Oh, you're being tongue-tongued tongue-in-cheek Usually when I call someone retarded being tongue-in-cheek. Yeah, like for instance You got supporters. I mean if you were if you want to use the same exact argument You would take a supporter like Owen Benjamin He called you bad names and want to and called your husband bad names. Are you just you're just like thoughts? No biggie. I've never answered him on anything that he said I'm saying that you now her her biggest defender. So do you still think she's not a biggest defender? Do you think still think she's too retarded? No, no, no, no I didn't know Erica Kirk. I'd never met her before. Okay, but you had an issue with turning point being led Webby a bunch of fem bots saying I'm talking about the feminist angle Still do and suddenly you go to the headquarters to come you go into the headquarters now So then you've got text messages that you're sharing with them You say that you're you and your wife are getting involved with management No, no, I'm not involved in any management. It's turning point. 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 run your road. No, no, no hang on. I'll explain what happened just so that you understand Yeah, so I was invited there to do some debate training. That's literally what I was invited there to do On recommendation. So I went down and did some debate. That's the first time ever met anybody at TPSA Okay, and then you said you sat down with Erica, but I didn't sit down to where I talked to her in a hallway So you didn't sit down and speak with Erica. No, I didn't have like some sit-down long conversation. We talked in a hallway Okay, is that when you gave her the hug? Yeah, gave her the hug right there my my wife did to we were both very sorry for what happened Okay, so at what point did you start receiving text messages from that you cited in your opening statement Well, I just reached out to TPSA and said I'm prepping for a debate. Is there anything that's pertinent that I can use here 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 it's amazing isn't it if you reach out in good faith and you're not demonizing them and saying that they're complicit in the murder of people's deaths That that perhaps they're actually willing to release things to you that are pertinent other than thinking that you know Maybe perhaps your diabolical I feel like if I was gonna release that information. I didn't I didn't demand that it be released to me I actually never demanded that it be released I just simply said that this is what was going on in the last 48 hours 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 to retarded in June. So what? Yeah, I just think it kind of shows that turning point is sending you as their horse. Well, I don't know where you don't have they don't have I don't know where you have the conversation like I don't see there just releasing something in good faith to answer questions You have any evidence of that point I saw evidence that you're sharing your opinion and she's to retarded I can't share my opinion 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 Well, do you think the public's not smart enough to see that? Do you think that if you know terrible PR You know that there's a huge debate that's coming up that's going to be probably one of the most viewed that year and one of the Debaters calls you and says I'm taking this position This is the position that I feel like there's the most evidence for and Candace also agreed to answer many of my questions in regards to this So if you got pertinent evidence here that I can use I definitely like take a look It was actually amazing to me. It really was actually amazing to me how if you approach people in good faith and just say Hey, I'd actually like to know what the facts and details are around this they actually do talk to you. It's amazing Yeah, 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 is demonstrated that's in good faith it demonstrates that you walked in a turning point USA headquarters and came out of different man because you were critical of the organization You were critical of Erica and now you're sitting here going. Can you say I want to interrogate you for every hour and a half about everything And you're being critical of somebody that you hadn't met in the medium and you're less critical of them I'm the in versus happen too. I was right. It's critical about Erica and now I'm more critical about you But I'm asking you isn't it the case that there's people you've been critical of and you've met them and you're less critical after you meet them Too retarded. 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 and what most people would term to be the manosphere talking about Yeah, I debate against the against feminists and red pillars and a lot of the actual so I'm a Christian ethicist And then 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 perspectives That's a bizarre criticism like nobody's in the bigger girl boss position than you I'm actually know the biggest of the girl boss positions like you don't have to do this You just do do this you could definitely not do it at all and be fine, right? But you still do 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 Which makes sense why she would take the organization know that it makes sense why you would go home to your kids just so you know Wait a second. That's but that's bizarre They don't have a parent. They don't have a parent and they just suffered a trauma. You don't go into the office You want to protect your husband's legacy. Yeah, right? And you're trying to find some new legacy is his children not the organization. It's it's both no Yes, it is both. It's totally rational and reasonable to believe that it would be both turning point USA That is part of Charlie Kirk's legacy. He worked his whole life. This is why people think she's us and his children now For you though to say that anybody's a girl boss, right? That's like the point that came out of your mouth. No, if that was you you brought up girl boss girl boss came out of your mouth Yeah, I'm just saying I'm telling you that you brought up this idea that I'm defending some Feminist nonsense. I'm not I'm pointing out that they're by the way. She's not qualified to take over his company There's always objective outliers to each situation the in fact It's the exception that proves the rule and the interesting thing here is like I'm still just as critical of feminism inside of TP USA as I've always been And I'm just as critical of any pro Zionist position as I've ever been none of that's ever changed By the way, I would think it's the most rational reasonable thing on planet Earth to do If you wanted to actually see an organization change to try to work with leadership or reach out to leadership to try to do so Doesn't that make the most I would like to say for the record that I think Erica is under qualified from 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 because I can say it's scientific that Any woman that would leave her kids and go right into the office after their husband was publicly assassinated It does not have their priority straight. Okay. Well, I understand that you can have those criticisms But I'm not understanding still how that would make her complicit I don't I don't have to keep answering the same questions Okay, your team is asking how it's complicit your team is asking to play clip So if we want to play this clip to just finish this segment on the Erica Kirk topic we can spend some time on that as well. So if you guys are ready in the back We're ready And causing that 30 out six diameter as would happen with a patent explosive as as we've demonstrated you in the past It accidentally because of how Charlie was crouched Went up and hit his neck And that ruined everything everyone to everything it was problematic It's the reason why Terrell then had to scramble to get the cameras down Because they were never supposed to see it they could have said Reasonably that a 30 out six Got eaten by Charlie much more recently obviously Than saying that the chicken bones in his neck stopped it because he ate vegetables They panicked That was what then that's why Terrell's nervous on the phone with me again This is my theory and I am now very much sticking to it Okay A panicked it's the reason Erica had to step out once that's why she would have Got gotten on the phone with Terrell so quickly because I was going wise Terrell saying why I didn't want Erica to relive Oh, that's why I didn't have an answer. He was nervous. It was crazy And but he acknowledged he spoke to Erica immediately. Why did you speak to Erica immediately? Who do you believe that there was a shape charge a kill Charlie? Hey, can I ask you why you keep starting clips mid-sentence? Probably to get to where the clip is No, it doesn't seem that way because you can always start a clip with the beginning of a sentence Like you're just start of like it's completely out of context wait. I didn't I didn't prepare the clips But yeah, I think I didn't kind of ask it to back up like I said this The internet I don't need to say what's happening here because the internet will close but 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 like 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. 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 the shape charge explosive as I say at the beginning episode I just it was just not my expertise. And I was concerned myself with timelines and stories and same as it makes sense. Without question, tarot farm's worth is someone who made me think that we were missing a big part of the story. So I'm walking them through John brace 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. We're completely in the hypothetical right here and you're now introducing this. If that's if that's the case, if you're just hypothetically exploring it, that's why I was asking directly. 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 pull up random clips and they're like, what's this? What's this? You watched the episode. No, I'm just trying to make sure. Do you think that your alternative theory. Do you think John brace theory should be explored? Yes, do you do you think that Charlie Kirk was killed with an explosive? I think I think that that is a possibility. Yes, okay, and it should be explored. He's done a lot of work on it. John Brian has done good work. And I think that that's why that theory is now starting to gain steam since we release the second set of the photos of what was in the car. I think it's viable. So this was the big thing I wanted to get into with you on the explosives too. What is it about that theory that's actually compelling to you? So I looked into the explosive mic theory multiple times. And the biggest thing that stood out to me is there's no explosion. There's, there's literally no explosion. In fact, there's videos when the shot rings out that kills Charlie, at least it sounds like a shot to me. People are actually like looking up towards where the gun is being fired. They're looking away for where their sound is. Like where's the actual explosion? Well, for every person that you say looks away, there's going to be a person that was looking forward. We have former Marines that have gotten on and said it looks to me like there's an explosion under a shirt, right? You obviously saw Rob O'Neill go on to I'm forgetting which platform it was where he said it's the first thing I thought was it like. Rob O'Neill is the man that killed some of them. Yeah, and I think he's qualified to say what he believes he saw. We should actually since they're pulling clips. We should run that clip of Rob O'Neill and what he said and what he has served in his experience. So I'm going to take that. And also there were people who test like immediately spoke to the media that day who said the same thing that they thought that something happened. Under a 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 just saying why is somebody shot off from underneath? Why is his shirt moving first? And I'm not an air dispersal from the bullet. So when a whenever a bullet is shot to project out shot, you can actually run this experiment yourself. If you have a rifle, take it like an empty box of ammunition and put it on the table and then fire it near the muzzle. And that box will actually blow off the table. Okay. So question for you. Does that box go sideways off the table? It can. It can. Yeah, it can. It depends on the dispersion. You three thousand pounds of energy or two thousand pounds of energy coming at you. That's how much it carries 30,000 pounds of energy. How many how many pounds of energy is it a 30 out six being shot 150 yards away? That's a great question for rock. I'm going to say when we looked at it, it was between 1500 and 2000. I'm pretty sure pounds of energy coming at you. And you just go upward into the side. I don't really buy that. I mean, I'm going to just say I just think that that's not. Yeah, right. But possible. Doesn't go through on top of that. So there's another miracle. He didn't get blown backwards. You didn't. But I also want to say that you're saying this can happen. And Rob O'Neill is infinitely more qualified. I think to speak on that. And well, because he's actually shot and killed people. Why would that have anything do with anything? Well, because he slowed down all the videos of the people he shot to see if they're closed moved. Well, why are you able to sort your prisoners? Because I'm going to I'm going to tell you how projectiles were. He's not even going to just I guarantee you this guy's not going to disagree with what I'm about to say. If it is the case that you have energy and you have mass and the mass is moving in the air, the air has to go somewhere. It doesn't have a choice. I think you're like to you're totally piercing right now, man. Not only am I not be asking, I'm telling you the truth. If a bullet is moving in air, air has to move out of way of bullet. But maybe not at the bottom of a shirt here. I don't know. 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 you can fact check it. It's complete. Your check your bullets display. Not about whether it's place air. It's where it dispersed the air underneath his shirt. It's not underneath the shirt. This big and you're telling me it's going to hit his neck. And then it's not underneath the shirt. It starts up here in the colors moving. And then you see the wave here is he's moving backwards. No. Yeah. That's not true. It's not. And we obviously show that clip. I disagree with you. Okay. I understand you can't show it for TOS purposes. Exactly. I disagree with you. People can go watch and make up through on mine. So we don't need to debate it. Whether or not there was the first thing I said was why is his shirt moving first that didn't make sense to me. 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 entry on his neck. I would not confidently assert that I see smoke. I've never said it on my platform. Do you think that an explosion generally has smoke? 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. There's a lot of if you look at the Israeli pages, it's assumed that they it's a similar if not the same type of explosive that was used inside the pages. 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 shape charge would work. 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. For the purposes of my show, I do believe to answer your question that it is a hypothetical. I mean that it is a theory that should be thoroughly explored. There's two clips your team wants to show one of them is the Rob O'Neal clips since we're on it. So if you guys are ready in the back before we go to add break. If you want to pull it up, this is a good time to do so. There's a lot of things bother me about this. Nothing in particular. It's not like I'm out there saying big lie or conspiracy or someone did it and I'm just saying I've been in a lot of shootings. I killed more than a handful of people and this thing looked shady off the bat. I mean just I've killed people closer than I saw the camera and I've never seen a shirt move like that that looks like an explosion to me. Just the fact that no one started doing first aid to Charlie Kirk, they were more concerned about getting SIM cards out of cameras, removing cameras and then getting him off the X somehow there. Didn't seem a lot of concern for his life. It seemed like just clean it up and then I mean I've been told they paid it over a couple days later and then you get Erica Kirk behind all the razzle dazzle and she's really quick to forgive the alleged shooter, which technically says that was him because I forgive him but that you can't forgive Candace Owens for having an opinion or asking questions. And they mock people by saying, oh, I'm just asking questions. Yeah, I'm a CEO, theme six sniper. I'm asking a lot of questions, no one wants to answer him and you're able to add. There's actually said very little about the explosive there. So he's served. He said he's shot people up close and he's never seen a shirt move like that and it looked at him like an explosive. That's what he does. But when I play that video at full speed, I can't see a shirt moving. I can only see a shirt moving when we slow it way down. So if I'm in real time, I'm just assuming this, right? I mean, if I was in real time and I was in like a close quarters combat, you kill somebody's situation and I shot them, would you even see the shirt move? Well, I just feel like five 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. Yeah, but that's if you slow it down. The disbursement of air, that's where you're going to see it, right? It's going to be very quick, very, very, very, very fast. Yeah, 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. People disagree with you, your opinions on a fact, that's all I understand that's a good place for us to if you if we have another bright at break and then we can keep answering your questions. Yeah, I mean, I think. Yeah, that's good. Perfect. We'll do a quick three and a half minute at break. We'll be back for the last segment. Cool. All right. Thank you. When we set out to create a shoe that blends comfort, function and luxury, we had the choice to make it fast. We chose neither. We chose true Italian craftsmanship, each pair of touch by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail. and we chose the finest quality at every step. Introducing the Future Looks Bride collection. Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary. Rather intentional, luxurious timeless. The beautiful thing about these events? You know how quickly it goes? Like this? I've held over 10,000 business owners grow and scale their companies. And that delusion is sometimes also referred to as self-blief. When I can do something that I love, that is good for business, and I can make content out of, that's my type of factor. Hey guys and gals, Vincent O'Shanna here. So if you want to rock some faith over fear gear, hit the QR code on the screen. You'll find the link in the description. And remember guys, if you have true faith in God, you have absolutely nothing to fear. Many times when people think about value attainment, all they think about is a podcast. But it's a lot more than that. We have full stack developers that are working on Menac and hire metrics. We have a full-fledged campaign. We have a marketing department. And if you go to the Complete Office Society to build 50, 60 people making calls, working for Bitcoin consulting, sales, setters. And then on the Complete Office Society campus, there's a full-on production company with editors, shooters, creating content, doing podcasts. Then you can drive down a couple miles and go to our private boardroom, cigar lounge, with members only. Regardless of what it is working at value-taming, every day is a surprise. We are hiring aggressively, but vitalism for everybody. So, if you're watching this and you want to learn more, go to VT.com, forward slash careers, and apply now. All right, fantastic. So, Andrew, if you want to go with your last couple thoughts. Yeah, so I just have two more clips to play. And then we can do final thoughts. I'm guessing. Yeah, I feel like we got where we were trying to go, or at least for the most part. So, the two other clips, I do want to play the Twigs clip. That one is important to me, the Twigs DNA clip. Yeah. And they're going to pull it up just to have you respond to it. Well, you don't have to play it because like if you're saying that when I initially watched it, I thought that Lance Twigs is DNA. Like he was directly responding to that because the testimony was a bit confusing. They started by saying that they were going to explaining how they got the samples. And they said Lance, Matt and Amberson. Sorry, Lance, Matt and Amber Robinson, how they got their 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. 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. Well, no, this is directly you saying it is on the gun. Twigs DNA is on the gun. Yeah, 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 a demonstrate that Candice makes mistakes sometimes. When she's taking a lot of information and she's reading through legal documents and she's trying to remember nine hour testimony. It's to demonstrate something else. It is, in fact, the case, we're all going to make mistakes. I'm going to make mistakes. And I've already conceded it. You're going to make mistakes in the case. But in this case, you were very adamant that his DNA was on the gun itself. 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 against 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 Lance twigs has his DNA on the prints official DNA on the gun officially just yet. Okay. I've already conceded that. Sure. That's fine. And then the last one is one with Eric occurred. Sure. It's like the Eric occurred. All right. You could just sit down with me, Eric. We can do it this way. This goes back to a previous claim that you made. Yes, sure. I 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 will 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. So straight straight to jail. Yeah. So that's the show intro and straight to stretch deals monopoly term. Okay. So do not pass go. Yeah. Do not collect $200. Yes. It's obviously tongue in cheek and then we explain that actually I think that she should be brought in for questioning because it inconsistencies. So this is the exact episode when I started to think that she should be sat down and questioned. And I still believe that I still hold the perspective that Erica should be sat down and she should be properly questioned. Do you know that she hasn't been? No, actually, that would be a great thing for the spokesperson of turning point USA to say that she's already suffered. I mean, my guess would be she hasn't because they returned everything to her. Yeah. But why do they owe you that though? Why don't they don't owe me anything? That's my show you're watching. Just, you know, the clips that you're pulling 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 I've that ever let's have another clip. You can, but if you say like you need to be sat down for questioning and you don't even know if they haven't been. That's strange, right? Do you know if they have been? No. I have no idea. So you're just saying what if they haven't been? Yeah. If you're just fulfilling the error, if your entire thing is chunk. No, it's not junk. If the query is, why is it that Erica Kirk's not being sat down for questioning? But you have absolutely no knowledge whether or not she's been sat down for questioning or not. What that does is it creates an innuendo. It creates an inference. It creates out to the ethos that this should be happening because something's wrong here. And you actually don't have the knowledge that anything's wrong at all. I just think that my opinion is that she should be sat down in questions, but you're not sure if she hasn't been. 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. Well, to my knowledge, just like we want to 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. Great. But I'm not here to defend Erica. The thing is there was like four out of five of the clips that he 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 or I do remember something and you're saying no. And that is what I think will register to people as very clear. Well, we did not take out the context clips of Andrew to try to repressively. I mean, 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 without of contested clips to which we said to you before in an email, any clips that 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. That's not really what happened. Well, what's not what. Yeah. This, this, the way that you're framing the exchange, that's not that that's not actually what happened. It is true. We negotiated out the claim itself, right? Which one's going to take which position? I wanted to make sure that I had at least an hour and a half on mine. And you got the time for yours to question me. We did. We got through your hour and a half on mine, roughly an hour and a half now on mine. That's basically how this went. But in the beginning, I did not take an hour and a half and just pull out of context clips with Andrew. I actually baited the substance of what's going on in this trial and this hearing. And I do think that you fell, I think you fell sort of that. There's nothing out of the hang on. And I did not say, I'm just going to get you to say, yes or no, well, we were supposed to be dating to be debating the case and whether or not there was overwhelming evidence. This are your claims about the case. No, you then admitted that now you're getting into another sphere and you want to talk about the transcendent tools and things. And we got through and like four out of five of your clips are about Erica Kirk. So the general perception is your turning points horse. I think quite a few of them were there three just made it up. So you just making stuff. And we get a count of how many were about Erica. I feel like three, three. Okay. Three. I said four. But those are extraordinary claims that's which why you're asking. Okay. 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 point out yours. No, they're not claims. No, they're claims were too retarded. You go, that's just whatever. And then you move on. That's a claim that I'm responsible for the claim. Well, earlier when I brought it up, you said that it was tongue in cheek. Yes. Sure. I that's me responding to your criticism of the claim. That's all I'm doing here was interested. And and I'm happy to get into also the Patsy stuff now if you would like to. Well, that was one more clip. They won the 17 days. We were getting into the Patsy stuff and you stopped it. And I was explaining to you. Oh, they have one more clip. Okay, let's go. They want to hit the minimum of four clips you were saying with Erica. So 100% absurd. Okay. And this is the one you're saying from seven days ago. Okay. While they're looking for that, do you want to continue? Yeah. I mean, can I ask a question? I know it's been or like, can I ask a question? Are we not really? I'm just going to we're going to hold to the actual contract itself. The contract does does not say that you are allowed to just question me without me being able to respond to you. I've never said you can have a conversation. You've been able to respond to every question of asked you. And by the way, the other thing is it's like, it's up at your way. I wanted to look like we've done everything Andrew wanted to so that people can fairly assess the situation. So you have it your way. I will not ask a question totally fair with me. So are you good with her asking a question or no? He said no. Waiting for the clip. Okay. So you want to wait for the clip first. Okay. You guys have it in the back. Okay, beautiful. You need to jump ready and told me they had it. So that's what I heard. Okay. There we come all guys. Did this crime? Okay. Because Lance Twigs has his DNA on the towel. Lance Twigs has his DNA on the rifle. And to be clear, Lance Twigs's DNA was not as degraded. As Tyler Robinson's DNA was on Tyler's rifle. It's Tyler's rifle. Oh, you also said as he degraded on the rifle. Yeah, because I thought he was one of the things. But I've already 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 plans. 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. Is there any more? I'm happy to play every clip that he has on the ready? Anybody? You said you said you had some new evidence at the beginning of the. Yeah, we should show that text message that you read just because I think that's important for the public. You shared it out of context. I'll do it on my show. I'll show the. So you're going to read it on my show, but not show it. Correct. Okay. I'll show it on my show. But that's that's what I'll do. I'll show it on my. Can I ask why? Well, because I want to drip out the evidence, you know, it's got to drip out that evidence. Keep people coming back for the show, right? I don't know if Stark serves you so well. I'm just saying like, yeah, I'll release it there. Yeah, that's my intention. But yeah, I'm fine with closing because if you want to do closing. Well, I also would just if if I may ask a question, is that permitted? 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 all of them, do you think Tyler Robinson is guilty of? Do the specific charge? Yeah. Yeah. So I think what I think is that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk. Yeah, but of the seven charges that he's he's being charged. Yeah, can we list them real quick? I'll tell you exactly which ones will pull them up. Well, do you know any of the charges that he's up for right now? Yeah, of course, but I want to make sure that we have them listed. Yeah, 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 that is that's the that's the question. Yeah, 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 all right. Can you tell me one then let's do the counter you can really hang out. This is a great. No, no, you just got to ask me play clips out of context for me in the hot seat. So please just answer the question game all seven since you've been following the case. Okay, sure. You name you name one. Yeah, you name all seven. I'm happy to do that. But can you name one? I think he's I think he's been charged with murder. That's actually okay. Great. Now name all seven. He doesn't even this is like name all seven and and I you name all seven. I can't do it. Sure. You don't have to do it. No, do it. I'll count them. Go ahead. You don't have to put your fingers up. Okay. Yeah. Sure. The first charge is aggravated murder because that's what carries death sense. So murder. No, that's not that is literally not murder. Okay. And so just are people. No, don't I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on. And just to explain people the difference of why that really matters and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all is because aggravated murder. It's it's narrowly defined and because it carries a death sentence, I'm not I'm going to answer the question. Okay. How are you 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 did it. I got it. I got it. Give me the other one. The more you cut me off a long girl take, do you want to just wait for me to finish of why that's a big difference? So the people don't walk away. No, I just want you to list the charges. 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. Well, how long's it take you to list seven charges? I'm because I'm speaking. You just got to sound like you're just delaying it because you don't know. I know all seven of them. I'm going to say again, because like 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 want to know time constraint. I got one. Great. The second charge is the felony discharge of a weapon. The next two charges are for obstruction of justice. Okay. The next two charges are for witness tampering and the fine specific charges, though. That is them obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, witness tampering. Okay. There's no other specifics to them. Well, I can tell you why he's being charged. No, no, just the charges and then seven. Yeah, see if the bad thing is when you try to be an A hole and it doesn't work. What's the seventh? The last charge is violence in front of a minor. Okay. Got it. So then he's being charged with murder. You just say aggravated murder. 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 for the death sentence. And I actually find the defense is filing about why this is not aggravated to be very compelling of why it's not aggravated murder. I actually that the state was going to even try to pull this off. They should have charged him with just murder. 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 it 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. 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 think your team would like to pull up the seven charges that he just asked you about. If you guys want to pull that up just to confirm the seven you went through. Can you guys zoom in a little bit further aggravated murder felony discharge of a firearm obstruction obstruction obstruction of justice, which is count three and four five and six tampering with a witness and seven violent offense in the presence of a minor. In front of your child. Yeah. So five six tampering witness third degree felony. Now I did notice something. I just was curious about if I'm just wondering when you pulled out your phone just before you asked that question. Did somebody buy a chance to text you that question? You can check my phone. I'm just curious. No, you can absolutely not. I have not had one communication with a single person, not even my producers who are in there the soul 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? I'm just curious. You can literally do that. Here you go. PVD. You're the moderator. Take it. Let's see if anyone was texted at all during this debate. All right. That about the violent charges or anything. I'm looking through this. You give me permission. You have full permission to go through my phone. I don't need to cheat. So the last one has nothing to do with it. It's just a compliment. I haven't even read my text. That's a compliment. He's reading them. You're okay. You'll give me permission. I'm just going to read through. You'll see 1132 because after that, I don't need to read it. Any other text could have been telegram. I have a signal. You can check that too. I only have signal. Telegram. I used in Russia. That was it. I'll take your word for it. Yeah. I don't need to, like, I deeply care about this case. I don't need to pretend. If you do care about the case, I just, you know, I have my other question is, about the stake house receipt. You just said that you were not asking all your questions. Yeah, nothing to do. Yeah, do you have the stake house receipts? My question, I have said several times that I have, I have never said I have the receipt for the stake house. I have said the person who is working on that story is maybe forth coming with the receipt. And that was what I was responding to. And he then drops the receipt. He redacted elements of it. And I said, stay tuned. He's the one working on that story. Okay. So you haven't actually confirmed that Robinson was at that stake house. All I did, as I said earlier in this conversation was I spoke to the owner when I broke that story. I think it was back in January. I spoke to the owner, understood what had happened and that there was a receipt. That's it. That's the extent of what I shared is what happened. Okay. So to be clear, there's no receipt. You know, I just said the opposite. I said there is. Well, we don't have a copy of the receipt. I the receipt was published online. Yeah, right. With blurred out, the person working on this story, yeah, 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. So there's no evidence that Tyler was at that stake house. I would say the receipt with his debit card number, it would be some hard evidence if that I agree with that. But yeah, so that's it. But you're questioning me. But is there as of right now, if you're asking me, did he pay with a credit or debit card? The answer is yes. No, no, is there proof that that was actually his debit card that he paid with? I think you should follow the person that is behind that story. Well, the reason I'm asking you is because you always include it in your timeline that he traveled to the stake house. Yeah, we've been building a timeline with things that we feel are. But is there any actual evidence? No two approved, I think speaking to the owner, knowing that there's a receipt, seeing the receipt is good enough to put on our timeline. But the receipt itself, the question I always had about it is, couldn't she just call the merchant, like five paper had a merchant account? I just call the merchant account processor and say, what's the name on this? Yeah, I would stay tuned. I feel that the haven't spoken to the owner that the evidence is compelling enough to put onto my personal timeline of what took place on that day. 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. Like I said, I did more than enough. It would definitely pass the test by the Utah 1102 rule for sure. For certain. To be submitted here, say, well, yeah, beyond that, because they didn't even have receipts. They were like, Bob told me that the question, but the question is the receipt itself, it has not been verified to have been Tyler. Yeah, I just want to say you're holding me to a higher standard than you are. I'm not even holding it. I'm just casking specifically. Yeah, I've been very forthcoming. I've told exactly what happened. I spoke to the owner. I got the tip and I should that be added in an official timeline that you did in my timeline. It's my show and we can add and subtract what we want and we do. If we can do what you want, sure, but I want to make sure you include a thing that you know hasn't actually been verified to be Tyler. Yes, you should. If we're trying to build a timeline, you should, yeah, you don't think that that falls under it. And then you should remove it if you, if someone somehow debunks it, but I think that the there is very strong evidence that that is where he was and that is what's a strong evidence, just the two people who said that they saw. You know, I'm, I'm actually all good with be I feel that I've sufficiently answered your question about how I got the information, what happened next, with the next stage of this investigation, being somebody accessing his knowing what his debit card wasn't 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. Yeah. Officer, the first officer that was up on the roof. Do you remember his name? Officer Bagley. Yeah. What was his first name? Christopher. Christopher. When Christopher got up on the roof, you talk a lot about how his camera died. Well, he talked a lot about that. Yeah. About his camera died. Yeah. Do you think that he planted that screwdriver up there? No. No. Who do you think planted it? If we're just going on my, am I a lot of an opinion? Of course. At this stage, I would say that I don't buy his assertion on the stand that he didn't check to see if anybody went onto the rooftop before he got up there. I do think that it's possible. It's at least plausible that the screwdriver was planted. I don't believe him, what I can say strongly, is that his cam died at just the right time. I think that, as you were just grilling me about whether or not it's 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 again? It just seems like you. Well, I'm not adding. I'm not adding this to me. I'm not adding this to you. Well, I'm not adding this to you. I'm not adding. I'm not adding. I'm not adding. Unconfirmed evidence to an official timeline that I'm putting out either. What do you mean an official timeline? This is my timeline. I made it at home. So then it would be official to your show. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Great. So then your your official timeline, can so is official timeline, includes a steakhouse stop that has not actually been confirmed at all. Well, yeah, it hasn't even been discussed by the prosecution. So it's, it's not like you're debunking that it happened. Well, there's no, there's no evidence for it. All there's no camera there. And the steakhouse receipt itself has never been confirmed to be Tyler Robinson. I'm assuming this is just like a talking point they gave you and you got to like keep pushing this or like I've been following it very closely on. The receipt, you wouldn't, you weren't even following the charges of Tyler Robinson, but you really want to know because I think that because wait, I'm falling owners and you know that and having a conversation. You're following combo. 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 where it laps where I'm like, oh, it's murder, no, it's aggravated murder. Come on. You didn't know any of the charges. That's splitting hairs. You didn't know about hospitalized. It means you didn't follow the preliminary hearing at all. No, it doesn't mean that at all. Like you know, any of the charges against him when this is like the, this is like getting literally to the cross that murder versus murder is ridiculous. And not only that, let's point this out, one of the major things here is that this is your official timeline. It's mine. Yes. Who else is could it be? Who else? There would be. What's your issue with that? Well, so the issue is is that the entirety of the evidence revolves around two people who claim that he was there and supposedly a receipt. They're supposedly a receipt where Tyler Robinson paid for his stake and his soft drink. No alcohol, right? No alcohol, right? You know, nothing about the case. But anyway, this particular receipt, they could have called the merchant account, confirmed it, this type of thing to date. This receipt has only the blurred information on it that would actually give you the information to confirm who's received it is. We have today, nobody has confirmed that this was actually Tyler Robinson's receipt and yet inside of Candace Owens timeline, which he states over and over again when she says, this is the longest 13 hours. This is 13 and a half hours. The requirement for about what, roughly five and a half or six hours of that is that he went to the stake house. And so, and that's not been confirmed at all, not even a little bit. I feel like saying that I spoke to the owner of the stake house is me, like not just being on ex-looking at opinions, but actually doing the leg work. 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, 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, you know, obviously took down everything he said. I noted that there was, in fact, a receipt that he pulled, that receipt that was published Israel, 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, I'm happy you're moving from my timeline. But for right now, 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 my time. I don't know why the 1102 rule would apply here for years. Because you were constantly cite things that are said in that courtroom that have less evidentiary support than me contacting and speaking with the owner of the restaurant. That's not like I dreamed it as a user expression, so it's in my timeline and I'm going to keep it there. Sure. You can keep whatever you want there. I'm just saying that there's no evidence he was ever there. Okay. Thank you. No hard evidence anyway. We have our time closing. Okay. So the last thing we're going to do before we go into ad break right after this will be final thoughts. I'll be asking both of you if anything, if anything on your opinion, thoughts changed on the case and then we'll finish it up from there. So with that being said, a three and a half been a break and it will come back for final thoughts. When we set out to create a shoe that blends comfort, function and luxury, we had the choice to make it fast, we had the choice to make it cheap, we chose neither. Instead, we chose task and error. We chose true Italian craftsmanship, each paired touch by 50 skilled hands. We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail and we chose the finest quality at every step. We're introducing the future looks by collection. You know how quickly it goes like this. When you get guys like Jerry Rajman, that was his work ethic. When I can do something that I love that is good for business and I can make content out of, that's my trifecta. Hey guys and gals Vincent Oshana here. So if you want to rock some faith over fear gear, hit the QR code on the screen or click on the link in the description. We have full stack developers that are working on Manak and hire metrics. Then if you go to the Complete Office Society to build 50, 60 people making calls, working for Bediva Consulting, sales, setters. Then he can drive down a couple miles and go to our private boardroom, cigar lounge, with members only. To could be walking into work and right next to you is a governor, is a billionaire, is an athlete. All right, we are finally at the end for those of you that are watching it. Maybe a good commentary for you would be the following on, if you're a Andrew Fan. And you still are still saying, you know what? Andrew's arguments were solid, great, Candice, great. But did anything change your mind? Did you watch and say, you know what? I had this position over here. This would be an interesting commentary to hear. And of course, for all the people that are watching, I was just whispering to them here before we wrap it up. I think whether you're a fan of Andrew or not, whether you're a fan of Candice or not, nobody can dispute the fact that these guys agree to sit down and talk live. Others were thinking this was pre-recorded. This is not pre-recorded, just everybody knows. This is purely live. This is a little bit scarier than pre-recorded. Because pre-recorded can do edit. So whether you agree with them or not, let's make sure we respect both of them for having this sit down. And before the final thoughts, I want to make sure you guys hear that from me as well. For inviting me to meet you as well. Of course. I do know one day, I think it was last week, you sent a message on one of our accounts. It's like, can I talk to Patrick? We got on the call. You said, Patrick, can you moderate this? And I said, great, let's do this. And so before we wrap up, final thoughts, I'll come to you first. Yes, she had nothing. Just nothing. Any for all of her claims of Patsy, nothing. She didn't have a single claim. She didn't have a single solid piece of evidence. She had no positive evidence. Israel's involved in anything. No positive evidence that France is involved in anything. No positive evidence. TPUSA is involved in anything. No positive evidence that Erica Kirk is involved in anything. When I ask her about her claims about Erica Kirk, yeah, she's fun. It's just fun and you know, or yeah, I do think that she needs to sit down and ask some questions, but or answer some questions. But you know what? I don't even know if she has. Like, maybe she has. I have no idea. Yes, I'm going to have an official timeline with unconfirmed evidence. That's just fine. Hey, it's, it's hearsay. If that's good enough for the state, it's good enough for me. But my biggest problem with the state is that they're admitting all this hearsay. It's like, she's a contradiction machine. On top of all of this, the thing that I wanted to get out of this more than anything else was to just demonstrate one thing. Yes, it's true. I'm not perfect on the case. I'm not going to ever pretend that I am and never did. But what has been very, made very clear to me is that there's nobody with an alternative theory that has any evidence for it at all. None. Zero. And the continuous kind of expression. We're running an investigation. What kind of investigation builds a timeline now on a, on a receipt that they don't even confirm. What kind of investigation tries to make these bold claims that Israel's involved and France is involved and all these different players are involved and never shows any evidence. We're just asking questions. It's my, it's again, like I said, my opening. It's always intuition, my feelings, how I feel about things, how I think about things. Andrew, how many times you hear this today? Andrew, you can't tell me how I'm supposed to think. Yeah, nobody's trying to tell you how to think. But you should rationally come to your conclusions based on evidence and facts. And the truth is, is that 90% of what you're saying is simply intuition based. It's, it did. It came to me in a dream. It's intuition. Almost none of it has any evidence at all. Just I'm skeptical because these people over here said things. And that makes me skeptical. It's like, but no evidence. Note this to the audience to everybody watching. You might hate my gods. That's fair enough. I get that. I'm not the most likable man. I understand that too. But there was nothing. I mean, no evidence at all that Tyler Robinson was a Patsy that was ever put forward by Candace this entire debate. Now, maybe you could say that we stalemated when it came to whether or not Robinson did it. She says, I found the evidence convincing. Unconvincing Andrew says he found the evidence convincing. Okay, fair enough. Maybe you can't do too much about that. She had nothing for Robinson being a Patsy. Nothing for any of her conspiracies. Not a zero, zilch. And she backed away on a bunch of them. This is the first time I think she's ever really backed away from the Twigs thing. First time I haven't heard her back away from the Erica thing back away from TPSA. Being very cautious about making any of those claims now. Where's on her show? Much more likely to be making those claims. So she just had nothing to be entire debate. Zero. Candace. Well, I think that is quite a conclusion. Admitting somewhere, maybe we still made it. 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 evidence, which I was willing to engage with you. I wanted to go over the screwdriver. I wanted to go over the tile and the things that you've mentioned. And you wanted to then move the conversation into a defense of Erica Kirk and her character. And what I've said about Erica, which is my opinion. And I have not edited that opinion after discussing with you. 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 Mason 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. 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. 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 to talk about this penguins per se and my timeline. I want to remind people that a lot of the at-home investigators which you were open to as you call them internet sleuths. I think it was on a show that you did right after Charlie was assassinated, that internet sleuths would solve this. 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 finding out what the truth is here. My heart is in the right place. I think anybody who watches my show or even just watch this debate knows that if I get something wrong, I'll instantly correct it and own it. I'm not arrogant. I don't need to sit here and pretend that I didn't misspeak on the Lansing. It hasn't been ruled out. But you saw that he just really wanted to hammer that point. 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. I want to thank Andrew's team who are providing the fact checks. It's a very small room that they're in. I want to, as always, thank my team who worked really hard to make this happen and flip this set. And for, to you, a 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 I'm very content with how I dealt with this. And I, well, 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. Beautiful, fair from both of you. I think the audience won. And again, from the beginning, all of this is because of how much love and respect we have for Charlie Kirk, a great man that's no longer here with us. His one year anniversary is coming up here. I can't believe it's that quick that is here. The audience, I think you also, one, if you did support the crucible support, the Candace show support, the PBD podcast, subscribe to the channel. This is how you help these voices get out even more, especially going into future when this happens. You want a lot of independent creators to have these steps of discussions. And last but not least, the two of you, I respect you guys again for having this conversation. It is not easy to do so. Hopefully, this will lead to more discussions. A lot of different things we talked about. I'm sure there will be a lot of follow up with that being said. Take everybody. God bless. Have a great weekend. Bye.