THE GREAT DEBATE! Candace Owens vs. Andrew Wilson Full Debate, Luigi Mangione, Nolan Wells

[5:31] Happy Friday, y'all. [5:57] Happy Friday, everybody. [5:59] It's Friday. [6:00] Good morning. [6:02] Good morning. [6:03] Good morning. [6:03] Good morning. [6:04] Good morning. [6:04] Good morning. [6:04] Good afternoon. [6:06] Good evening. [6:08] Welcome to the Pascal Show. [6:10] Hope you guys are all doing well out there. [6:11] Hope this show finds you in great spirits because another day above the dirt is always what? [6:16] It's always a blessing, y'all. [6:18] Let's not forget that. [6:19] We got something very interesting going on. [6:21] You know, I didn't see about this. [6:23] I didn't know about this until I woke up this morning. [6:26] I know some of y'all were asking if I got some sleep. [6:29] No, I didn't get any sleep, actually, to be completely honest. [6:33] But it is what it is. [6:34] All right. [6:35] There's a lot going on. [6:38] There's a lot to talk about today. [6:40] There are several things in motion all at the same doggone time. [6:46] I'm not kidding. [6:47] Everything's going at the same damn time. [6:50] At the same damn time. [6:52] At the same damn time. [6:53] It's insane. [6:54] It's insane. [6:55] Welcome to Fridays. [6:57] Welcome to a Friday. [6:58] Right? [6:59] So, please do me a favor before we get into everything. [7:01] And I'll explain everything in just a little bit. [7:03] So, please do me a favor. [7:05] Hit that like button down below. [7:07] Crush it. [7:07] Do it. [7:07] Do it. [7:07] Do it. [7:08] Hit that reaction button if you're watching on these other platforms. [7:10] If you are watching on these other platforms like Facebook, X slash Twitter, Instagram, [7:13] TikTok, Rumble, Twitch, Kick. [7:15] I'm on all them mugs. [7:16] So, make sure you hit that follow button on those platforms. [7:21] Be sure to subscribe. [7:23] If you're watching over on Twitch, make sure you hit that subscription. [7:26] That would be greatly, greatly appreciated. [7:28] All right? [7:29] Don't forget to subscribe right here on my YouTube channel. [7:31] Right here. [7:32] Go to my second channel, The Pascal Show Clips. [7:34] Check out Pascal Shorts. [7:39] It's a third channel. [7:40] Brand new third channel that we are doing. [7:43] So, go check that out if you can. [7:46] That would be greatly appreciated. [7:48] All right? [7:49] Hit that notification bell on all those platforms so you know whenever I go live, whenever I [7:52] upload, because honestly, it is random. [7:54] Hit that join button down below. [7:55] Become a member. [7:56] Support this channel. [7:58] Can you please support the channel? [8:00] If you appreciate me giving you the news, talking about things that are going on in the [8:03] world and all that stuff, yes. [8:06] Hit that join button. [8:09] All right? [8:10] Check out my Patreon, and also check out pascalmerch.com. [8:14] pascalmerch.com. [8:15] We got some really great stuff over there. [8:16] Go check it out. [8:18] pascalmerch.com. [8:19] Okay, anyway. [8:22] All right, guys. [8:23] Well, here's the thing. [8:25] As you see in the thumbnail, there's a lot of faces in this thumbnail. [8:28] There's a lot going on today. [8:30] First off, Alec Murdoch, okay, is back in the courtroom right now. [8:37] He has a lot of things that he's trying to get dropped. [8:40] In fact, he's trying to drop the indictments of him being alleged of taking the life of [8:46] his wife and his son. [8:48] Okay? [8:49] Maggie. [8:50] Pawpaw. [8:51] He is now trying to get all of that erased. [8:55] Okay? [8:56] Reversed. [8:56] So, there's a preliminary hearing going on right now as we speak. [9:01] So, we're going to keep an eye on that. [9:03] All right? [9:03] Then, we also have Luigi. [9:06] Luigi Mangione. [9:09] He is also in federal court right now. [9:13] And there's speculation that he is going to, let's just say, take a plea deal and say that [9:20] he's guilty for possibly a lesser sentence. [9:24] So, we're waiting on that as well. [9:26] And that's a federal case that's going on in federal court. [9:29] So, there's no cameras going on inside the courtroom. [9:33] But, hopefully very soon, we'll be hearing whether or not he took a plea deal or if he's [9:38] going to stick it out and fight. [9:40] And that, maybe next month, we'll be seeing a whole trial going on for Luigi Mangione. [9:47] So, that's what's also going on as well. [9:49] Then, we got this thing that's going on today, right now, as we speak. [9:55] And, of course, I'm like, yo, we might as well watch this while we are waiting for more [9:59] information. [10:00] And, of course, we still have some Nolan Wells conversations that we need to have and all [10:05] that, too. [10:05] But, one thing is for sure. [10:09] There's a huge debate going on with the Charlie Kirk case as far as whether or not Tyler Robinson [10:16] had something to do with this or not. [10:17] There are a lot of people out here that believe that Tyler Robinson is not the right guy. [10:23] One of those people happens to be Candace Owens. [10:26] Candace Owens believes that he's the fall guy. [10:30] He's the scapegoat. [10:31] He has nothing to do with this. [10:33] Okay? [10:34] That he has been framed. [10:38] Right? [10:40] And there's another guy on the other side of the situation who believes that Tyler Robinson [10:46] is the guy. [10:48] That there is without question. [10:50] No reason to ask any questions about whether or not he did this because he did do this. [10:56] His name is Andrew Wilson. [11:03] So, he's kind of like on the side of like Team TPUSA for lack of a better term. [11:09] Okay? [11:10] So, there's been a lot of back and forth between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson to the point [11:19] where Andrew Wilson finally said, you know what, girl? [11:23] I am willing to sit down with you. [11:26] I will pay you for a debate. [11:29] Or, the powers that be will pay you just so you can have a debate with me live. [11:36] So, this is what's happening right now as we speak. [11:40] It's live right now as we speak. [11:41] Okay? [11:42] So, we're several minutes behind. [11:45] But we are going to watch this. [11:48] Because we have got to see what's going on. [11:50] And I'm just kind of curious. [11:51] I want to see what Candace Owens says. [11:54] A now pregnant Candace Owens. [11:56] Congratulations to Candace Owens. [11:57] But she is, you know, I want to see how she's going to react and how she's going to answer [12:03] to what a lot of people on the opposing side think, which is Tyler Robinson is the guy [12:10] and that he should go down for what he has done. [12:15] She truly believes. [12:16] This is the hill that she's willing to die on. [12:18] She believes that Tyler Robinson is not the guy. [12:22] And that this is one big cover-up by TPUSA. [12:25] And she's been side-eyeing the hell out of Erica Kirk. [12:29] We all been known that. [12:31] All right? [12:32] But now we finally have a debate going on between these two. [12:37] Basically, Team Tyler Robinson or Team TPUSA. [12:44] Get it? [12:46] And Patrick Bet-David is the moderator for this particular debate. [12:55] I just want to see if it crashes and burns. [12:58] I want to see if she crashes and burns. [13:00] I want to see if Andrew Wilson crashes and burns. [13:05] You got to remember, these are two conservatives that have two completely different opinions [13:09] about what happened to a very well-known conservative. [13:14] So this is a very, very wild case that has definitely split. [13:18] It has splintered the conservative realm, MAGA and all that. [13:24] It's been insane. [13:25] Not only like, you know, there's other things that have splintered MAGA. [13:28] And those are other conversations that we'll have another time. [13:31] But I do find it very interesting that you got these two different people that think completely [13:37] different things. [13:38] And they're both on the same side in a way. [13:42] So without further ado, let's take a listen and take a look at this debate that's already [13:49] in action. [13:53] All right? [13:53] So definitely hit the like button down below, please. [13:57] And thank you. [13:58] I'm sure this is going to be a very, very interesting conversation. [14:04] And I am going to speed it up just a little bit so we can catch up to the live because [14:08] this is live right now as we speak. [14:11] And definitely put your comments, put in your comments. [14:14] Do you think that, you know, are you on the side of Candace Owens? [14:18] Do you believe that Tyler Robinson is not the guy? [14:21] Or are you on the other side? [14:25] Do you believe that Tyler Robinson is the guy? [14:28] Definitely comment down below. [14:29] I'm sure I'll put up a poll here in just a little bit. [14:32] But let's mother love and rock and roll, shall we? [14:35] And let me know, is she handling herself very well? [14:38] Or is she crashing and burning? [14:41] And this is the same thing that goes for Andrew Wilson as well. [14:45] Are we live? [14:46] Okay, so we're officially live. [14:48] Candace, Andrew, you know, good to sit down here with you talking to you guys about the [14:52] conversation that I think started with you being on Joe Rogan when you said, hey, I'm [14:55] offering $300,000. [14:56] And for the audience watching this, you have to know when you see this final product, there's [14:59] a lot of stuff that happens behind closed doors. [15:01] There was still communication till midnight, even some of the stuff this morning. [15:04] Like, it's like you're trying to sell a company. [15:05] It's the last 24 hours that the deal doesn't work out. [15:07] But kudos to the both of you guys that you made it work. [15:10] The topic of discussion today, how this got prompted is, Andrew, you said there's overwhelming [15:14] evidence that Tyler Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk. [15:17] And Candace, your position was he's a patsy. [15:20] Tyler Robinson is a patsy. [15:21] Of course, we'll talk about a lot of different things, but that's kind of how the whole thing [15:23] got started for the audience watching. [15:25] I think this is truly for three different people. [15:28] Number one is anybody out there that loves Charlie, respects Charlie, his legacy, what [15:31] he did. [15:32] We have a lot of love and admiration for what he did. [15:34] He changed the lives of many people, young men, young women. [15:37] You work with him for many years. [15:38] You guys were friends. [15:39] You've said a lot of good things about Charlie, respectful towards him. [15:41] You guys may have disagreed on something, but you got a lot of respect for him. [15:43] The second audience is the folks out there, you that's watching this. [15:47] And so for you, you've been wanting something like this to take place. [15:50] And kudos for Andrew for coming out and saying, hey, I want to have this conversation and [15:53] for Candace to accept it. [15:55] So you have the ability to say, I agree. [15:57] I disagree. [15:58] Comment to all the stuff that you're doing online. [15:59] And if you want to see more of these things, any of the three channels, subscribe to him [16:02] the Candace show, the Crucible. [16:04] I'm sure some of the people from Crucible are watching as well in the PBD podcast. [16:07] The more you subscribe to this, the more we're able to deliver these types of conversations [16:10] to you. [16:10] And last but not least, it's about the two of you. [16:12] Just so you know, I did speed this up, okay? [16:15] I sped it up so we can catch up to the actual live, okay? [16:19] Which is already 18 minutes in. [16:22] They're already 18 minutes into this live, just so you know. [16:25] My goal is to speak as little as possible. [16:27] 99% of the time, it'll be you guys speaking and the audience will be able to see it. [16:30] If I jump in, just so everybody knows on the back end, both have agreed. [16:33] In the back, there's three people representing Andrew and three people representing Candace to [16:38] do fact checking. [16:38] At any point, if somebody makes a claim, the other can say, can we fact check this? [16:42] I can jump in and say, fact check this. [16:43] Even the folks in the back can say, fact check this. [16:45] So it is a very fair conversation that we're having here. [16:48] And so with that being said, kudos to Michael Knowles. [16:50] Your name was mentioned a lot. [16:52] You missed out right now. [16:52] The last 10 minutes, we talked about you. [16:54] There's a lot of love and respect here mutually from both parties, all three of them here. [16:57] And then, of course, the great Joe Rogan that started this conversation. [16:59] And he also volunteered, but it ended up being this format that we have here today. [17:03] So with that being said, Andrew, your claim is overwhelming evidence that Tyler [17:08] Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. [17:10] Opening statements, opening comments. [17:12] Sure. [17:12] And what I mean by overwhelming is I just find it very convincing. [17:15] That's I think that's what most people mean when they say overwhelming evidence. [17:18] So I have a brief opening statement. [17:20] On September 10th, 2025, Charlie Kirk was murdered. [17:23] Oh, boy. [17:24] Many of you already know a lot about the events which occurred after Kirk's death. [17:27] You remember the ghoulish laughter, celebrations and madness we saw from leftists all over from [17:30] TikTok invasions, debates, posts on social media, destruction of memorials and things like [17:34] this. [17:35] Within weeks of Kirk's death, a cottage industry began to form, peddling various alternative [17:40] theories on how he died, what special interests may have killed him, what nations were involved [17:45] and was our own government one of them? [17:47] Because this was the first nationwide traumatic event in Gen Z's lifetime, the demand for answers [17:53] was severe and palpable. [17:55] The leading theory from the conspiracy verse is that Israel worked with the United States [17:59] government to murder Charlie Kirk. [18:01] Within a day or two of Kirk's death, Ian Carroll claimed that Israel killed Charlie Kirk. [18:04] And the conspiracy caught on like wildfire. [18:07] This theory was built on one misleading piece of evidence that in his final days on around [18:11] September 8th, Charlie sent a text message reading, Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. [18:16] I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel [18:20] cause. [18:21] This was sent in the context of a platforming dispute regarding Tucker Carlson. [18:24] From this scintilla of misleading information, it was speculated that Israel killed Charlie [18:27] Kirk because he would have successfully opposed the Iranian war. [18:31] Now, that's a fun theory. [18:32] And who doesn't like a good fun conspiracy theory? [18:34] I like him, but there is no evidence that Israel actually killed Charlie Kirk. [18:38] And if Candace has some, I'd like her to actually show it to me. [18:40] I'm open to suggestions, but to date, there hasn't been any. [18:43] There is, however, tons of evidence that a leftist killed Charlie Kirk. [18:46] This is Charlie feared they would. [18:47] I believe Charlie Kirk and I have the receipts. [18:50] No, I didn't have a dream where he came to me and told me that the left killed him. [18:54] No, he didn't come to me a dream and say, Candace Owens betrayed him. [18:58] Damn, shots fired. [18:59] In fact, I don't need dreams of any kind because I hold my possession ever before seen messages [19:02] from Charlie Kirk to his security team on September 9th, 2025. [19:06] I'm going to share the message with you today, which is the first time this information has [19:09] ever been publicly revealed. [19:11] On September 9th, Charlie's security team wrote to him. [19:13] Yes, law enforcement has been fully supportive and agreed to a security plan and posture. [19:18] Tomorrow's event will be covered by both my team and the campus PD. [19:21] If additional support is required, patrol units will be available. [19:23] I have 11 on site. [19:24] Charlie responded with this. [19:26] Okay, great. [19:26] Remind them that they are there for one person's security only because I'm somewhat worried [19:32] the left is trying to kill me. [19:35] That was a message sent September 9th. [19:39] Whatever could he have meant by that? [19:41] Well, I think he meant exactly what he said, that he was worried the left was going to try [19:45] to kill him. [19:46] Now, we'll discuss this more later on in the debate, and maybe I have more never-before-seen [19:49] evidence that exposes just how wrong and, in my opinion, idiotic many of these conspiracy [19:54] theories have been. [19:56] But that's what happens when you rely on what's called the evidence of the gaps. [19:59] In other words, they don't have evidence. [20:01] They seem to just make up evidence. [20:02] And what did they make up? [20:03] Well, in my opinion, kind of whatever line the pockets. [20:07] And I think it's ghoulish to profit off of the death of a good man. [20:10] But we came here today to debate, and so let's get to it. [20:13] The debate topic today is, one, my belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler [20:16] Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. [20:17] And two, Candace's belief that there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson was a patsy and [20:21] didn't kill Charlie Kirk. [20:22] In some, the audience is going to decide who has more evidence supporting their theory. [20:26] My theory is that the state is correct that Tyler Robinson is a killer, at least based [20:28] on evidence so far. [20:29] Candace's theory that Tyler Robinson is not the killer, and he's a patsy set up by the [20:33] feds. [20:34] To be clear, this is not a question of reasonable doubt. [20:36] If it was reasonable doubt, and that's all it was, and that's all Candace was proffering, [20:40] I wouldn't even be here having the debate with her. [20:42] It's fair to have doubts, as a trial has yet to occur. [20:44] And the state hasn't even begun to try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. [20:47] But Candace makes a more forceful claim. [20:50] She claims that there's more evidence that Tyler is not guilty of murder and was set up as a [20:54] patsy than there is for the state's case. [20:56] And I just think that that's absurd. [20:57] And she will not be able to demonstrate that in any way. [21:00] In fact, she has almost no real evidence at all of her theory, whereas my theory is supported [21:03] by compelling witness testimony, physical evidence, multiple confessions, all of which [21:07] are independently compelling, but which are even more convincing as each piece of evidence [21:10] corroborates the others. [21:12] You'll notice the term overwhelming was included in both theories. [21:14] This is because Candace demanded I defend my use of that term, which I think is fair, [21:19] in describing the evidence against Tyler Robinson. [21:20] She, on the other hand, only wanted to defend her theory as merely viable. [21:23] That is, until I showed her clips in which she said she believed the evidence of her theory [21:26] that Tyler Robinson's patsy was supported by overwhelming evidence. [21:30] Only then did she agree to defend that position. [21:32] Regardless, we're both defending the claim there's overwhelming evidence on our side, [21:35] so it's worth defining that term. [21:37] When I say the evidence against Robinson's overwhelming, all I'm saying is that I mean [21:40] that as of right now, I find it very convincing. [21:43] I see almost no evidence at all, only speculation on verified claims and suggestions of things [21:47] that could merely be hypothetically possible. [21:49] Dreams, vibes, feelings, things like this. [21:51] Almost done, by the way. [21:52] I have no problem defending the state's case and welcome Candace bringing up any challenges [21:55] she would like, but if I'm honest, the reason I was willing to pay the $300,000 for this [21:59] debate was to finally have a chance for someone to demand Candace be held accountable for [22:02] the unbelievable theories and claims she's been making. [22:05] Candace's investigation is indistinguishable from a leftist operation. [22:08] She couldn't be doing more damage to the right if she were trying. [22:11] She uses her considerable platform to relentlessly attack one of the most influential conservative [22:14] outreach organizations for young people, and she's making a mockery of the online [22:18] right-wing commentary class. [22:19] She's harming Republicans in an election year by dividing them. [22:21] She's attacking the very organization Charlie spent his life building, and she's attacking [22:25] the people he loved, including his wife. [22:27] And it cost me $300,000. [22:28] But today, I hope that she finally answers for some of that. [22:31] Thank you, Andrew. [22:32] Candace, hold on. [22:33] She got it out of your system. [22:34] I did. [22:34] Hold on, hold on. [22:35] First off, first off, I wonder if she's going to respond or like have a freaking written [22:41] statement as well, because that's ridiculous. [22:43] I mean, I mean, you know, he had to get all of his stuff out of his system, I guess, just [22:47] like she said. [22:47] Did he get it out all out? [22:49] Did he get it out? [22:50] But here's the thing. [22:51] She's getting paid $300,000. [22:55] Do you realize how angry, how mad and salty I am right now? [22:59] $300,000 mother-loving dollars, y'all. [23:05] $300,000 to be here, to just sit down and have this debate. [23:13] She's already winning just off of that. [23:16] She's $300,000 richer because she has her own theory. [23:22] I'm sorry. [23:23] This is, oh, see, exactly, Tyson, easy $300,000 for her. [23:32] Here's the thing. [23:33] It doesn't even matter if she wins or loses. [23:34] She already won. [23:36] She's $300,000 richer. [23:38] He basically begged to have this. [23:41] At first, it was like, I think they dropped like $100,000 at first. [23:45] I think that's the start of it all. [23:47] He's like, I'm willing to sit down and I will drop $100,000 just so we can have this conversation. [23:54] And she said, hell no. [23:54] And now she finally agreed to do it after somebody said, hey, $300,000. [24:03] So she's already won this debate. [24:06] It doesn't matter if she leaves with her head. [24:10] She will leave with her head held high because she's still making $300,000. [24:15] You understand? [24:16] He's $300,000 poorer because he's the one who's forking over the money to her just so he can have this debate. [24:29] All right. [24:31] That's just crazy. [24:32] But let's see what's going on. [24:34] Like I said, this is all sped up. [24:36] All right. [24:37] Okay. [24:37] So just deal with it. [24:39] We're trying to catch up to the thing. [24:40] So I'm going to stop talking and let it cook for a while. [24:43] Okay, great. [24:43] 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. [24:46] And I will just speak to the audience. [24:48] I have obviously had an audience since we've been covering this case. [24:52] 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. [25:03] These are people who are just trying to generate clicks. [25:06] I don't think that people should be satisfied by that. [25:08] I want people to remember that it's important to think. [25:10] We've been lied to by the government a great many times over, I mean, just the last couple of years, if you just think of the things that we've learned about our government. [25:16] And I do want to say this, what's been the most disturbing element, I think, for everyone is that not only does the narrative not make any sense, which I'm going to demonstrate, I need to waste time with the preamble going through the points or trying to insult you or pretending that I've been running a podcast saying it's just dreams and vibes like I miss Cleo. [25:30] And that's the reason why it's taking so many influencers. [25:33] It looks like a billion dollar industry of influencers to dispute everything Candace says. [25:37] It's not because I'm on my platform saying I had a dream last night. [25:39] I don't think that that I think that diminishes you as an argument. [25:42] Obviously, we have presented a lot of evidence. [25:44] You just presented a text message and said this is evidence. [25:46] Well, that's how this entire thing began. [25:48] You're talking about how Israel got into the conversation. [25:50] 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. [25:56] 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. [26:06] But nobody was having that thought that I can remember. [26:08] Nobody was going, I wonder if Bibi Netanyahu killed Charlie Kirk. [26:11] And then we had a round of influencers who lied and said Charlie was not changing on Israel, that he wasn't having any disagreements regarding that topic, that the day he died, he just loved Israel so much. [26:22] And I demonstrated via text message, which you just mentioned, and you're now contextualizing and pretending it was just about Tucker Carlson, which is not true. [26:29] 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. [26:38] And so, yeah, when all of these things happen, the immediate aftermath, and then I drop a text message after everyone is denying that, Tucker Carlson then comes out and confirms the conversations that he had with Charlie. [26:47] Megyn Kelly then comes out and confirms the private conversations that she had with Charlie. [26:51] People then begin to ask a reasonable question, which is why are we lying about this? [26:55] If they were forthcoming with that and they had said, hey, yeah, Charlie was starting to ask questions. [27:01] I think after October 7th, it's reasonable that people are starting to reexamine our relationship with Israel. [27:06] We wouldn't be here today, but it has been lie after lie after lie, debunk after debunk after debunk. [27:11] Yes, I did share that I had a dream that Charlie was betrayed. [27:14] It's not a dream anymore. [27:15] It's a reality. [27:16] 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 hadn't speak to Charlie since 2018, and it begins to look like a conspiracy. [27:25] And just as a historical fact, that entire term was created by the CIA to gaslight people after the assassination of JFK. [27:31] So it's not exactly one that makes me nervous. [27:34] Like calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is essentially saying that they demand further answers. [27:38] They're not accepting the Fed slop. [27:39] So I'm grateful that you came today. [27:41] I don't need to, like I said, take cheap shots and discuss your manner of debate or your strategy. [27:46] And I'm also grateful that you shared that you had that text message today because everybody watching knows that I have been demanding not a debate, just an open conversation with Turning Point USA. [27:54] They should be here. [27:54] It shouldn't be you in that chair. [27:55] It should be the person that took Charlie's place, maybe Erica Kirk, maybe Andrew Colbert. [27:58] He's a spokesperson. [27:59] And rather than doing that, they sent us another influencer. [28:02] So let's see how it goes. [28:04] Damn. [28:04] Just out of curiosity, are you between 0 to 100, what is it likely that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed him? [28:09] Hold on, hold on. [28:10] We're going to hear what he has to say, but damn. [28:14] Damn, y'all. [28:15] Damn. [28:15] Just out of curiosity, are you between 0 to 100, what is it likely that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed him? [28:20] Based on the evidence right now, I don't know. [28:23] I'd say 75, 85 percent. [28:25] Candace? [28:26] 0 percent. [28:27] 0 percent. [28:27] I'm at 0. [28:28] With what we've seen in terms of the evidence, I'm at 0 percent. [28:30] So not only, you know, that maybe somebody was behind him as a patsy influencing him, you're not even saying that he didn't even shoot Charlie Kirk. [28:36] Right, if you said, was he involved that day, as I have consistently said on my platform, I would say yes, he was. [28:41] I don't know what role he played, but as the shooter, 0 percent. [28:44] Do you have any evidence for it? [28:45] For what? [28:46] My percentage? [28:47] The fact that he didn't, he didn't shoot and kill Charlie Kirk. [28:49] Yes, which I'm hoping we're going to get to all of the evidence that he feels that he has. [28:53] I mean, I don't, I'm not even convinced that Charlie was shot from the rooftop on Losey that day, based on the evidence that has been. [28:59] Do you think he was shot? [29:00] I do not think that Charlie was shot from a 30-06. [29:04] Yeah, I've just shot at all. [29:05] Thank you, Brenda. [29:06] I don't know. [29:06] I think that a projectile hit Charlie, and I'm open to other people's presentations, but I have not seen any compelling evidence that Charlie was shot by a 30-06. [29:15] 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? [29:21] Yeah, sure. [29:22] Okay. [29:22] So, you don't, you're not sure if he was actually shot? [29:26] You're open to alternative theories? [29:27] He was definitely hit with a projectile of some description. [29:29] If we're talking about, was he shot from a gun, a 30-06, I would say definitively no. [29:34] Okay. [29:34] 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 Valhalla steel cages and shot it, and it went through. [29:46] So, under no circumstance, well, I... [29:48] So, at least not a 30-06. [29:50] Definitively not. [29:50] Okay. [29:51] A 30-06, or low C, 150 feet, no. [29:53] But you're not necessarily closing off the avenue that he could have been shot at all? [29:55] With maybe a smaller... [29:56] Smaller caliber? [29:57] Okay. [29:58] 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. [30:04] And we can get to those things as well. [30:05] 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? [30:15] Yes. [30:15] In the timeline, is that correct? [30:16] Yes. [30:16] Okay. [30:17] And what's the compelling evidence that you think you have there? [30:20] I spoke to the owner of the restaurant, and I've seen the receipt. [30:24] I know the conversation that I had, and I think it's enough that, you know, it will be presented, obviously, if this goes to trial. [30:31] But, yes, I do believe that he was in Panguage, which is near his grandparents' home. [30:34] Did he give you an unedited copy of that receipt? [30:37] I have seen an unedited copy of that receipt. [30:38] It was not given to me from the owner. [30:40] But I want to... [30:40] 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. [30:45] Well, I think that that's a piece of evidence that's in dispute, and that's why I'm... [30:48] Yeah, but we're trying to get to whether there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did this. [30:52] Yeah, if you want to use the first part of that for the internal critique for you, that's fine. [30:55] Yeah, we should go over the actual evidence that we feel... [30:58] Okay, so the first reason that I think it's compelling evidence is that Tyler Robinson's rifle was found near the crime scene. [31:04] So I would consider that to be very good evidence. [31:07] And also the fact of the matter is that I dispute this claim that a .30-06 could not have made this wound. [31:12] I think that that's absurd. [31:13] A 150-grain Remington core lock absolutely could shatter when it hits the neck of any human being. [31:19] When you say that there's some steel neck and it's a smaller caliber, you have to make a counter-explanation. [31:23] Why wouldn't a smaller caliber also go through bone? [31:25] It could. I didn't say it can't. [31:26] Right, exactly. [31:27] So if that's the case, then ammunition is going to be the critical key here. [31:31] And if we have frangible ammunition, which we do in this case, a flex-dip round... [31:34] Well, I'm sorry, not a flex-dip, a soft-point round from a 150-grain Remington core lock, [31:38] that's just a small jacket that goes around the actual lead piece. [31:41] This thing could have split apart in air, for all we know, but definitely upon impact. [31:45] And we have the medical examiner who confirms this in a summary. [31:48] My team can bring that up, the summarization, which means he would have to be a part of some kind of conspiracy as well. [31:52] Okay, so just to start with your point about saying that the gun was found near him. [31:56] I mean, near Losey Center, or I guess off in the woods. [32:00] That gun, did you watch the testimony? [32:03] Did you watch the preliminary hearing? [32:04] Yeah, we covered it live. [32:04] 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 Karner, any of those people who went into the science of... [32:15] Yes, I recall. [32:16] You're talking about... [32:17] The bullet analysis. [32:18] Yeah, when they went into the DNA. [32:19] Okay, so that's kind of the most relevant part. [32:21] Okay. [32:21] 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? [32:27] That doesn't remove it. [32:28] If you think somebody set up as a patsy, you could take a gun out of this room right now, and you could walk out and plant it in the woods near a crime scene. [32:34] I agree. [32:34] That's not convincing evidence to me. [32:35] I concur with the fact that that's a possibility. [32:37] So you are, you, I think, have said on a platform that you were a gunsmith? [32:41] Mm-hmm. [32:42] Okay, and for how many years? [32:43] Many, many years. [32:44] For many years. [32:44] You also said that you were an army sniper? [32:46] I wasn't a sniper in the army. [32:47] Okay. [32:48] And I never said that. [32:48] You could take a gun out of this room right now, and you could walk out and plant it in the woods near a crime scene. [32:52] Like 15 years ago, she said, so I agree. [32:53] Does it change 15 years later? [32:54] She said that it was colloquial, so. [32:56] Army sniper is a colloquial term? [32:57] Yeah, I'm not an, I was never an army sniper. [32:59] Okay. [32:59] What did you do in the army? [33:00] Did you teach this? [33:00] She then corrected it and said you taught rifles in the army? [33:02] Not, no, I didn't teach rifle. [33:04] No, I taught rifles as a private citizen. [33:07] Okay. [33:08] Mm-hmm. [33:08] And I was an NRA instructor for many, many, many years alongside my gunshot. [33:12] With your expertise, when she gave testimony on the stand, Samantha Karner, [33:18] that there was dust and there was debris that was found in the gun barrel. [33:24] Yep. [33:24] And then when we had the person who, and this was, I believe, Caitlin Oliver, who explained painfully about the DNA, the prints. [33:33] Well, let's start with a point in time. [33:34] I'm not done. [33:34] You said something, so I'm going to finish my thought, right? [33:36] You don't want to do a point in time? [33:37] No. [33:37] Well, sure. [33:38] If you want to respond to it, but I want you to respond to two points. [33:40] I want you to start with two points. [33:41] Okay. [33:41] Dust and debris in the gun barrel. [33:43] Yeah. [33:43] 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 forensics testify that above two prints, if you're taking a sample, it's no longer a science, right? [33:57] She testified that when they took the sample of what was on the trigger, they saw five plus prints. [34:01] And among those five plus prints, Tyler Robinson's was the most degraded. [34:06] 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. [34:14] You could have DNA on something that you've never touched. [34:16] And to get DNA degradation, they've looked at pieces, items 20, 40 years on that don't have degradation. [34:23] Yet Tyler Robinson's prints amongst five plus other prints were the most degraded on that weapon. [34:28] Yeah. [34:28] So let's get into all three of the claims. [34:29] First with debris. [34:30] When it comes to debris, firing rifle doesn't always blow the debris out of the barrel. [34:34] Okay. [34:34] That, I, you think there could be debris, I'm sorry, debris and dust. [34:39] Yeah. [34:40] He just fired the weapon. [34:41] Okay. [34:41] Not only that, he left it in a forest. [34:43] 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. [34:49] But I'm not even sure that that's what the case is. [34:51] I think it's far more likely that you fired the shot, it just didn't blow all the debris out. [34:54] And it often doesn't. [34:55] You'll find this if you take Grandpappy's, you know, dirty rifle, and it's all dusty inside the board, [35:01] and you go fire it, you'll often look down the board and there's still dust. [35:03] Okay. [35:03] Happens all the time. [35:04] Okay. [35:04] And the prints? [35:05] Yeah. [35:05] So the prints, we don't know all of the details on just yet. [35:08] We do. [35:08] It was, it was excruciatingly long testimony on the prints. [35:11] We don't because they haven't gone to trial. [35:13] So we don't know on the print front. [35:15] But Tyler Robinson's DNA was on there. [35:16] You made the claim that Lance Twigg's DNA was on there, and it was not. [35:19] Well, when she gave the testimony, no, first, let's go to your first point, because that's wrong. [35:22] We can get a fact check on that. [35:23] What do you mean we don't know until it goes to trial about the degraded prints? [35:25] She testified. [35:26] And she was the person who took the prints. [35:27] Yes, but the problem is, is that inside of this particular testimony, you agree with [35:31] me that there's going to be much more of the DNA analysis in the trial, right? [35:34] But you also would agree that her fact is not going to change, that among the prints, [35:37] his was the most degraded. [35:37] So I'm asking you to address that. [35:39] How could that be possible? [35:39] Let's give it, let's just grant this for a second as a possibility that his fingerprints [35:44] were degraded. [35:45] It's not a possibility. [35:45] It's a fact. [35:46] The person who took it. [35:47] Hang on, I'm just granting it for the sake of argument. [35:48] You should grant it because it's a fact that she presented. [35:50] So now it's granted. [35:51] So what? [35:53] What do you mean, so what? [35:53] So what? [35:53] What does that prove? [35:54] It proves that if his prints were the most degraded amongst five of them, you're going [35:59] to have to explain how that's possible if he's the one that recently fired the weapon. [36:03] Yeah, so wait a second. [36:04] You're saying that it's an impossibility that if his fingerprints are the most degraded. [36:07] I'm telling you to explain it. [36:08] You're the gunsmith. [36:09] So explain it. [36:09] Well, wait a second. [36:10] How would a gunsmith give an analysis on fingerprints or DNA? [36:12] Do you think that I'm working on a DNA laboratory with fingerprints? [36:15] So your answer is, I don't know. [36:16] You can just say you don't know. [36:17] But I did. [36:17] You don't have to. [36:18] But I did. [36:18] But I did. [36:18] No, you said, so what? [36:19] Yes. [36:19] So say, I don't know. [36:20] I actually don't have an explanation for that, Candace. [36:22] What would that prove, though, is my question. [36:22] Well, I think that what it would prove is that it is a more viable theory that people who [36:26] had stronger prints on the gun may have used it more recently. [36:30] Did they say who else had fingerprints on the gun? [36:32] They named Matt Robinson explicitly. [36:34] Okay. [36:34] And then, and this was a part of the testimony where she was speaking about how they got samples [36:39] of elimination samples from the home of Amber Robinson, Matt Robinson, and Lance Twig. [36:44] So those are the three names they named. [36:46] So are you saying that Twig's fingerprints? [36:47] Would you like me to finish my statement? [36:48] I just want to make sure I'm clarifying. [36:49] I'm trying to finish the answer, but it can't be clarified until the answer comes out of my [36:52] mouth. [36:52] Okay. [36:52] So this was a portion of her testimony where she was explaining how they got elimination [36:56] samples from the home. [36:58] And she named Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson, and Lance Twig as the elimination samples that [37:02] she was using. [37:03] And so she explicitly said, she said some of them, some, so we can assume two out of the [37:06] three, uh, were their prints were found on the gun. [37:09] She's explicitly named Matt Robinson, um, as someone who had prints on the gun and then [37:14] said there were five people that they had taken that sample from. [37:16] And again, what's also relevant here is the earlier testimony, uh, which came from, uh, [37:23] the FBI forensics analyst. [37:24] I believe it was on day two, where she said that when you're using those mixtures and those [37:28] samples and you get up to five plus, it's really hard to make any sort of a determination. [37:32] So both of those things are relevant. [37:33] If you can't explain why his prints are the most degraded and you're saying he is the [37:37] shooter, it's not really a, so what it's an open-ended question that people have a [37:40] right to pursue. [37:41] It's not a conspiracy. [37:42] It's actually proof of my claim that there's evidence that he was set up as a patsy. [37:46] Okay. [37:47] So hold on. [37:47] We got to pause this for a second. [37:48] We got some breaking, breaking, breaking, breaking, breaking news. [37:51] I wanted to pull this up. [37:52] So you guys know breaking freaking news. [37:55] Uh, Luigi Mangione has pleaded guilty. [38:00] He has pleaded guilty. [38:02] Everybody breaking, breaking, breaking news. [38:09] Luigi Mangione has pleaded guilty on federal charges in the unaliving of a United care, [38:18] healthcare CEO, Brian Thomas, y'all making mother loving news. [38:27] We got to get straight into this. [38:28] We got to go over here. [38:29] Sorry guys. [38:29] Like I told you guys, we'd be waiting for some updates and everything. [38:33] And this is the one thing that we've been waiting for. [38:35] So get your butts in here. [38:36] Big news right now. [38:38] He's taking the, he took a plea deal. [38:40] He had to have, right? [38:43] Let's go. [38:43] For something else, just so it's clear, if you come to New York, you're going to be [38:48] prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. [38:50] We expect Luigi Mangione to speak today, right? [38:53] That's called allocution. [38:55] Yes. [38:55] Explain that process. [38:57] And are we going to hear him say yes or no, or are we going to hear more of a detailed [39:02] account of exactly what he's pleading guilty to? [39:05] It depends on the type of plea. [39:08] So sometimes when I'm negotiating the plea with the federal prosecutors, we include in [39:12] there a statement that my client reads where he acknowledges responsibility or guilt. [39:17] One thing that we know for sure is he's going to have to acknowledge guilt or the judge won't [39:22] accept this plea deal. [39:22] You can't walk into the court, say, I'm going to take a plea and don't say, I actually committed [39:27] the crime. [39:28] You have to, at some point, acknowledge you committed the crime. [39:31] Will that be a straight yes? [39:33] You know, they read the charge and he says, I did that. [39:36] Will he have to describe some things he did about the stalking? [39:40] Because remember, federal court has jurisdiction because he stalked Thompson from one state to [39:45] another. [39:45] Will he have to say, I actually stalked him from this state or this location to New York in [39:51] order to qualify for that plea deal? [39:54] Will he have to acknowledge the killing or describe how he did the killing? [39:58] That's possibilities here. [39:59] We don't know how much the judge is going to require him when he's acknowledging his guilt. [40:04] But for a fact, he's going to have to affirmatively say, I committed this crime. [40:10] That's crazy. [40:11] So let's get into this. [40:13] There's some breaking news. [40:14] Let me pull this up. [40:15] Two years ago in December. [40:18] And so much of this information, he said, wow, wow. [40:22] He said, I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan. [40:25] Luigi tells the judge, Luigi Mangione tells the judge as he pleads guilty in federal court, [40:32] adding, I understood that my actions would place him in fear of death or bodily injury. [40:38] I knew what I was doing was illegal. [40:42] A moment right now, guys, big, huge deal, breaking news, breaking news, breaking effing news. [40:53] What we were waiting for this morning has finally happened. [40:57] Don't know if he took a plea deal. [40:59] Apparently, some people did speak out. [41:03] Some lawyers did speak out and did like a little press conference outside of the courthouse. [41:09] We're going to take a look at that. [41:11] But this is just this happened just a few minutes ago. [41:13] So let's take a look at this again. [41:15] I repeat, Luigi Mangione. [41:17] All right. [41:19] Is pleading guilty for taking the life of CEO, UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson. [41:25] He says, and I quote, I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan. [41:31] Luigi tells the Luigi Mangione tells the judge as he pleads guilty in federal court, [41:36] adding, I understood my actions would place him in fear of death or bodily injury. [41:42] I knew what I was doing was illegal. [41:45] Let's go. [41:47] We have now known about for quite some time now. [41:51] You know, it happened December 4 of 2024. [41:54] Within several months, we had so much of this information. [41:57] Overwhelming evidence in some sense. [41:59] Overwhelming because you had the surveillance videos and the pictures of him throughout this [42:06] city and elsewhere. [42:08] And that was starting on November 24, like I was talking to you about here in the city. [42:13] And he came with the intent of killing Brian Thompson. [42:17] And that's what he is now admitted to. [42:19] And so let's go out to Stephanie Bertini. [42:21] Stephanie, if we take a look at our big board. [42:23] Oh, no, there we just go right to her. [42:25] Stephanie, so we are getting these live updates as they are coming through. [42:30] I don't know if you're seeing it as well or if there's been any reaction from any of the [42:34] crowd that is out there this morning. [42:36] But it appears that Mr. Mangione has entered his guilty plea and has directly admitted to [42:43] killing Brian Thompson. [42:45] And the latest update that we have is that the hearing is now over. [42:49] So, Stephanie, what are you seeing out there? [42:50] Yeah, I've been following those updates from inside the courtroom, Dan. [42:55] As you mentioned, of course, most reporters are not even in the courtroom. [42:59] A lot of them are outside. [43:00] And the reporters inside, they don't have their cell phone. [43:02] So we are getting information from the journalists inside. [43:05] And then it's essentially being funneled outside. [43:07] There is a long media row. [43:09] I'm at the end of one of the media rows. [43:11] Right over my shoulder here, another media row. [43:14] All eyes on federal court in Manhattan today. [43:18] It was 11 o'clock, that scheduled hearing. [43:20] And it was scheduled because we expected Mangione to change his plea to guilty. [43:26] And now we've heard him say, yes, I killed Brian Thompson. [43:30] Those updates were coming here to us as we've been getting that information. [43:35] I've been getting it via my cell phone. [43:37] Fox News giving us information. [43:39] Of course, our mothership. [43:40] And also, we're watching the reporting that's happening in real time, Dan. [43:44] And so it is both an advantage and a challenge when we think about the technology we have to be able to report today outside the courtroom. [43:53] Because we can bring you that information almost in real time. [43:57] And everything is so crucial and important, Dan, because you hit it exactly. [44:01] There is so much public interest. [44:03] We have a lot of onlookers here outside the courtroom. [44:07] People with cell phones taking photos, taking videos. [44:10] They've come here to catch a glimpse, essentially, of anything. [44:15] We did not see Mangione, as you could probably imagine, outside the perimeter here. [44:20] But we know it was right after 11 that he appeared in court. [44:23] We know that he then delivered a statement. [44:27] And we know that before that, his lead attorney essentially did indicate to the court that he would be changing his plea. [44:38] So the big, big situation now revolves around that state case. [44:43] I have a legal expert just feet away from me because we're going to be bringing him in for the nude broadcast, Dan. [44:48] But I was debriefing with him. [44:49] And what he's basically said is, because as we've been talking about, Dan, you've been talking about it with Linda there in the newsroom. [44:56] This is a big deal for that state case because now he has said, look, I'm guilty. [45:00] I did this. [45:01] So essentially, it could mean under double jeopardy here in New York that that state case becomes no more. [45:08] He was actually scheduled to start the state trial in September. [45:14] The federal trial was scheduled for January. [45:17] So now a lot of questions about what happens next. [45:21] This is a huge turn. [45:23] I'm going to skip ahead. [45:24] So I'm skipping ahead to the press conference, this little conference that they're having right now. [45:29] I don't know who this is. [45:31] I don't know if it's his lawyers or if it's the, you know, or if this is prosecution here. [45:37] But we're going to take a look at this. [45:38] And don't worry, we're going back to the debate. [45:40] Trust me. [45:41] But this is breaking news. [45:42] This is something I was waiting for. [45:43] So I'm glad we were able to capture this during this during this debate watch. [45:48] Just take a listen. [45:49] Isolated event, Mr. Mangione has been unfairly treated since the outset in every way and has successfully fought off terrorism charges and the death penalty while also fighting at the same time two simultaneous prosecutions in two jurisdictions who are trying to punish him twice for the exact conduct. [46:11] He's been treated differently from every other defendant charged with this offense in New York. [46:18] However, thankfully, New York law does not allow this. [46:22] New York law does not permit a person to be prosecuted and punished twice for the exact same crime under a statute that governs successive prosecutions. [46:33] It's also known as the double jeopardy law. [46:36] Today's guilty plea triggers this statute, and we just filed our motion in state court explaining why the state charges must be dismissed under New York's double jeopardy protections. [46:49] We will not be taking any other questions. [46:52] Thank you so much for coming. [46:53] And again, that was the defense team for Luigi Mangione in court after he just pled guilty in federal court. [47:04] And with dueling federal and state cases right now, there's a lot to break down. [47:08] Criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Peter Frankel joining us right now on the noon. [47:12] Peter, how does this guilty plea shape both the state and federal cases moving forward? [47:16] Yeah, Ryan, it's a great question. [47:17] You know, this was referred to as an emergency hearing. [47:19] This really wasn't an emergency. [47:21] I think a lot of people expected that at some point he was going, Mr. Mangione, he was going to have to take a plea in this federal case in order to try to trigger double jeopardy, which essentially means. [47:33] Yeah. [47:33] So that was Mark Agnifolo. [47:35] You know, Mark Agnifolo, if you if you've been watching this show since the Diddy trial and everything, Mark Agnifolo, Gene Garofalo, Mark Ruffalo. [47:46] OK, that is that is his lawyer. [47:51] That was his lawyer and his team. [47:53] Clearly, when they said he's been mistreated right when they said that, it's like it's clear that that was the defense team saying, you know, he's been being treated unfairly behind bars. [48:03] Well, he is a criminal. [48:06] He did take the life of a man, regardless of what you guys think. [48:10] I know some people are like free him. [48:12] How dare they lock this man up? [48:14] He did the right thing. [48:15] So on and so forth. [48:16] He's he's Batman for crying out loud, whatever, whatever you think. [48:21] OK, whatever you think. [48:22] At the end of the day, he did take the life of another human being, regardless. [48:27] OK, two wrongs don't make a right. [48:28] I've already said that before. [48:30] But at the same time, Luigi Mangione has pleaded guilty. [48:35] He has taken he is taking responsibility for taking the life of United Health Care CEO, Brian Thompson. [48:44] There it is, guys. [48:45] Now it's a question of how long is he going to be locked up for and if he really did take a plea deal. [48:51] Did he take a plea deal? [48:53] Because it sounds like he did. [48:55] He was supposed to be going into a trial in September. [48:59] Now that's completely thrown out the window because he's pleaded guilty. [49:02] So he must have gotten some sort of sweet plea deal where he could be out in 15 years or something like that. [49:11] So we'll see what happens here. [49:13] But again, he crossed state lines trying to find this man. [49:18] Then he stuck. [49:19] Then he stuck around. [49:21] OK, you know, hiding in, you know, hiding in wait. [49:25] All right. [49:26] Or lying in wait. [49:28] I'm sorry. [49:28] And then when he finally saw Brian come out of the hotel, he went up behind him and pulled the trigger and took the man's life. [49:38] Shot him in the back for crying out loud. [49:40] OK. [49:41] And then he went on a run. [49:43] And then there was a, you know, multi-day search for this guy. [49:48] And suddenly they found the assailant, Luigi Mangione, eating a hash brown in a McDonald's. [49:58] He apparently had a manifesto. [50:01] He had other things in his book bag as well that would link him to the unaliving of this CEO. [50:10] So again, and if you didn't, and of course, we don't need all that because he came up and he said, I did it. [50:19] He took a plea deal and he said, I did it instead of fighting it out. [50:23] What happened? [50:23] What made them say, what made them agree to do a plea deal? [50:28] What made him go, yeah, I'm going to do the plea deal now. [50:32] I'm just curious, right? [50:33] Yeah, he was, that's, that's some crazy, that's some crazy work, right? [50:38] That's some crazy work that he was found in a McDonald's eating a, you know, munching on a hash brown like, like he was like eating it like it was the first meal he's had in days. [50:50] You know what I'm saying? [50:51] Crazy, right? [50:53] It's some crazy work. [50:54] The inability of the state process. [50:56] Don't worry, we're going right back to the debate. [50:58] Give me two seconds. [50:59] I just want to hear a little bit more what this guy has to say. [51:01] Execution to go forward to be barred because he's already pled guilty to the same or similar charges. [51:07] So what's going to happen now is his defense team is going to file a motion. [51:12] Obviously, the state is already aware of what's transpired this morning and their position is going to be that the state indictment has to be dismissed. [51:18] And I was going to say that his defense team just mentioned that he did avoid the death penalty. [51:23] Is that certainly the case here in this federal case? [51:25] And how could this evolve moving forward? [51:27] Because, again, we're still dealing with two cases, but you're saying the state case will likely be dropped? [51:32] I think it likely will. [51:33] Well, and you have to remember that notwithstanding what sentence he ends up getting in the federal cases and whatever happens in the state case, [51:39] he was originally charged with a death penalty case in the federal court as well as a life without parole charge in the state court. [51:47] Both of those were dismissed. [51:49] So the defense team was at the point where they were kind of running out of options. [51:55] And the best option available that was left was to put themselves in a position where they could ask the federal judge, Judge Garnett, [52:03] for a non-life sentence and also seek at the same time to have the state prosecution dismissed. [52:09] Do you think this is the outcome that the defense team was looking for, for lack of better terms, a best case scenario in Luigi's case? [52:16] Yeah, you know, I think it's a really good question because there was an overwhelming amount of evidence of guilt in these cases. [52:26] So for him to think that there was a possibility to go to trial in both cases and being acquitted, I don't think was ever a realistic thought for them. [52:35] So this is probably ending up where for at least some period of time they anticipated that it would be. [52:43] And let's also talk about that federal case still moving forward. [52:46] The date is set for December 18th. [52:49] Do you think that is still going to move forward? [52:50] And what do you foresee in a potential sentencing? [52:53] So there is going to be a tremendous amount of litigation now, submissions made on the federal case with respect to what each side believes is the appropriate sentence. [53:04] So there is no longer a mandatory life sentence in federal court for him. [53:10] His team will put in comprehensive submissions as to what they think is an appropriate sentence in this case. [53:18] I would not be the least bit surprised if the government asks for a life sentence. [53:22] And at the end of the day, and I'm sure that Judge Garnett explained this to Mr. Mangione today, it's going to be up to the judge. [53:29] Nobody can tell him what he's going to get. [53:32] Only the judge knows. [53:34] And when she pronounces sentence in December, which will likely happen, everyone will hear at the same time. [53:39] All right. [53:40] Thank you very much. [53:40] I mean, this is crazy. [53:43] Crazy news, guys. [53:44] Crazy news. [53:45] But, you know, also at the same time, not surprising. [53:47] Just to be completely real, not surprising at all whatsoever. [53:52] I'm not surprised. [53:56] But what comes next? [53:58] What's going to happen next? [53:59] Is he donezo? [54:01] Is he donezo? [54:02] Is it a wrap? [54:03] Is he going to get life? [54:05] Are they going to give him a different? [54:06] He's going to get hooked up with something else. [54:08] What's going to happen here, right? [54:10] But let's get back over to the debate. [54:12] Thank you guys for just, you know, hearing that out. [54:16] I wanted you guys to know about that. [54:19] That's obviously in the title. [54:21] I wanted to hear what Luigi Mangione was going to do, if he was going to take a plea deal or if he was going to plead guilty. [54:27] And he did. [54:29] Now the next step is what's going to happen? [54:31] What's going to happen next? [54:32] How long is it going to be locked up for? [54:35] Is it going to be life? [54:36] I mean, they put the DP off, taken off the desk. [54:40] It's been taken off the table. [54:41] So what's next for him, right? [54:44] Yeah. [54:45] No more case. [54:46] No more trial in September, Copper Mountain. [54:49] The trial in September is done. [54:51] It's over. [54:52] Done. [54:52] He just pleaded guilty. [54:54] So now there's going to be other, there's going to be other, another trial or at least another hearing happening in December from what we just heard. [55:03] So we'll see what happens. [55:06] But let's get back to this debate, shall we? [55:12] I wouldn't prove anything about him being a patsy. [55:14] It said it's evidence to support the claim that he could have been set up as a patsy. [55:18] So this is why I said earlier, so what? [55:20] Because even if it's the case, this doesn't have an explanation for it yet. [55:23] That doesn't actually give you any evidence in your corner for Tyler Robinson being a patsy. [55:26] Hang on, hang on, hang on. [55:27] I didn't cut you off. [55:28] Right? [55:29] You would need to actually explain how this would demonstrate Tyler Robinson. [55:32] This is tied into Robinson being a patsy. [55:34] Are you claiming that these fingerprints were Lance Twiggs or that he had any DNA there? [55:37] I'm saying that it could be Matt Robinson. [55:39] It could be Amber Robinson. [55:40] That sort of information is going to come out during the trial. [55:42] How would that tie into the idea that he's a patsy? [55:44] Yes, because if his is the most degraded prince and the information that I shared on my platform is true, that this gun was given to Tyler Robinson as an heirloom. [55:50] I had conversation with members of the Robinson family, Twiggs family, both of them. [55:54] You know, like I said, we're not just dreaming. [55:56] 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. [56:02] Okay, so it was his grandfather's gun or great-grandfather's gun. [56:04] I don't remember the difference. [56:05] I don't remember which one it was. [56:06] And so he got it because he's the firstborn. [56:08] But he's not much of a shooter is what I was told. [56:11] And so he has this because he inherited it, essentially. [56:13] 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... [56:17] How do we get to the patsy part? [56:19] You don't let me ever get to the end of the sentence. [56:20] So how could we get to the patsy part if I can't get to the end of the sentence? [56:22] Okay, I'll wait patiently until we get to the patsy part. [56:23] 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 isn't. [56:28] Hold on. [56:28] Hold on. [56:29] Really, really quick. [56:29] For those of y'all who are just getting here and don't know what's going on, some of you are like, what's this? [56:33] What debate is this? [56:35] What's going on? [56:36] What's this all about? [56:38] Okay, real quick. [56:40] All right. [56:41] Candace Owens believes that Tyler Robinson did not do this. [56:47] And he's the fall guy. [56:48] He's the scapegoat. [56:49] Okay? [56:50] He's the patsy. [56:50] He did not take the life of Charlie Kirk. [56:54] The other guy on the other side of the room, Andrew Wilson, believes that Tyler Robinson 110% or, you know, he says he's 85, 75, 85% sure that Tyler Robinson is the one that took the life of Charlie Kirk. [57:11] Okay? [57:12] Now, if you have not been covering or following Candace Owens, Candace Owens has been saying all kinds of stuff. [57:17] All right? [57:18] She's been saying all kinds of crazy, wild stuff on her show. [57:22] Okay? [57:22] With all of her theories and all that. [57:26] Saying that this is all one big fugazi and they got the wrong guy. [57:31] But here's the thing. [57:32] TPUSA believes that they do, that the police do have the right guy, that they do have Tyler Robinson. [57:40] But she also has been going scorched earth on TPUSA and Erica Kirk with her own theories, et cetera, about how, you know, Erica Kirk, you know, had something to do is in connection with the unaliving of Charlie Kirk and that TPUSA is all behind this as well because of X, Y, and Z. [58:03] Okay. [58:03] So they, so Andrew, I'm sorry, Andrew Wilson basically put $300,000 on the table and said, hey, I will pay you $300,000, Candace Owens, to sit down and do a debate with me. [58:17] So, hey, $300,000. [58:19] She's like, shoo, I will gladly take that $300,000. [58:23] And so she did. [58:24] And now we're in this debate right now. [58:27] Okay? [58:27] And a lot of people are watching this. [58:28] A lot of people are reacting to this. [58:30] And so are we. [58:32] Okay? [58:33] So that's where we're at. [58:34] So let's continue. [58:35] Indeed, a fissure. [58:36] And it could also be a reasonable explanation for why we have Matt Robinson's prints on this. [58:40] Obviously, Lance Twiggs, even if he has prints on things, they live together. [58:43] That doesn't really mean anything. [58:44] But that could demonstrate that somebody took his weapon and put it somewhere. [58:47] His prints are the most degraded. [58:48] Somebody else's prints, there's more presence of somebody else's prints. [58:51] And that could demonstrate that somebody is taking items from his house and putting it into various places. [58:55] But it also could demonstrate nothing. [58:56] So the problem that you have here is that this is pure conjecture. [58:59] No. [58:59] This is, hang on, this is not evidence that Tyler Robinson is a patchy. [59:03] It's only evidence that you have conjectured up that, well, if it's the case that these are the more degraded prints, then therefore that means must be patsy because parents, dad's fingerprints on guns? [59:15] I didn't say must be patsy. [59:16] Describe how this actually links in to Robinson being a patsy. [59:19] Okay, I just described that for you, so I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you, so I'm going to move on from that. [59:24] 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 1102 rules. [59:35] Meaning that they are doing the exact same thing that I am doing. [59:37] This is the state. [59:38] You said you're here to represent the state. [59:39] Well, did you watch the preliminary hearing? [59:40] No, I didn't say I was here to represent the state. [59:41] The state's position you think is strong and convincing. [59:43] What I'm here to do is represent my own opinion, which is that based on the evidence presented so far by the state- [59:49] The state has presented evidence under Utah's 1102 rule. [59:53] But this doesn't demonstrate any patsy behavior. [59:54] No, that's very important because that rule is hearsay. [59:56] So you can't say at the same time, Candace, you're not allowed to, and what that means under the Utah rule, which I'm sure you know because I'm sure you watched the preliminary hearing and yourself understand what that means, is that the entire hearing was hearsay. [1:00:05] 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. [1:00:12] They're allowed to present when it's this approbative hearing. [1:00:14] I don't think all the evidence that was put in was hearsay. [1:00:17] Okay, you didn't watch this case. [1:00:18] But not only that. [1:00:18] No, no, no, this is a huge point. [1:00:20] Well, hey, we can call for a fact check if all the evidence was put in. [1:00:22] We need more than a fact check. [1:00:23] This was every single day, Utah rule, 1102. [1:00:25] The team in the back is actually saying they want to go there. [1:00:25] So they said there's a medical examiner's explanation of the shooting that's in the back. [1:00:30] Rob, if you want to pull it up, and then, Candace, if anybody from your team wants to pull something up, no problem as well, but they're requesting it. [1:00:35] If you guys got it, pull it up so we can show it. [1:00:38] Is that it? [1:00:39] Yeah. [1:00:40] So I'll read this. [1:00:41] What are we looking at, just so we know? [1:00:43] Yeah, so this says, [1:00:44] 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. [1:00:50] This is a summary, by the way. [1:00:52] Left common cartoid on the left internal external jugular veins. [1:00:56] The bullet also obliterated the left side C27 vertebrae, transacted the cervical spinal cord. [1:01:01] Medical examiner observed a significant portion of Kirk's cervical spinal cord was traumatically absent. [1:01:06] Mr. Kirk suffered from other severe injuries, including bilateral, apical, and posterior intercausal hemorrhages, pulmonary apical hemorrhages, multiple disruptions to the thyroid, et cetera, et cetera. [1:01:16] So the summary of the examinations that he was shot, that was what they were pulling that up for. [1:01:21] Okay, and I don't, I'm not disputing that he could have been hit with a projectile. [1:01:24] We're not disputing that, so I don't know why this was brought up as a fact check. [1:01:26] Could you bring up 1102 Utah rule? [1:01:28] Because this is an unbelievable point that you're making by saying that I am not allowed to infer off of evidence. [1:01:32] You can infer. [1:01:33] I'm trying to follow the inference to Patsy. [1:01:34] No, no, no, but your entire reason, like you asserted that you believe there's overwhelming evidence on the basis of what we saw in the preliminary hearing. [1:01:40] The entire preliminary hearing was hearsay. [1:01:43] Yeah, I'm fine with your inferences. [1:01:44] No, no, no, you just literally said I couldn't do that. [1:01:46] Yes, I can. [1:01:46] No, I didn't. [1:01:47] I'm just saying from your inference, how do we get to Patsy? [1:01:49] This is how you got to Shooter. [1:01:51] Tyler Robinson did it. [1:01:52] No, no, no, no, I didn't get to Shooter from that. [1:01:54] Yes, you did. [1:01:55] Again, this is something important, so we should pull up a fact check about what the 1102 Utah, under their constitution, for the sake of a preliminary hearing, they do not have to have hard evidence. [1:02:04] They don't have to put people on the trial to where they may, but no, no, that's why the entire hearing was basically hearsay. [1:02:08] Officer Bagley was saying. [1:02:09] But not all of it, like I said. [1:02:10] The overwhelming majority, I mean, outside of the one that you don't want to give. [1:02:15] No, that's not what's in dispute, though. [1:02:16] Outside of, no, that is what's in dispute. [1:02:17] 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. [1:02:24] In fact, Lance's testimony, before they had about an hour debate, actually, maybe it was more than an hour debate, before he sat, and they said, this is not going to be allowed. [1:02:31] You wouldn't even be allowed to do this. [1:02:32] We'd be able to cross-examine him. [1:02:33] The questions that they're asking, Lance, are all leading. [1:02:35] And what did he say? [1:02:36] Well, I'm the magistrate under Utah Constitution, 1102. [1:02:39] It is my job to allow all of this so we can see if the state has enough here that we can then move to a trial, which will then, they would not allow this stuff. [1:02:46] They would say, we get to cross-examine Lance. [1:02:47] Lance just can't willingly say. [1:02:47] But you're arguing things I'm not disputing. [1:02:49] No, but the entire substance of your argument is that people can't infer off of evidence. [1:02:53] That's what you're saying to me. [1:02:54] No, it's not. [1:02:54] When you say, Candace, you can't talk about the greater grids, which is a fact. [1:02:57] Yeah, I'm not saying that. [1:02:58] And then infer off of that. [1:02:59] Didn't say that. [1:02:59] That Tyler could have been a patsy. [1:03:00] You're just literally making stuff up. [1:03:02] So here's what the position is. [1:03:03] I'm not making stuff up. [1:03:04] I'm saying that I think you, let's pull that out. [1:03:06] Let's pull that out. [1:03:06] I am doing exactly what the state did. [1:03:08] I am looking at a piece of evidence and I am saying. [1:03:10] But you're not showing me how you get there from the inference. [1:03:11] You need to describe to the audience what rule 1102 means. [1:03:13] Yes, so this, just so everybody who's watching this at home understands what I'm saying, even if he doesn't. [1:03:17] What Andrew is arguing is that I don't have the right to extrapolate from a fact like. [1:03:21] Just making it up. [1:03:22] Oh boy. [1:03:22] Just purely making it up. [1:03:24] I'm asking based on your inference. [1:03:25] Andrew, can I show my evidence? [1:03:26] You just showed yours? [1:03:27] Reliable hearsay. [1:03:28] Reliable hearsay in criminal preliminary examinations. [1:03:32] The entire preliminary hearing that you just saw was on the basis of reliable hearsay. [1:03:37] 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. [1:03:43] Patrick's not here. [1:03:44] And that is, they can allow that into the hearing. [1:03:46] That's just because it's just meant to be probative. [1:03:49] And so it's the state saying, here's what we have inferred. [1:03:51] So you are allowed to take a piece of evidence and then you are allowed to infer off of that evidence, okay? [1:03:57] Case in point, that's a demonstration of, to give you, that's a demonstration of what I just did. [1:04:00] I said, the prints were the most degraded off of Tyler Robinson. [1:04:03] And from that, what I am inferring is that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson was set up. [1:04:07] That doesn't, that's the point in contention. [1:04:08] That's not a point in contention. [1:04:09] That's the point in contention. [1:04:11] It's not a point in contention. [1:04:11] If you're saying it's a point in contention. [1:04:13] It's not the point in contention. [1:04:13] I'm telling you, that was what the entire hearing allowed for. [1:04:15] So the evidence that he is describing, that he is using to argue his case, is all based on inference, not fact. [1:04:22] Inference, not fact. [1:04:23] So what they are inferring off of the facts. [1:04:25] So again, we're going to take this and I'm just going to even grant it because it's irrelevant. [1:04:30] I'm asking how you get to the inference that even if you dispute that piece of evidence, that means patsy. [1:04:35] I'm looking for the logical chain for how you get to that inference. [1:04:38] What I am telling you is it's the exact same way that when you tweeted, [1:04:42] I think that this evidence is overwhelming. [1:04:44] When they say that looks like Tyler Robinson's car, he drives a similar car, okay? [1:04:49] They are inferring that that's Tyler Robinson. [1:04:51] Can you walk me through the inference so that I understand? [1:04:53] It's not a fact. [1:04:54] It's not a fact. [1:04:54] When you show a blurry image, which you kept citing that we have images. [1:04:57] No, no, I'm talking about your inference that the fingerprints, even if they're degraded, equals patsy. [1:05:00] How do you get that inference? [1:05:02] I didn't say equals patsy. [1:05:03] I think it is enough evidence that it should be explored, which is exactly what this preliminary was in the inverse. [1:05:07] That's not in dispute. [1:05:08] What's in dispute is when you said, I'm using this as evidence that he could have been a patsy. [1:05:12] I'm asking, how do you get the inference to patsy from that? [1:05:15] Because what I am saying is that it shows that somebody else had more DNA presence on that gun than Tyler Robinson did. [1:05:21] So it is plausible, which is all they're doing. [1:05:22] They're presenting plausibility based off of the facts, okay? [1:05:25] It is plausible that somebody just took his gun. [1:05:27] Dylan, I'd like to know too. [1:05:28] That's how it works. [1:05:29] And there are equally 100 other plausible explanations. [1:05:31] I think that's the reason why most people are exploring when things don't make sense. [1:05:34] Yes, at the beginning of that, this is how the court process works, just so we're clear. [1:05:38] If there's 100 other plausible explanations in Canada. [1:05:40] You know what's crazy? [1:05:42] You know, like $300,000 to have an argument about this. [1:05:48] And Dylan, you ain't wrong, okay? [1:05:50] Dylon, all right? [1:05:52] $300,000. [1:05:53] I mean, shoot. [1:05:53] I will argue $300,000 over the fact that pineapple should never be on pizza. [1:06:04] Set it up, Dylon. [1:06:06] Let's do it. [1:06:07] Just give me the $300,000, okay? [1:06:09] $300,000 to argue that pineapple should never be on pizza, okay? [1:06:19] And then I'd be like, can you infer, can you at least confirm how you inferred the inference of that? [1:06:25] How did you infer to the fact of what you're inferring to that inference? [1:06:31] You mind telling me that? [1:06:33] How did you infer? [1:06:34] How did you get to this inference? [1:06:36] What inference did you get to that we're inferring to for the inference that you're inferring to? [1:06:43] You know what I'm saying? [1:06:44] Don't fruit the pizza. [1:06:54] Thank you. [1:06:54] Thank you, Ty. [1:06:56] Thank you, T. [1:06:57] Okay? [1:06:57] I thought I was alone on that, okay? [1:07:00] You're seriously a sociopath if you like pineapple on pizza. [1:07:04] I'm kidding. [1:07:05] Somebody's going to be upset about that, okay? [1:07:07] It's okay. [1:07:08] If you like pineapple pizza, you must be Hawaiian, okay? [1:07:12] And that's fine, you know, because it's a cultural thing, I'm sure. [1:07:17] All right? [1:07:17] Or you smoke Heligonge and tried it once. [1:07:21] You're like, ooh, it's tasty. [1:07:25] Okay? [1:07:26] I like my pineapple by itself, you know? [1:07:34] Just saying. [1:07:39] Moving on, though, they're talking about inference. [1:07:42] They're inferencing on the inference of things that they're inferring. [1:07:51] Let's, let's, the chat is divided. [1:07:56] Damn. [1:07:57] I see that. [1:07:59] Yeah, I said sociopath. [1:08:00] What of it? [1:08:02] What of it, bro? [1:08:04] Yeah, I said it. [1:08:05] And I even said it with my chest, okay? [1:08:08] Yeah, the ganj. [1:08:13] You must be smoking that ganj. [1:08:15] If you're going, ooh, pepperoni. [1:08:18] Pineapple on pizza. [1:08:20] Mm-mm. [1:08:21] You high. [1:08:24] That's what I think. [1:08:25] Or you just haven't eaten in a while, and you're just hungry, [1:08:28] and so everything tastes like filet mignon, okay? [1:08:36] Just so you know. [1:08:37] But we're going to get back to the debate. [1:08:40] Why is it that we should go with this idea that it was a patsy? [1:08:42] I'm not saying that we should go with the idea that it was a patsy. [1:08:46] I am saying that there is just. [1:08:47] Oh, I thought that was the whole defense, your whole claim today. [1:08:49] My whole claim was that there is more evidence that he has set up as a patsy. [1:08:53] How does that equal evidence of patsy? [1:08:55] I don't know how many times I can say this. [1:08:56] I am saying that I am using the exact same mechanism that you are accepting for some reason in the Utah courtroom. [1:09:00] Yeah. [1:09:00] Right? [1:09:01] To say, I'm going to look at the evidence, and I'm going to infer an alternative theory. [1:09:04] So you just saw the states, and you're accepting it. [1:09:06] And they have not presented any concrete facts. [1:09:07] 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. [1:09:14] No, I didn't. [1:09:14] The standard white guy coming up the steps that could literally be anyone. [1:09:17] This never happened. [1:09:18] Can we get a fact check on that? [1:09:19] Yeah, fact check it. [1:09:19] Can we pull up his tweet where he goes over the floor? [1:09:20] I didn't say that's what convinced me. [1:09:22] When you actually didn't say it's what convinced me, but you said this is the evidence that you found to be overwhelming. [1:09:25] And you named, I believe, actually five things. [1:09:28] I think you said it was his car. [1:09:29] You said it was. [1:09:30] Well, there's multitudes of things that I find to be compelling evidence. [1:09:32] You just said you didn't say it, so we're going to get a fact check on that. [1:09:33] Sure, go ahead. [1:09:33] You said the blurry image is coming up the steps. [1:09:35] Quite literally, when Officer Bagley testified, when I'm talking about making inference, this is the most, I thought was the most absurd testimony I've ever heard. [1:09:41] And pardon me, it was actually Hull, David Hull. [1:09:44] They asked him a question. [1:09:45] 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? [1:09:51] And he said, they're wearing the same shoes. [1:09:54] Why is that absurd? [1:09:55] That's how you decided these two are the same people. [1:09:57] Oh, wow, what a scientific. [1:09:58] They're both wearing converses. [1:09:59] Okay, that's an absurd thing to say. [1:10:02] That is not evidence that these are the same people. [1:10:03] If we're both wearing converses, that was what he said. [1:10:06] That's what flew on the stand. [1:10:07] But I still don't understand how that would be absurd. [1:10:08] If somebody, for instance, if somebody were to change their clothes, but keep the same shoes on, wouldn't you utilize the shoes to try to track that person? [1:10:14] The idea that on a college campus, two people wearing this totally different outfits, but both wearing converses can't happen is such an absurdity that I don't even need to argue that. [1:10:22] I'm just going to let people, just concede that point. [1:10:25] Obviously, it's absurd. [1:10:25] I don't, I'm not, I'm not sure. [1:10:26] I know these are the same people because they're both wearing converse. [1:10:28] Yeah, I'm not sure if in context that's what happened, but even if it is, again, if we're utilizing inferences, whenever we're dealing with logic and 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. [1:10:42] You would do that with any type of logical proposition. [1:10:44] Otherwise, you could never have a true or false claim. [1:10:46] You just told me I couldn't do that. [1:10:47] So when we're, I never, that never happened. [1:10:49] You're just making stuff up. [1:10:50] 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. [1:10:57] We can keep going through your other evidence. [1:10:59] We should find his tweet where he pleases, where he lists the reasons that he was convinced. [1:11:02] So let's start with the 30-06. [1:11:03] I think that that's fine. [1:11:04] Your team's looking for, do you remember how long ago that was? [1:11:06] The tweets of the five, did you delete it or no? [1:11:10] No, I don't delete tweets. [1:11:10] Okay, cool. [1:11:11] Just look for, he said the, it was his car. [1:11:14] It was his, it was the car and it was definitely the staircase photos and it was when the trial was going on. [1:11:19] Okay, she has it. [1:11:20] She has it. [1:11:21] Okay, Chelsea, no, she wouldn't have done this for free. [1:11:24] Apparently, like I said earlier, you may have just come in a little late, but she did, they put down $100,000 for this debate. [1:11:33] Candace said no. [1:11:35] Then it went up to like 200, then you went up to 150, then 200. [1:11:41] Then they finally got to an agreement of $300,000. [1:11:43] And then she said, I'm willing to sit down and have this debate for $300,000. [1:11:50] So she is winning out of this whole debate no matter what, because she's walking out with all this money. [1:11:54] Okay. [1:11:55] It doesn't matter if she walks out and loses. [1:11:58] It looks like a fool. [1:11:59] She's $300,000 richer. [1:12:01] Then also she's streaming this on her YouTube channel. [1:12:04] I'm sure it's past 200,000 some odd people watching this whole debate right now. [1:12:09] So she's winning on top of winning, on top of winning, on top of winning, before she even walks in to do this doggone debate. [1:12:17] Okay. [1:12:17] It's pretty insane. [1:12:18] It's insane. [1:12:19] Rye the guy. [1:12:20] And it's like, it's very desperate. [1:12:23] I will say that too. [1:12:24] Okay. [1:12:24] This thing is very, very desperate on behalf of TPUSA. [1:12:28] They're trying so hard to try to show how much of a fool she is that they're willing to pay money to do that, which is also just insane. [1:12:41] But anyway, Rye the guy, I appreciate it. [1:12:43] I don't know who's winning this debate, but I know it's not us. [1:12:48] We're all losing. [1:12:50] We're losing brain cells by listening to this banter back and forth. [1:12:55] I will say that. [1:12:56] Uh, yeah, I'd like them to get to some facts and hopefully they're getting to that here shortly. [1:13:03] Um, but I do agree with her about the, the, uh, shoes. [1:13:07] Okay. [1:13:08] A lot of kids wear Converse. [1:13:10] A lot of kids wear Chucks. [1:13:12] A lot of people wear Chucks. [1:13:15] So someone could be, you know, there's plenty of other people that could be wearing the same type of Chucks that he's wearing as well. [1:13:20] That's just, that is possible, but they were able to track him through his shoes as well. [1:13:26] So again, you know, it, like I said, it's, it's, you know, very interesting stuff. [1:13:33] Um, so let's continue, shall we? [1:13:36] Skylar has, if you want to pull it up so we can see it. [1:13:39] Somebody said, so give me the clear evidence right here. [1:13:41] I want you to provide it right here. [1:13:42] All I heard from the investigator was we believe this to be Tyler Robinson. [1:13:45] Is belief something you go as a fact? [1:13:46] You wrote the car pulling in. [1:13:48] That's a totally blurry image. [1:13:49] Um, Robinson getting out of it. [1:13:50] You have no idea if that's Tyler Robinson. [1:13:52] The fact that he has seen four other times on camera. [1:13:55] The fact being just a standard white boy with brown hair was seen getting, walking up staircase. [1:13:58] The DNA on the roof, we should discuss that. [1:14:01] And on the screwdriver that he left behind, it's overwhelming, man. [1:14:05] Yeah, but that's not an exhaustive list. [1:14:06] Well, just so we're clear, you did tweet it. [1:14:07] But it's not an exhaustive list. [1:14:08] Yeah, but just five seconds ago, you should concede. [1:14:10] You said I only said this one thing and said that that was overwhelming, actually. [1:14:13] That's not what I said. [1:14:14] It is. [1:14:14] You can even put your own clip. [1:14:15] Patrick, did I say that? [1:14:16] Can you, can you fact check if that was said or not? [1:14:18] I did not hear her say this. [1:14:19] So the thing is funny here is like, we still aren't getting to any of these inferences. [1:14:22] So these- [1:14:22] Why are you pivoting? [1:14:23] But just say you were wrong. [1:14:24] Just say I was wrong. [1:14:25] I'm not wrong. [1:14:29] Exhaustive list of why I find it overwhelming. [1:14:30] I didn't say it was exhaustive. [1:14:31] I just said you said it. [1:14:32] And on top of the- [1:14:32] Well, no, you didn't. [1:14:33] You said that I only said this one thing and then said based on that, it's over. [1:14:37] Well, I didn't. [1:14:37] You didn't mention that I mentioned the screwdriver, DNA, all these other things. [1:14:40] You'd never mentioned any of that. [1:14:42] So no, you're actually incorrect there. [1:14:43] But on top of that, moving over to the actual evidence itself- [1:14:46] Are you- [1:14:46] Yes, I'm okay. [1:14:48] Anyway, back to the evidence itself. [1:14:49] I wasn't going to ask if you're okay. [1:14:49] Yes, I'm fine. [1:14:50] Actually, I'm glad you were asserting that you're okay. [1:14:51] I wasn't worried about your health. [1:14:52] I'm just saying that. [1:14:52] I just said you tweeted this. [1:14:53] You said, no, I didn't. [1:14:54] We got a fact check. [1:14:54] And now you're just going to gaslight me and pretend that I said- [1:14:56] There's no gaslighting. [1:14:57] It wasn't exhaustive. [1:14:57] I never said that. [1:14:58] I just said you did say this. [1:14:59] There's zero gaslighting. [1:14:59] I didn't say you couldn't. [1:15:00] Why does this feel like a marriage counseling session that we're watching right here? [1:15:04] You know what I mean? [1:15:05] Why does it feel like they've been in a relationship? [1:15:09] Why does this feel like she's having an argument with her husband with the therapist in the room? [1:15:16] You know what I'm saying? [1:15:16] I didn't have said more, but I would like to address what you said in that tweet. [1:15:19] I mean, this is your time. [1:15:19] If this is how you want to spend it, interrogating my position, you can do it that way. [1:15:22] I'm just addressing what you asserted on your Twitter was like the hard evidence that convinced [1:15:26] you was overwhelming. [1:15:26] That's literally your debate claim. [1:15:27] That's not what you said. [1:15:28] That's not actually, in fact, what happened in that exchange. [1:15:30] I was here for it. [1:15:33] So what's your position here? [1:15:34] Yeah. [1:15:35] So my position is that based on all of the evidence, which has been demonstrated, [1:15:38] at least all the evidence to my knowledge, that I'm actually not seeing anything [1:15:43] that's compelling as an alternative theory. [1:15:45] I'm not seeing anything which is convincing me of something otherwise than what the state is presenting [1:15:49] as evidence. [1:15:49] That's my position. [1:15:50] If that's what you're asking me. [1:15:52] So just going back to what you did actually tweet, is it fair for me to ask questions [1:15:55] about that? [1:15:56] Is that the only tweet you're going to ask me about? [1:15:58] Well, we're addressing your claim that the evidence is overwhelming. [1:16:00] And this is a tweet where you listed what you felt was overwhelming. [1:16:01] I think that's fair. [1:16:02] I feel like that's fair. [1:16:03] But not exhaustive, just so you know. [1:16:04] And I never said it was exhaustive. [1:16:05] Go ahead. [1:16:06] You said I did. [1:16:06] Sure, whatever you want. [1:16:07] But yeah. [1:16:07] So going back to that, all of that, as you say to me, well, Candace, why are you addressing [1:16:11] and making inferences off of the testimony? [1:16:14] No, I never asked you why you're making inferences. [1:16:16] I asked you how, with the inference you made, you got to the conclusion. [1:16:19] Okay, so I would like to know how you got to the conclusion, and I'm just going to go [1:16:22] right back at you, because for some reason you permit yourself to do it, and that's what [1:16:25] I'm demonstrating, is that you permit yourself to do it, and then you say, when I do it, [1:16:28] it's a conspiracy, right? [1:16:29] No. [1:16:29] How are you able to infer off of blurry staircase images that that is Tyler Robinson? [1:16:33] Yeah, so in that particular case, what you do is you take that evidence, you combine [1:16:37] it with other evidence. [1:16:38] So it's not just that Tyler Robinson is seen in the staircase. [1:16:41] Why are you calling him Tyler Robinson in the staircase? [1:16:42] That's what I want to get to. [1:16:43] Yeah, because, I mean, we'll just use this. [1:16:45] If you don't agree that that's Tyler Robinson, then you would just have to humor me. [1:16:48] I think it is, so I'm using the name. [1:16:49] But why do you think it is? [1:16:50] Because you make everybody, you call them conspiracy theorists. [1:16:51] That's literally what I'm trying to explain to you. [1:16:52] Okay. [1:16:53] So if you're asking for my inference why I think it's Tyler Robinson is because, A, [1:16:56] Tyler Robinson said in his text messages, you'll be able to see me on security footage [1:16:59] at the campus. [1:17:00] Said it in his own messages. [1:17:01] On top of that, Twiggs, yes, you can pull them up if you want to fact check that. [1:17:04] He did say. [1:17:05] Yeah, I actually think I really did miss that. [1:17:06] I'm not saying you're wrong. [1:17:07] I just, I don't remember him saying you're going to see me in... [1:17:09] I'm paranoid. [1:17:10] Can we pull that up? [1:17:10] By the way, Twiggs himself said that he had some, maybe a tiny bit of doubt, but it sure [1:17:18] looked like Tyler Robinson inside of this various surveillance footage that he saw. [1:17:23] So there's multiple reasons why it is that I believe that that's Tyler Robinson, not just [1:17:29] because of blurry footage. [1:17:30] Did you have a dream? [1:17:31] Just kidding. [1:17:32] No, it's because I combined multitudes of evidences. [1:17:34] Okay. [1:17:34] So let's address those multitude of evidences. [1:17:36] The first one we're working on a fact check on, because I do not ever remember him tweeting. [1:17:39] That's me in the staircase. [1:17:40] I mean, or texting that that's me in the staircase. [1:17:43] I think that I... [1:17:44] I didn't say that. [1:17:46] I said he... [1:17:47] I literally didn't. [1:17:48] What I said is that he texted over, you'll be able to see me in footage at the EU. [1:17:52] I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he said. [1:17:54] Yeah. [1:17:54] Could we get a fact check on that? [1:17:55] The second thing you said was Lance's testimony where, and actually what Lance says is I'm [1:17:59] not a hundred percent. [1:18:00] I agree. [1:18:00] But in terms of what he wears, again, me pointing out the absurdity, he wears converses. [1:18:05] He wears sneakers. [1:18:06] If his boyfriend is not a hundred percent, I'd like to understand why Andrew Wilson is [1:18:09] overwhelmed by it. [1:18:10] That's what I'm trying to get to. [1:18:11] And lastly, I would like to remind you that Lance's statement would not be permitted. [1:18:15] This was a huge part of the preliminary hearing that they were leading. [1:18:17] All the questions that were asked of him were leading. [1:18:20] So they would be struck down at the actual trial. [1:18:21] And also, I would like to remind you that he got use immunity for that. [1:18:24] Use immunity. [1:18:25] I understand. [1:18:26] Which means like... [1:18:26] That happens, by the way, all the time in these cases. [1:18:28] And I'm wondering why it particularly happened for Lance in this testimony. [1:18:30] And I would also like to point out that something that's remarkable about this, [1:18:32] again, leaning to my perspective, that Lance has a lot more, which I have said [1:18:35] many times, Lance has a lot more involvement than the feds are letting us know. [1:18:39] I think more is going to come out. [1:18:39] No, we just be sad either. [1:18:40] Because they interviewed him on September 11th. [1:18:43] And then for whatever reason, just ahead of what was supposed to be slated as the [1:18:46] preliminary hearing, which was initially supposed to be in May, they bring him back [1:18:49] to do this interview, which in my opinion should have never been allowed. [1:18:53] And I actually agree with the defense that it's a violation of his constitutional rights [1:18:55] not to allow them to have cross-examined him. [1:18:57] But I understand Utah 1102, do what you do. [1:18:59] It's all hearsay. [1:19:01] But to allow it in that way for him to just be able to also have use immunity, [1:19:05] knowing that he's not going to be, he's not going to get in trouble. [1:19:06] He can literally get up there and lie about anything. [1:19:08] And he's not going to get in trouble because the use immunity was given to him in April. [1:19:11] I believe April 28th is when they gave that testimony to the defense. [1:19:14] I think they shot it in like April 20th of 2026. [1:19:17] That is not compelling to me for somebody who has use immunity to give a testimony and to [1:19:20] say, I'm not really sure, but definitely like he wears jeans and stuff. [1:19:24] That's not what he said. [1:19:25] He did actually get a fact check on that. [1:19:26] So a couple of things we have, we have rule 801, Tyler's messages that says it's not hearsay. [1:19:33] But first go to what Candace is asking about. [1:19:35] Skylar, I think you have it. [1:19:37] You just text him if you want to pull it up. [1:19:38] You said you have the text. [1:19:39] If we can put that up on the screen. [1:19:41] Thank you. [1:19:42] It was me. [1:19:42] Look at the pictures from Mr. Vail. [1:19:43] It was me. [1:19:44] Okay. [1:19:44] I literally said to you, it's not an oof. [1:19:45] I said I didn't remember this and I'm happy to have a fact check on that. [1:19:47] Okay. [1:19:47] I didn't call for the fact check saying you're wrong. [1:19:49] I literally said I don't remember that. [1:19:50] I'm just saying to you, like, I'm trying to be concise for you. [1:19:52] And then also bring the 801 that you just said. [1:19:54] Yep, the 801, Tyler messages saying it's not hearsay. [1:19:58] If you have that as one. [1:20:02] There you go. [1:20:06] Wait, what are we saying? [1:20:06] It's not hearsay. [1:20:08] A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay. [1:20:10] It was hearsay. [1:20:11] They said it in the trial. [1:20:12] Hang on. [1:20:12] Hang on. [1:20:13] Okay. [1:20:13] Okay. [1:20:15] Is consistent with the declarant's testimony and the declarant denies having made the statement [1:20:19] or has forgotten or is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut [1:20:23] express implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated or acted in a recent improper [1:20:27] influence or motive and testifying. [1:20:29] So then wouldn't that mean that a bunch of this wasn't hearsay? [1:20:31] So the issue with his... [1:20:32] I just want to make sure. [1:20:33] Would that mean that a bunch of this wasn't hearsay? [1:20:35] So the opposing party, which down the line, like I said, they talked about this for an [1:20:38] hour and a half. [1:20:39] And they discussed how if Lance was in court and he was giving his first party, you know, [1:20:43] giving his testimony as the opposing party, whatever, all of this would be fine. [1:20:46] They had an issue with how the questions were being asked and that they were not allowed [1:20:49] to cross-examine him. [1:20:50] So that is why his video testimony would not be accepted in the main trial. [1:20:53] And what I said to you is this entire preliminary hearing is under Utah's 1102. [1:20:58] So they are allowed to just use hearsay. [1:21:00] No, you didn't say that. [1:21:01] You said most of it was hearsay, actually. [1:21:03] Yeah, it was. [1:21:03] The overwhelming majority. [1:21:04] Well, I mean, I'm leaning now into my opinion that some scientific aspects, which they kept [1:21:08] asserting like the federal rule 403 or 402. [1:21:11] Some of those parts were quite scientific. [1:21:12] Sounds like you're backtracking quite a bit. [1:21:14] No, I'm not backtracking at all. [1:21:15] Let me help you. [1:21:15] Where do you feel like I'm backtracking? [1:21:16] It literally was done under Utah's 1102. [1:21:18] Yeah, nobody disputed that. [1:21:19] What the dispute was is whether or not most of it was overwhelmingly hearsay. [1:21:22] Is that the case? [1:21:22] Yes, it was. [1:21:23] Yes, that's a fact. [1:21:23] I'm not backtracking on that at all. [1:21:24] And what are the things- [1:21:25] How many times did you watch a period of hearing? [1:21:26] It's like, they constantly, I'm 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102, 1102. [1:21:30] And the reason for that is because it's allowed. [1:21:31] I'm not saying it's illegal. [1:21:32] It's allowed at this stage. [1:21:33] But I'm just reminding you that when you're going to sit across from someone and your claim is [1:21:36] going to be, where is your hard evidence? [1:21:37] This is what I heard. [1:21:38] And I agree with what I'm watching. [1:21:39] You are watching the state put on a hearsay preliminary hearing. [1:21:46] Witness statements and things of that nature. [1:21:47] There's a reason why they swear you in and they say, you swear to yourself the truth, [1:21:51] the whole truth. [1:21:51] Did you write this statement? [1:21:53] These things are not in dispute. [1:21:53] So it's the overwhelming majority of what you saw was hearsay because other people were [1:21:57] representing other people's statements. [1:21:58] They were saying they had conversations. [1:22:00] We don't know where it came from. [1:22:01] All allowed at this stage. [1:22:02] Okay. [1:22:02] But it's hearsay. [1:22:03] But even a lot of that stuff may not fall under hearsay under what we just read, right? [1:22:07] But the evidence that you're speaking about, like when you're just, when you say [1:22:10] that we're going off vibes, you don't know Tyler Robinson. [1:22:12] Okay. [1:22:13] His boyfriend is not 100% that was him. [1:22:14] So I'm going back to your points that you made that this was overwhelming evidence for [1:22:18] you. [1:22:18] That doesn't make sense to me. [1:22:19] Well, overwhelming just means convincing. [1:22:20] You can't consider another option that there could have been another white guy wearing [1:22:23] converses on campus. [1:22:24] Do you agree with me that I said that what overwhelming means to me is that it's just [1:22:28] very convincing to me? [1:22:29] Yeah. [1:22:29] And I find it to be completely unconvincing. [1:22:30] And that's fair. [1:22:31] I understand that you can find. [1:22:32] Because I looked at those blurry photos that they presented and said, your statement on [1:22:36] right now is that he's wearing converses and he also, that's just crazy to me. [1:22:39] But these aren't the evidences that I find the most convincing. [1:22:41] Well, you said that in your Twitter. [1:22:43] That's not the only thing I've ever said on my Twitter about this case. [1:22:45] Right. [1:22:45] But the question that was asked to be was pretty direct. [1:22:47] Yeah. [1:22:47] Right. [1:22:48] What did you find to be? [1:22:48] And this is not an exhaustive list of all the things that I find convincing. [1:22:50] Well, that's not what you said in the tweet. [1:22:51] You can tweet longer too. [1:22:52] It's not like we're limited now to 240 characters anymore. [1:22:54] So wait. [1:22:54] So anything that I tweet and all other tweets that I've ever made are now excluded because [1:22:59] I use the word overwhelming in this one. [1:23:00] Well, they wanted to. [1:23:01] Even though all of this information I've said so publicly over and over and over again is [1:23:04] what informs my position for why I'm convinced on the case. [1:23:07] That's bizarre to me. [1:23:08] I feel like this is Andrew versus Andrew. [1:23:09] Somebody asked you a question. [1:23:10] What are the points that you find to be the most overwhelming? [1:23:13] And you answered. [1:23:13] You mean from that day, from that particular day of the hearing that I was responding to? [1:23:18] Okay. [1:23:18] Is this something you have? [1:23:18] Do you find to be more overwhelming? [1:23:20] Yes. [1:23:20] Yes. [1:23:20] That's what I was saying. [1:23:21] Okay. [1:23:21] Go ahead. [1:23:21] Go on. [1:23:22] What do you find to be more overwhelming? [1:23:22] Yeah. [1:23:23] Yeah. [1:23:23] Can we do this? [1:23:23] Do we want to get into it? [1:23:24] Or do we want to do a quick ad break? [1:23:26] Are you guys good to keep going? [1:23:28] Should we make some money? [1:23:30] Would you like to take a quick break? [1:23:31] Doesn't matter to me either way. [1:23:32] If we're going into a different topic, that may be another 30 minutes, 40 minutes. [1:23:34] I don't want to stop you guys in the middle of this. [1:23:35] Let's end on what you find to be more overwhelming. [1:23:37] Yeah. [1:23:37] Yeah. [1:23:37] So for me, it's the confessions, the text messages. [1:23:42] All of that is what I consider to be, from my opinion, that's the most convincing for me. [1:23:46] Okay. [1:23:46] We should discuss the text message confessions when we get back, if you'd like to. [1:23:50] Okay. [1:23:50] That's a good idea. [1:23:51] Shall we make some more money? [1:23:52] We're going to take a quick ad break. [1:23:52] We will be back in three and a half minutes. [1:23:54] Thank you. [1:23:55] All right, you guys. [1:23:56] Visit slash. [1:23:57] Come on back, babies. [1:24:02] Just an FYI, for those of you that are watching The Crucible, there's 30,000 concurrent there [1:24:08] watching. [1:24:09] Support Andrew Wilson. [1:24:11] That's your fans of his. [1:24:12] Click that subscribe button and it helps him grow his business. [1:24:14] If you're watching Candace, I think there's 225 to 250,000 concurrent right now. [1:24:18] We'd like to see that 300,000, 400,000 number on there. [1:24:21] Click that button as well to subscribe and share it with your friends and family. [1:24:23] And if you're watching it on PBD Podcast, do the same there as well. [1:24:26] This allows us to have more conversations like this. [1:24:28] The mainstream media hates the fact that we're having these conversations right now, just [1:24:32] so you know. [1:24:32] They want to control it. [1:24:33] This is free-for-all. [1:24:34] This is what's best for the audience. [1:24:35] That's why we like freedom of speech. [1:24:36] Having said that, let me just say this. [1:24:41] $300,000 she just made on top of the thousands upon thousands of dollars that she's making [1:24:47] off of this live stream as well. [1:24:49] I mean, they're all profiting. [1:24:51] They're all starting to profit off of it as well. [1:24:53] You know, Patrick, David has his own platform. [1:24:57] So does Andrew Wilson. [1:24:58] So they're all making money off this, but she's still walking away with more money than any [1:25:03] of these guys combined. [1:25:04] I mean, it's crazy. [1:25:07] It's just crazy. [1:25:08] Crazy. [1:25:09] But how do you think she's holding right now? [1:25:12] Do you think she's making a strong argument, or do you still think it's just a whole bunch [1:25:17] of slob? [1:25:18] Let me know what your thoughts. [1:25:19] Let's go back into the text conversation you were having, right? [1:25:21] Okay. [1:25:21] Let's stay there, and then we'll go into the cross-examination stuff in about 30 minutes. [1:25:24] Okay. [1:25:24] That sounds fair. [1:25:26] Okay. [1:25:26] So yeah, I use basically three pillars for the totality of the evidence. [1:25:31] Okay. [1:25:31] So if you want to know exactly what those three pillars are, this is going to be the testimony [1:25:36] with the text messages and the confessions. [1:25:39] This is going to be the physical evidence, and this is going to be the totality of the [1:25:43] summary of the case. [1:25:44] Okay. [1:25:44] So right now we're focusing on one of these pillars in my defense, which is fine. [1:25:48] I understand that I have to defend my claims as well. [1:25:50] So when we're talking about the messages themselves, they seem totally valid. [1:25:54] I have no idea why they wouldn't be valid, and I have not heard any good explanation for [1:25:59] why it is that these messages should even be questioned. [1:26:02] The defense hasn't questioned them, as far as I'm aware. [1:26:04] Nobody has actually questioned that these messages came from Robinson to date, except [1:26:08] perhaps you and other people who are kind of in that camp. [1:26:11] But why should I question these exactly? [1:26:13] I'm not sure. [1:26:14] Okay. [1:26:14] So first, let's just go over legally what the point is of a probative hearing. [1:26:17] The defense is not putting on, they're not there to say or to argue or to defend themselves [1:26:21] at all. [1:26:22] They have to address what is being presented by the state. [1:26:25] Okay. [1:26:25] So they're not here to then say, let me give you an explanation for these text messages. [1:26:28] The relevant portion of what the defense did do was actually before we got to the preliminary [1:26:33] hearing, I had mentioned that it was initially supposed to be scheduled for some time in May. [1:26:36] They asked for an extension. [1:26:38] That reading through those filings of why they were requesting an extension and why I actually [1:26:42] believe their extension should have been granted, because they did not receive discovery [1:26:46] on their text messages. [1:26:47] That was one of the reasons. [1:26:48] There were many reasons why they wanted to have an extension, but this was crucial, right? [1:26:50] So forget just the general sense that these messages feel off. [1:26:54] And yes, you are allowed to have an intuition. [1:26:56] You are allowed to have a sense and just go, this is very weird. [1:26:58] We're being told this kid had like above a 4.0, Tyler Robinson. [1:27:01] He wanted to get away. [1:27:02] I mean, the text messages almost run head to head with themselves. [1:27:06] Like he wanted to get away with it. [1:27:07] So he thought the best thing to do would be to text a full confession of what he did down [1:27:11] to what I didn't even remember saying. [1:27:13] Yeah. [1:27:13] And that's also me in a surveillance footage. [1:27:14] It felt a little too on the nose. [1:27:17] I just, people have common sense. [1:27:18] You just don't text message. [1:27:19] But then we're also supposed to believe that he put a note under because, and burn this [1:27:22] and get rid of the evidence. [1:27:22] But don't worry about that. [1:27:23] Because I'm about to text you a full confession. [1:27:24] It fell off. [1:27:25] It felt weird off the bat. [1:27:26] The manner in which they were texting were told he's like a gamer who's using a Dremel to carve [1:27:31] expressions, catch fascists. [1:27:32] But then suddenly he's writing like a 1700 novelist player. [1:27:36] He did get, he did actually get the 500k code. [1:27:38] Correct. [1:27:39] Yeah. [1:27:40] I'm not a gamer. [1:27:40] So we'll say that we start debating that you'll be way over my head. [1:27:43] But yes. [1:27:43] But my point being is just that just first it's a general sense of why people had a reaction [1:27:46] to these messages that seemed like they were written by Jane Austen rather than like a [1:27:50] kid who games and writes. [1:27:51] But do you see how that's intuition? [1:27:53] That is. [1:27:53] I am. [1:27:53] I just said that. [1:27:54] I said, just so you know, I have sped this up just so you guys know, I have sped this [1:27:58] up so we can catch up to if we ever get a chance to catch up to the live. [1:28:03] Okay. [1:28:03] Just so you know. [1:28:04] Just put it parking aside the intuition of just something feels wrong here, which you [1:28:07] should follow your intuition. [1:28:08] You should actually do that. [1:28:09] If you say the COVID vaccine is running out, feels like it's coming out too fast and there's [1:28:12] too many celebrities trying to do it. [1:28:13] I'd like to take a pause. [1:28:14] That's good. [1:28:15] That is, you are allowed to do that. [1:28:16] I believe in intuition. [1:28:17] But hang on, hang on, hang on. [1:28:18] Let me respond a little bit here because you've been going for a minute. [1:28:20] Let me at least respond to a little bit of this. [1:28:21] So the first thing is, is like when people bring up the COVID vaccine, not trusting the [1:28:24] COVID vaccine in mass was the science. [1:28:26] That wasn't just intuition. [1:28:27] That was the science. [1:28:29] There was tons of competing science. [1:28:30] Now they tried to suppress it. [1:28:31] That's true, but there was tons of competing science for why you shouldn't take a risky [1:28:34] mRNA vaccine and mass and things like this. [1:28:38] Now when you're talking about intuition though, when you say trust your intuition, I'm actually [1:28:41] giving a different message. [1:28:42] You actually should be very wary about trusting just your intuition. [1:28:45] It is true that intuition can be useful, but it has to be tempered with logic, reason, [1:28:49] explanatory power, and evidence, not just intuition. [1:28:52] That's why we're parking it aside. [1:28:53] Intuition is the first step. [1:28:53] Something feels off, right? [1:28:54] Okay. [1:28:55] That was my first step with COVID. [1:28:56] I don't like the way it's being pushed. [1:28:57] It shouldn't require a celebrity campaign, by the way. [1:28:59] Another element of that is why people don't feel good about the Charlie thing. [1:29:01] Why do we have so many influencers saying things? [1:29:03] It's over. [1:29:03] Why are you guys all using the same adjective? [1:29:05] Can you switch it up? [1:29:06] I'm overwhelmed. [1:29:06] I'm overwhelmed. [1:29:07] Like chill. [1:29:08] Like you could say, I found some parts compelling. [1:29:10] I think they should go. [1:29:11] I found some parts compelling. [1:29:13] Maybe we should, you know, see at the trial. [1:29:15] That would be kind of- [1:29:16] Don't you think Fed Slop's a buzzword for the counter industry? [1:29:18] But everyone on the same day of watching this trial, which was, I would say, not overwhelming [1:29:22] at all. [1:29:23] Nobody came in medium, right? [1:29:25] No one came in. [1:29:25] Like there were some interesting aspects. [1:29:27] This was a little suspect. [1:29:28] But I do think it's enough to go to trial. [1:29:29] They all came in like they were passing away and we're going to die from being overwhelmed. [1:29:31] Well, they're trusting their intuition. [1:29:33] Okay. [1:29:33] Well, actually in that scenario, they're looking at the preliminary hearing, have a reaction [1:29:36] to it. [1:29:36] It wasn't their intuition. [1:29:37] But like I said, parking aside, just getting to the substance. [1:29:39] Parking that aside. [1:29:39] Parking aside, just a general intuition. [1:29:40] Then we look at the filings, which came from the defense and they were requesting an extension [1:29:45] saying, we have gone to the prosecution and we have requested all of this stuff in Discovery. [1:29:50] Yes, you are saying that you took Lance's phone, okay? [1:29:53] And that you collected his phone on September 11th and that you sent it off or whatever. [1:29:57] You took a picture of the text messages and we are being given these text messages to review. [1:30:02] Crucially, Kathy Nestor said, I have not even been given access to my client's phone during [1:30:07] this hearing. [1:30:07] She's not having me access to my client's phone. [1:30:09] She can't tell you as a part of the Discovery Quest is, it's not enough to say to me, Candace, [1:30:13] I just got a text message from Candace and I say, I didn't send that text message. [1:30:16] Maybe that's what a client's saying. [1:30:17] We don't know because we're not at the trial, right? [1:30:18] Maybe he didn't send those messages. [1:30:20] Could there be someone who logged into his Discord? [1:30:22] Could there be someone who logged in to his Apple? [1:30:24] George could be sending text messages right now. [1:30:25] We are married. [1:30:25] He has every login that I have. [1:30:27] And remember, he's up for a death sentence. [1:30:29] So if I'm able to sow reasonable doubt with common sense, he may come during the trial [1:30:33] and when they actually have to address these points, say, I did not write those messages. [1:30:37] I was here. [1:30:38] Lance, my boyfriend, was logged into my phone, logged into my Apple ID and my iCloud sending messages. [1:30:42] I know that we have the capability because my husband does it. [1:30:44] He has the capability to send messages from my phone. [1:30:45] It is not convincing to the public when, for whatever reason, the FBI would not, FBI combined [1:30:51] with the SBI, it was not the prosecution's fault. [1:30:53] They made that clear during that hearing, would not allow them that Discovery Request to [1:30:56] be able to see where did that message come from? [1:30:58] Because you're saying my client was here, right? [1:31:01] I want to know if that message actually was generated from his iPhone when he was waiting [1:31:05] to retrieve his rifle, hoping that the pooch doesn't have a bad sniffer, like just weird [1:31:10] messages, I want to make sure that, yes, it was actually him. [1:31:13] He was holding his phone and his boyfriend didn't just log in to his computer when he [1:31:17] was home. [1:31:18] Lance was his boyfriend. [1:31:18] That is a crucial fact here. [1:31:20] That discovery was not met by the time I got to preliminary hearing. [1:31:22] So I remain unconvinced by these text messages. [1:31:26] Just as you feel convinced by them, I feel unconvinced by them. [1:31:28] Okay. [1:31:28] So then the idea here is the reason that you don't think that these are valid text messages [1:31:33] and you don't, right? [1:31:34] It has not been proven that these messages are valid and they don't sound valid to me. [1:31:37] I don't think anyone, even if someone was selling like a, I don't know, pot on the [1:31:42] corner, would be smarter than to write a full-fledged confession. [1:31:45] He even writes, I thought I would get away with it and I was hoping never to tell you [1:31:49] until old age. [1:31:50] And then we're being told that he wanted to commit suicide and okay, but he just said [1:31:53] he wanted to get away with it, but he's not smart enough to, I don't know, maybe not [1:31:57] text a, like it's such a confession. [1:31:58] Like we've never seen it. [1:31:59] I think this would be like the first time ever somebody has start to finish written an [1:32:02] entire, here's, I'm in the surveillance footage and I'm here and I'm wearing my [1:32:06] converse, you know, I'm being a little facetious here, but it was a little ridiculous. [1:32:09] It didn't, it didn't pass the sniff test for me. [1:32:10] You have kids and you love them more than anything. [1:32:12] I do. [1:32:12] If it was the case that you thought that the, your kid was innocent, wouldn't you be [1:32:16] out telling everybody and their brother that you thought that they were innocent? [1:32:18] And also, wouldn't you say, wouldn't you maybe recant and say, Hey, I didn't actually, [1:32:24] he didn't actually confess to me. [1:32:25] He didn't actually, none of this happened the way that the state is presenting it. [1:32:29] What would have prevented the parents from testifying? [1:32:31] Well, two things I can answer that. [1:32:32] And if you, if you watch my show, I keep telling you, it's not vibes. [1:32:34] So right after the shooting happened, uh, Lance Twiggs, you know, the FBI put him into [1:32:38] a house, safe house they paid for. [1:32:40] They went to the parents as well. [1:32:42] To Matt Robinson and Amber basically said, your life's at risk. [1:32:44] There could be somebody who jumps up and wants to avenge Charlie Kirk. [1:32:46] And you know, we're going to watch you. [1:32:47] And they went into a federal safe house. [1:32:50] Uh, what happens next is that they started thinking that the feds were maybe gonna, like, [1:32:55] maybe not as honest as they thought. [1:32:56] Um, and how do you know all the, any of that? [1:32:59] You see, you gotta, you gotta watch the show, right? [1:33:00] No, how do you know that? [1:33:01] I had a source within the Robinson family. [1:33:03] You have a source. [1:33:04] An anonymous source, of course. [1:33:05] So there's no way for us to verify that what you're saying right now is actually even true. [1:33:08] Do you find it to be reliable hearsay? [1:33:09] Uh, no, I don't find it to be reliable at all. [1:33:11] It's just a source. [1:33:12] I'm just doing what the prosecution did. [1:33:13] What you're doing is a cool story. [1:33:14] It's not a cool story. [1:33:15] Hang on, hang on, hang on. [1:33:15] You're giving us, you're giving us, you're giving us a cool story. [1:33:18] You're saying that according to your sources, that the reason that the parents haven't [1:33:22] recanted any of this. [1:33:23] Recanted what? [1:33:23] They have no statement from the parents. [1:33:24] Wait, I just want to make sure that I, if, if it was the case that was being reported in mainstream [1:33:28] media, that your father came to you and said, hey, is this you? [1:33:31] Is what's going on here? [1:33:33] And then he and one of his buddies took you in where you turned yourself in. [1:33:37] You wouldn't go out and be like, no, that's not what happened. [1:33:38] That isn't what happened though. [1:33:39] You're just wrong on this. [1:33:40] Okay. [1:33:40] Maybe I'm paraphrasing. [1:33:41] So what is your, sorry, just so I'm clear. [1:33:43] What, where is your evidence that the parents turned him in? [1:33:46] Well, no, no, no. [1:33:47] I didn't say that. [1:33:47] I said with, um, a sheriff friend. [1:33:51] Yes. [1:33:51] But the father did confront him. [1:33:53] The father confronted what? [1:33:54] Tyler Robinson. [1:33:55] And where did you learn this? [1:33:56] That the title, I mean, that's part of the official documents. [1:33:58] Our fact checkers can pull that up. [1:33:59] But I'm saying like, when you say official documents, do you mean you saw this on CNN [1:34:02] or you saw this play out in the hearing? [1:34:03] No, this was one of the things that I went through in fact check pre-debate. [1:34:05] Are you talking about like the charging documents? [1:34:07] I think it was in the, it could have been in the charging documents, but I did, but I [1:34:10] do, we can pull them up. [1:34:11] No. [1:34:11] And yes. [1:34:12] Are you disputing this? [1:34:13] Do we have that on the back to pull it up? [1:34:14] I can already tell you what you're talking about the charging documents, because this is [1:34:17] where we had to figure out where this story came from, because everyone was operating [1:34:20] on the assumption that Matt Robinson turned him in until we got to the preliminary hearing. [1:34:24] And we understood, like I said, even for that, when you are charging someone, you can use hearsay. [1:34:28] It's all probative, right? [1:34:29] Nothing. [1:34:29] So they didn't have statements. [1:34:30] It's not like Matt Robinson, even though he was interviewed that night, Amber Robinson [1:34:33] was interviewed that night by a fed separate rooms. [1:34:35] Tyler Robinson was interviewed by a fed. [1:34:37] They did not produce statements saying my son did this. [1:34:39] My son, I believe my son did this. [1:34:41] But what happened was they did interviews, but also the crucial person here who you just [1:34:44] brought up is Mike Mitchell. [1:34:45] Mike Mitchell is the biggest unknown in this entire case. [1:34:48] Everyone keeps saying they heard from Mike Mitchell this, they heard from Mike Mitchell [1:34:50] that. [1:34:51] So when the person wrote up the report that night, and it was Brian Davis who wrote up the, [1:34:54] what became the charging document. [1:34:56] He, uh, after they transported, uh, Tyler Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's County [1:35:01] office, uh, up to, I think it's Salt Lake city at, I think it was 4am in the morning. [1:35:04] I got up there. [1:35:05] He then writes the, uh, charging, what becomes a charging document. [1:35:08] So he's basically saying, we all spoke to a bunch of people and here's the information [1:35:11] that we got, right? [1:35:13] We've not seen that. [1:35:14] So it could have come from Mike Mitchell. [1:35:15] Mike Mitchell could be saying, I don't know how this negates the point though. [1:35:17] Why wouldn't the parents, because you don't have a statement from the parents. [1:35:20] You are, you are going. [1:35:21] Why wouldn't they just correct the, the, the, the misinformation negate the point. [1:35:24] The point is, is that we now got the preliminary hearing. [1:35:27] If the parents were the ones who said, I'm turning my son in because he's guilty. [1:35:30] I didn't say they turn him in. [1:35:31] I think you're talking about the over, you said it's been the narrative. [1:35:33] Everybody's known this, the narrative initially, which I think you agree with was that, you [1:35:36] know, Matt Robinson knew his kid was guilty and turned him into the police station. [1:35:39] What actually happened in terms of Sheriff Brooksby, who was present there and gave a press [1:35:42] conference. [1:35:42] What happened was this Mike Mitchell character, uh, essentially peer pressured him and we can get [1:35:46] a fact check on this. [1:35:46] We can find Sheriff Brooksby's, uh, press conference. [1:35:49] And he said, you know, they, they know it's you and you're going to come in, uh, peaceably [1:35:53] or people are going to be banging down your door. [1:35:55] He was a undercover cop, which I don't like that. [1:35:58] I don't know what he did undercover. [1:35:59] It's very hard to find anything about Mike Mitchell, but he worked with them for 20 plus [1:36:02] years, the police officers. [1:36:03] Uh, the reason why Tyler Robinson knew him was because he lived nearby and he was also [1:36:06] his boy scout. [1:36:06] How does this negate that the parents could write this second? [1:36:09] And by the way, if you, if you had the evidence, I'm just saying that your, your first point, [1:36:12] which is that the parents did this. [1:36:13] Yeah. [1:36:13] We don't know that the parents, I never, I didn't say that they did ever. [1:36:16] Well, you're quoting the parents as having said, you said that Matt Robinson said that [1:36:19] his kid was, you say involved. [1:36:20] I don't want to misquote you. [1:36:21] Confronted him about it. [1:36:22] Confronted him. [1:36:22] Yes. [1:36:22] And I'm telling you that we have not seen any evidence that that is true. [1:36:25] We can fact check that. [1:36:25] Okay. [1:36:26] Because we do have evidence. [1:36:26] And I'm saying it's the charging doc, which could have been derived from a statement [1:36:29] Mike Mitchell said. [1:36:29] Two things I have ready in the back. [1:36:30] One is the charging doc. [1:36:31] And the other one is a video of Kathy Nestor saying she hasn't seen Tyler's phone. [1:36:35] Okay. [1:36:35] We can run Kathy to go back and then just to go back to Kathy first in court saying she didn't [1:36:39] get her client's phone. [1:36:40] Yeah. [1:36:40] And then I think we'll go to the thing, not in dispute. [1:36:43] These are all things that I'm not even disputing. [1:36:45] We never get to the thing that I am disputing. [1:36:48] Well, you were, I was just providing an answer. [1:36:49] We were coming back in from a break because you were talking about the technology, something [1:36:52] that you felt was concrete. [1:36:52] So it was just my rebuttal to you that it's not concrete because they haven't had a chance [1:36:56] to actually answer that. [1:36:57] And she didn't even get to see your client's phone. [1:36:58] So that's effectively, again, the state saying these messages are real. [1:37:01] You don't get the discovery on these messages just yet. [1:37:03] She will during trial. [1:37:04] They will actually get that would make their case fall apart. [1:37:06] If it was the case that they weren't able to actually pull the data off the text messages, [1:37:09] do you think the prosecution would go to court with fabricated text messages? [1:37:12] It's called, it's called winners and losers. [1:37:14] They may not be fabricated. [1:37:14] But by the way, as, as, as what they are saying, like I said, if there was somebody logged into [1:37:18] his phone, they may not be fabricated. [1:37:19] That's the point. [1:37:20] So let's get to the parents, the parents fact check. [1:37:23] Yeah. [1:37:23] So I was saying, I believe what you're talking about was derived from the charging doc, which [1:37:26] was signed off by Brian Davis. [1:37:27] Let's see if that's correct. [1:37:33] What are we looking at? [1:37:33] Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, I'm sorry. [1:37:37] Can you zoom in? [1:37:38] Is this the charging doc? [1:37:38] I can't see it. [1:37:40] Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of [1:37:43] the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. [1:37:46] He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the shooter used matched the rifle [1:37:49] that was given to his son as a gift. [1:37:51] As a result, Robinson's father contacted his son and asked him to send a photo of the [1:37:54] rifle, which makes sense with the text messages. [1:37:56] Robinson did not respond. [1:37:57] However, Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Robinson. [1:37:59] Robinson implied he planned to take his own life. [1:38:02] Robinson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home. [1:38:04] Yes. [1:38:04] So this is proving my point. [1:38:05] Is this, this is from the charging document, correct? [1:38:07] Yeah. [1:38:07] So what I'm saying to you is that three people got interviewed on that night. [1:38:10] Mike Mitchell got interviewed. [1:38:11] Amber Robinson got interviewed and Matt Robinson got interviewed. [1:38:14] Of the three of them, only one of them actually wrote a statement, which was referred to in [1:38:18] this preliminary trial. [1:38:19] He came in, I believe in March, Mike Mitchell, and he wrote a statement, which I find to be [1:38:23] very shady that they decided to bring. [1:38:24] Why aren't the parents disputing that? [1:38:25] Well, first off, the parents are not going to ever play in court, play to the cameras [1:38:31] in court when they have a legal team that is going to be advising them not to speak to [1:38:34] the court because you could, your son could go to prison. [1:38:35] But they're playing to somebody else who's your source. [1:38:37] I'm not going to address that. [1:38:39] They're playing to someone else who's your source, but won't go publicly tell the media [1:38:41] this is not true. [1:38:42] Well, what I did not say to you that I just said, I have a source. [1:38:45] So I want to be very clear and take it from somebody who was involved and permanently sued. [1:38:49] Uh, when I have to take my lawyer's advice, I mean, there's so many things I want to respond [1:38:53] to when people are speaking about, but it's bizarre that they would utilize a source, which [1:38:56] would get the information to you, but wouldn't just go to the media and be like, actually, [1:38:58] that's all wrong. [1:38:59] I am telling you that you would nary find a lawyer who would advise you to go to the [1:39:03] media. [1:39:04] Especially when your son was up for death. [1:39:07] If I thought that my kid was in any way, shape or form going to be up, you couldn't shut [1:39:11] me up or my wife, she would be like, that's not true. [1:39:13] That's ridiculous. [1:39:14] There's no possible that never happened. [1:39:16] These people are lying through their teeth. [1:39:17] They'd be public whether you like it or not. [1:39:19] Yeah, I, that's for you and your wife. [1:39:21] But when a judge issues a gag order in a case and your son is up for death and your lawyers [1:39:26] could be advising you, but if you say anything, you could blow the case, you would have a more [1:39:29] responsible consideration. [1:39:30] And we're, and we're speaking opinion here. [1:39:32] You're like, well, I wouldn't care. [1:39:33] I'd violate it. [1:39:33] And I violate the judge's orders and see what happens. [1:39:35] I got to, I got to interject. [1:39:38] I don't, I don't agree with that entirely at all. [1:39:41] Um, just using this as an example, you have a family, um, the Gonsalves family with the [1:39:48] Idaho four case, the judge sealed everything, gag order, the, you know, you name it. [1:39:53] Yeah. [1:39:54] Right. [1:39:55] They still were doing interviews even after the gag order. [1:40:00] They're like, sorry, we can't say much about this, but we think it's trashed about the gag [1:40:04] order and blah, blah, blah. [1:40:05] Uh, I mean, they were still extremely vocal about getting justice for their, for their [1:40:10] daughter. [1:40:11] Right. [1:40:12] So again, and I know it's a different scenario. [1:40:15] I know this different, you know, it's not the parents of the assailant or the alleged [1:40:19] it's the parent of a victim. [1:40:22] But the fact that you have a family that had a child become a victim of such a grisly crime, [1:40:30] they were, and they were so angry about stuff, right? [1:40:33] They were so angry, they went out of their way to be so, they were so vocal, even after [1:40:39] the fact that there was a gag order on everything. [1:40:42] There was a gag order on them and everything. [1:40:45] And they still didn't give a damn. [1:40:47] They still didn't care. [1:40:48] They were out there and talking like crazy. [1:40:51] Okay. [1:40:52] Yes. [1:40:52] They were still, you know, they were still maneuvering around that particular order, but [1:40:57] at the same time, it didn't stop them from being in the, these interviews and being [1:41:02] all up in the videos to get justice for their kid. [1:41:05] So I, I, I agree with Andrew on that. [1:41:08] If Tyler had nothing to do with this at all, nothing to do with it at all whatsoever, you [1:41:17] think the parents would be out here soldiering out there for him, right? [1:41:22] Soldiering on. [1:41:26] You see what I'm saying? [1:41:26] Yes. [1:41:27] You can interview, but you can't talk about the case specifics. [1:41:30] Exactly. [1:41:30] So Gonsalves family was all still out there doing as many interviews as they could because [1:41:35] they still wanted to keep their daughter's name relevant. [1:41:38] And, uh, in the, you know, in the forefront because they were still wanting justice. [1:41:43] Right? [1:41:44] So the same thing with this, if he's on, if he is unjustifiably being charged for something [1:41:52] and they believe that he didn't do it at all. [1:41:55] Why haven't we heard anything from them? [1:41:58] Here's the other thing too. [1:41:59] Let's not forget. [1:42:00] Allegedly, they are the ones who had him confess. [1:42:03] He later on eventually confessed to his parents through a family, you know, pastor, former [1:42:12] cop as well. [1:42:13] And after confessing, that's when he finally, they set something up to turn himself in without [1:42:19] them, like, you know, without the feds actually taking his ass out, you know, you know, neutralizing [1:42:25] him, if that makes any sense. [1:42:26] That was all orchestrated by the parents. [1:42:29] So if they really believed that he was innocent, he wouldn't be locked up right now, baby. [1:42:35] You feel me? [1:42:36] So again, you know, uh, Missy just said, that's not true. [1:42:44] This, that's not true. [1:42:45] Look at the Nolan case, Nolan, uh, Nolan Wells case. [1:42:49] Um, how so there are people out here or maybe you're agreeing with me. [1:42:56] I don't know. [1:42:57] But even with the Nolan Wells case, right? [1:42:59] More and more people who are being accused of doing certain things, they're coming out [1:43:02] and they're speaking out and saying, I didn't do it. [1:43:05] I didn't do it. [1:43:06] I didn't do it. [1:43:07] You see what I'm saying? [1:43:07] So, like I said, I'm not sitting here saying every case is the same. [1:43:13] I'm just using the example of the Idaho four as an example. [1:43:18] There was a gag order on everything. [1:43:22] And yet the family was still out there speaking and trying to, you know, seek justice for their [1:43:28] daughter. [1:43:28] So if Tyler Robinson really didn't do this and their family really believed that they didn't, that he didn't do this, I feel like they would be out here saying he didn't do it. [1:43:40] You see what I'm saying? [1:43:41] But they're not doing that. [1:43:43] Now, I also want to say this to you guys as well. [1:43:45] And maybe it's spoiler alert, okay? [1:43:48] I truly think that Tyler Robinson is the guy who took the life. [1:43:54] Well, here's the thing. [1:43:56] I think that Tyler Robinson had something to do with Charlie Kirk's death. [1:44:01] Absolutely. [1:44:02] Do I think he's the only one? [1:44:04] No, I don't. [1:44:05] I still think that there's somebody else. [1:44:06] There had to have been another factor, another entity that helped with this whole thing. [1:44:13] But nonetheless, I really do think that they do have the guy. [1:44:18] You see what I'm saying? [1:44:19] I do. [1:44:20] And then Nancy Guthrie's family, they've been really quiet. [1:44:23] That's very true. [1:44:25] But you still have Savannah Guthrie going out here and making videos every once in a while and saying, hey, we're trying to get her back. [1:44:32] We've paid money. [1:44:33] Please bring her home. [1:44:34] Please let us know where we can find her, so on and so forth. [1:44:38] So, I mean, at least somebody in the family is saying something. [1:44:42] None of the other family members are saying anything at all. [1:44:44] Is that an admission of guilt? [1:44:45] No. [1:44:46] But it is interesting nonetheless. [1:44:48] When it comes to all this, like I said, it seems interesting that what the stories tell us is that Tyler Robinson's parents turned him in, helped turn him in, helped him confess and turn himself in. [1:45:02] So, if they truly believe that he didn't do this at all, why would they have him turn himself in? [1:45:09] Then also on top of that, even after the fact, if they realized, oh, he made a mistake and he didn't do it at all, you'd think that they'd be out here saying he didn't do it. [1:45:18] They don't have to say specifics. [1:45:20] They could just be saying in, shoot, in tweets, in exclusive interviews with Gail and Oprah saying, yo, my son didn't do this. [1:45:28] He's been wrongfully accused and they still haven't said anything like that. [1:45:31] You see what I'm saying? [1:45:32] So, I digress. [1:45:33] Let us continue. [1:45:34] Violating it with them? [1:45:35] I didn't, I'm not speaking to a source, but what 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. [1:45:48] And Mike Mitchell would be a part of, he's saying- [1:45:50] Based on the statements of the parents. [1:45:52] Well, it's him saying, the parents told me this, the parents could dispute that. [1:45:55] That's going to come down the line, right? [1:45:56] They're going to be able to see the parents. [1:45:57] 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. [1:46:09] And I can tell you why, Matt Robinson made this statement and here is his statement that he signed. [1:46:13] That would have been a good time to present that evidence. [1:46:14] That would also be a good time for the defense to say that's just totally fabricated. [1:46:17] No, it's not. It's the wrong time. [1:46:17] Why couldn't they? [1:46:18] That is completely the wrong time. [1:46:18] Why couldn't they? [1:46:19] Because what they're doing is they already said they didn't receive discovery. [1:46:22] They literally can't. [1:46:22] They literally can't because they can't. [1:46:23] They did not receive discovery. [1:46:23] You're saying that they didn't receive that information? [1:46:25] No, no. [1:46:25] They just received the text messages. [1:46:27] But in order to- [1:46:28] That's not the text messages. [1:46:29] The probative information. [1:46:30] Yeah, we're talking about the information that we just reviewed. [1:46:32] That's not the text messages. [1:46:33] They never presented it. [1:46:33] The state never put it on. [1:46:35] The defense could easily still have presented this, yeah? [1:46:39] No. [1:46:39] They could have said they're- [1:46:40] No. [1:46:40] No, they're not allowed to? [1:46:41] Are you sure? [1:46:42] In a preliminary hearing, the defense is engaging with whatever evidence the state decides to put on. [1:46:46] They did not put this on as evidence. [1:46:48] Brian Davis was up there. [1:46:50] So they're not allowed to present anything? [1:46:52] They're responding to the state's evidence. [1:46:53] I'm asking, are they allowed to present anything? [1:46:54] They are allowed to say- [1:46:55] Like if there was a conspiracy that they could prove right then and there, would they present that in one of these hearings? [1:46:58] No, it wouldn't be the right time for that. [1:46:59] I disagree. [1:47:00] I think that they not only could do it, but they would do it. [1:47:03] 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. [1:47:10] So 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 that we think this needs to go forth to the trial. [1:47:21] Hence the reason that there's this extraordinary, we allow hearsay, because it doesn't really need to be perfect. [1:47:25] It can be enough that we feel like we can move forward, right? [1:47:27] And okay, I disagree with that in general when somebody's running in prison, but whatever. [1:47:30] 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. [1:47:41] We don't even have to defend ourselves because you, the state, have enough, you know what the laws are on the books. [1:47:45] And this filing is effective 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. [1:47:51] So that's why they then file the dismissal, right? [1:47:54] So in the dismissal, what they're doing is they are engaging. [1:47:56] And this is what was widely misinterpreted. [1:47:57] Well, yeah, they're engaging as though, as it's a hypothetical. [1:48:00] If this is hypothetically true, then X. [1:48:02] So they're saying all of these charges. [1:48:03] I'm not disputing any of that. [1:48:04] So that's what I am. [1:48:04] What I am. [1:48:05] You're saying, could they just put up? [1:48:05] No, what I'm asking specifically is like, who could shut parents up who are like, no way. [1:48:09] There's no possible. [1:48:10] This never happened. [1:48:11] This is ridiculous. [1:48:12] They would be shouting it on CNN. [1:48:14] They would be shouting it from the rooftops. [1:48:15] They would be losing their minds. [1:48:16] And you're like, nope, the gag order would be enough to keep them quiet. [1:48:19] Not enough for them to talk to your source, but enough to keep them quiet. [1:48:21] I think that that's quite ridiculous. [1:48:22] But I'll even concede this whole point to you. [1:48:24] Let's just say maybe this was misconstrued, right? [1:48:27] There's a little bit of reason to doubt it because we're still waiting for the evidence for trial. [1:48:31] If that's the case, then why not take the same standard for the evidence that you present? [1:48:34] You're just waiting for trial. [1:48:35] Well, you didn't do that. [1:48:36] Wait a second. [1:48:36] Wait a second. [1:48:37] I just want to make sure that I got this right. [1:48:39] That's your argument to me, right? [1:48:41] My argument to you is what? [1:48:42] Sorry. [1:48:42] Your argument to me is that, hey, wait a second, Andrew. [1:48:46] There's not enough here. [1:48:47] That convinces me, right? [1:48:48] Well, that's actually my rebuttal to you is that you are saying, why are people engaging [1:48:52] in what you term to be conspiracy theories? [1:48:54] I term it to be thinking. [1:48:56] They're just thinking because they're recognizing there are a lot of holes in these stories and [1:48:59] that this is not strong evidence, right? [1:49:01] This is the reason they're doing it. [1:49:02] I'm explaining to you. [1:49:02] This is the reason that they're doing it. [1:49:04] I'm addressing what you view to be overwhelming evidence. [1:49:07] And by the way, I want to be clear. [1:49:08] That which convinces me. [1:49:10] What? [1:49:10] Yeah. [1:49:10] Well, but thus far, every point that you brought up, every point that you brought up, would [1:49:15] you, did you feel like this is beyond a reasonable doubt? [1:49:17] I mean, you realize he's going to be. [1:49:19] It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. [1:49:21] It's just what I find convincing is what I find overwhelming. [1:49:23] So why are you so upset when people say they don't find it? [1:49:25] If that was the limitation of the claims that you made, if it was just, wait a second, [1:49:30] there's a little bit of problems. [1:49:31] There's some problems in this case that I have questions for that I want answers to. [1:49:33] Nobody would have a problem, actually. [1:49:35] At least of all me, I would be the least likely person to have an issue with you, any of your [1:49:39] fans, anybody saying. [1:49:40] In fact, I've had tons of Discord calls about this. [1:49:43] My position's always been clear. [1:49:45] Of course, conspiracies exist. [1:49:46] Some of them have way better evidence than others, but I've seen them myself. [1:49:49] I know conspiracy. [1:49:50] In fact, the federal government has hundreds of thousands of laws about conspiracies. [1:49:53] They see them everywhere. [1:49:55] We both know this, right? [1:49:56] That's never what the problem is. [1:49:58] The problem is when you make claims outside of, well, wait a second. [1:50:02] I'm just questioning evidence here. [1:50:03] I'm just questioning what the state's case is here. [1:50:05] I'm just asking questions. [1:50:06] It's when you make claims outside of that, where you claim that there's good evidence or [1:50:10] good standards you should believe because, and then it turns out that it's all nonsense [1:50:14] or it's wackadoo stuff or it makes no sense. [1:50:17] And when we have a chance to cross-examine your evidence that you've presented, I'm going [1:50:20] to show a lot of that. [1:50:20] A lot of this conjecture that's based on literally nothing that leads from no inferences whatsoever. [1:50:27] Like you couldn't even infer it logically. [1:50:29] That's the problem. [1:50:30] The problem has never been whether or not you just said, you know, there's not enough in [1:50:33] this case so far until we get to the trial. [1:50:35] I remain unconvinced. [1:50:36] I'm sure there's tons of people who remain unconvinced yet until we get to the trial. [1:50:39] I think that's fine. [1:50:40] I think it's fine. [1:50:41] There's people who are convinced too. [1:50:42] That's never been my problem. [1:50:43] My problem is the claims which are external to that. [1:50:46] Okay. [1:50:48] I'm not sure I really care if you have a problem with what I think in my own spare time. [1:50:52] I don't understand this like lecture that you just gave. [1:50:54] But beyond that, what I'm saying is that the state is allowed to use, this is what my problem [1:50:58] is. [1:50:58] You guys are not like, yeah, you guys think while it's illegal. [1:51:00] You actually, you can, you are allowed to do that. [1:51:02] So, but anyway, going back, going back to you saying I wouldn't have a problem. [1:51:06] I think I just demonstrated pretty thoroughly that what you claim that you have a problem with [1:51:10] is exactly what the state is engaged in at this stage. [1:51:12] So it doesn't make, it just doesn't make sense. [1:51:13] That's not the case. [1:51:14] In fact, so people look and they say, I'm looking at the gun and I see, and I'm inferring this [1:51:18] and someone else says, I'm looking at the gun evidence and I'm inferring that they're [1:51:21] both doing the exact same thing. [1:51:23] They're not. [1:51:23] You're just saying, I want to do it for the state. [1:51:24] That's propositionally false. [1:51:25] That is not propositionally false. [1:51:26] I'll explain exactly how. [1:51:27] It is the case that every proposition is going to have a true or false conclusion, period. [1:51:32] That's just logic, right? [1:51:33] It's a law of excluded middle. [1:51:35] All propositions are going to be true or they're going to be false. [1:51:38] When we get into when we're making inferences, we're making inferences based on, on propositions. [1:51:42] We can make, we can actually come to true conclusions with false premises inside of a proposition. [1:51:47] In fact, what we're talking about here is not whether or not you feel that you're convinced [1:51:50] by this evidence. [1:51:51] That you felt like you were convinced. [1:51:52] Right? [1:51:52] Sure. [1:51:53] But here's the thing. [1:51:54] When you ask me my reason, Andrew, why are you convinced by this? [1:51:56] I can give you my reasons why I'm convinced by it, why it seems reasonable and rational [1:51:59] to me to be convinced. [1:52:00] You could even say, but Andrew, I'm just not convinced by it. [1:52:03] If that was the limitation of your claims, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. [1:52:06] And that's why I wanted to have the conversation, in fact, was so that we could move into your [1:52:11] actual claims that you've made, which transcend the idea of, I'm just asking questions. [1:52:16] Before we get into that, your team has one thing they want to show before you go into [1:52:18] that. [1:52:18] So if you want to pull that up, this is the prosecution filing showing defense had full [1:52:23] discovery by April 1st. [1:52:24] They did not. [1:52:25] That's not true. [1:52:26] Wait a second. [1:52:26] Yeah. [1:52:27] To date, the state's prosecutors have disclosed all evidence that is presently and reasonably [1:52:31] available to them as required under rule 16, Utah are criminal to be more precise [1:52:35] as of April 1st. [1:52:37] Yeah, that was, that was not, that was not 100%. [1:52:38] That's why they're caging that by saying what's reasonable. [1:52:41] There was, I mean, there was an entire, and we can pull this up, like we should now play [1:52:43] the Kathy Nestor clip because that's from there. [1:52:45] So, and they were basically saying, you don't need it at this stage. [1:52:47] Meaning it's, it's not reasonable that you're asking for this when we're going into a hearing [1:52:51] that's just going to be based on hearsay and stuff, things of that nature. [1:52:53] But of course, by the time a trial comes, you're going to get all the discovery documents. [1:52:56] Where's the show cause? [1:52:56] Yes. [1:52:57] So that's what they're saying. [1:52:57] Yeah, I understand. [1:52:58] Okay. [1:52:58] So that's not. [1:52:59] And I'm even, and I'm even fine with it. [1:53:00] We all, we all know. [1:53:01] And then by the way, just now that the hearing is over and you can also fact check this, [1:53:04] they now at the, at the end of the preliminary hearing dropped, like an insane amount of the [1:53:08] discovery stuff they gave to them, like the week after you guys can give me the exact amount. [1:53:11] I don't want to say, cause I don't know my, um, I don't remember how much it was. [1:53:14] It was an absurd amount of stuff that they gave to them right after the preliminary hearing [1:53:16] that they had been asking for. [1:53:17] Cause that was one of the things that I kept saying on my show is as we were watching that [1:53:20] preliminary of the preliminary, why not just give them the stuff now so they can engage [1:53:23] in these arguments as I feel like you, it's like, I want to hear what they have to say [1:53:25] about the tech messages. [1:53:26] I want, why can't you just give them what they're asking for so that they can actually [1:53:29] engage you. [1:53:29] And, uh, it didn't happen. [1:53:30] So, but the judge ruled that it wasn't necessary at this stage. [1:53:34] And that was the whole point of that, uh, because it's preliminary to the preliminary. [1:53:37] Yeah. [1:53:37] Would you like to play the Kathy video? [1:53:39] Uh, well, he's saying he's not disagreeing, so I don't think we need to. [1:53:41] Yeah. [1:53:41] There's no disagreement that she said that. [1:53:43] So the, yeah. [1:53:45] So I guess the disagreements now would move into the evidences that you have stated on the [1:53:49] record, which transcend elements of reason. [1:53:52] Why are we having a transcendental conversation? [1:53:56] Now, because I mean, because your entire thing was about looking at the evidence, which never [1:54:00] made sense to me again, because all of the evidence that you felt to be overwhelming was [1:54:03] hearsay. [1:54:04] That was bizarre to me. [1:54:05] You told me that I could take as much time as I wanted to question. [1:54:07] No, but I'm just asking you to just to lay the groundwork of what you're saying is problematic [1:54:10] that you decide that it trips into something else. [1:54:12] And I do still want to hold you for going through, because we've discussed the gun. [1:54:15] We've discussed your, um, you can hold me to those things, but I would like to get [1:54:17] into the things that you've said. [1:54:18] Again, we should discuss the screwdriver as well. [1:54:18] So, and I'll explain exactly what the groundwork is. [1:54:20] When you make claims, which pass the idea of, I'm just asking questions because the [1:54:24] state's evidence is not convincing. [1:54:25] I think you have to answer for those claims because they are in regards to this case. [1:54:28] You're saying I have a claim. [1:54:30] It is in regards to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is what we're talking about. [1:54:33] Not just the case of Charlie Kirk is assassination. [1:54:35] You should have to answer for the claims that you've made in regards to the assassination [1:54:38] itself. [1:54:39] You should. [1:54:40] Yeah. [1:54:40] Agreed. [1:54:40] So if that's the case, then I would, I would like to finally dive into some of that evidence [1:54:45] and dive into it. [1:54:46] Well, just to be clear, and I'm happy to have you talk about, like I said, publicly, you [1:54:50] want to engage in some conspiracies, but I said, I want to make sure that we get to [1:54:52] the substance of our debate. [1:54:53] The substance of our debate is me demonstrating that all of the quote unquote evidence that [1:54:58] you feel that you have, which demonstrates that Tyler Robinson, I mean, the Tyler Robinson [1:55:01] shot Charlie Kirk. [1:55:02] You don't find convincing. [1:55:03] Well, it's been invalidated by the, by the testimony that we saw. [1:55:06] And in your answer for when I explained to you that he had the most degraded prints was, I [1:55:09] don't know. [1:55:09] Okay, well, there, then there lies my ability to process that. [1:55:13] It's just fine for you to not be convinced up to this point, all of your viewers, everybody [1:55:18] watching, nobody's giving, nobody's giving a dispute that if all your claims ever were, [1:55:24] were just up to now, the evidence that the state's given, I'm just kind of not convinced. [1:55:28] That is not what's been happening. [1:55:29] What's actually been happening is that you've made tons of claims in regards to this case [1:55:34] and in regards to the Kirk assassination, which are far above and beyond, I just doubt the [1:55:38] state's theory. [1:55:40] Okay. [1:55:40] Yeah. [1:55:41] I mean, sure. [1:55:41] I do doubt the state's theory. [1:55:43] I also am welcome to say what I think, you know, if you want to move into opinions, if [1:55:47] you want to talk about Erica Kirk, if you want to talk about Turning Point USA and get into [1:55:51] it, I'm totally happy to do that. [1:55:52] But I just want to say that like, I do not feel, because I've said what's important to [1:55:55] me is that we exhaust this topic first of our actual debate claims. [1:55:59] I do not feel that you sufficiently have argued that the evidence is overwhelming. [1:56:03] I'm sorry. [1:56:03] I have a question for you. [1:56:04] I am sorry you feel that way. [1:56:06] Candace, one question. [1:56:06] What evidence do you need to see for you to say Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk? [1:56:10] That's a great question. [1:56:11] So I actually expected in this preliminary hearing, actually, almost the inverse of what [1:56:16] he was saying is true, right? [1:56:17] So this is now the time the state is putting on their evidence. [1:56:20] That's the purpose of this hearing, right? [1:56:21] The state is using hearsay, but they're also putting on their evidence. [1:56:23] So I was just expecting some sort of a slam dunk. [1:56:25] We got him on camera taking the shot. [1:56:27] At least we have him clear on camera. [1:56:28] You're telling me this guy drove 13 hours all around. [1:56:30] We can definitely show you a picture that it's going to be beyond a reasonable doubt [1:56:33] before we even get to the trial. [1:56:34] People are going to see and go, oh, crap. [1:56:35] It was really Tyler Robinson. [1:56:37] I was expecting to at least see evidence that because I had reported early on that the source [1:56:42] was saying that Tyler did not step foot on campus that day. [1:56:46] It is my perspective that he had something to do with something. [1:56:47] I do believe he was putting like disposing clothes at this stage, at this phase. [1:56:51] I do believe he was disposing clothes. [1:56:52] He was involved somehow. [1:56:52] I find Lance to be more suspicious, if I'm being honest with you. [1:56:57] And also, like I said, the use immunity that was given to Lance by the feds, the fact that [1:57:01] the feds didn't ask him any questions, the fact that I spoke with Lance Twiggs' family [1:57:04] and they were like, it's very weird that the feds are not asking him more questions. [1:57:08] He's exactly the person that I would imagine to be involved in some stuff. [1:57:11] Allegedly, I'll say allegedly. [1:57:13] But when we got to the preliminary hearing, there was not a single piece of evidence that [1:57:17] I felt was slam dunk. [1:57:18] I was waiting for that photo. [1:57:19] I mean, anything would have made me go, all right, I think this could be the guy. [1:57:23] If they had handed over the discovery on the text messages, since that was their big, [1:57:26] ta-da, we've got the text messages, that would be the first thing that I would hand over. [1:57:29] But actually, who was holding them up? [1:57:30] Like I said, it wasn't the prosecution. [1:57:31] They're right to say we were handing things over and we heard the defense argue on behalf [1:57:35] of the prosecution saying it's not them and it's not the FBI. [1:57:38] It's the FBI that's holding on to things. [1:57:40] The FBI took everything. [1:57:41] The FBI took the gun. [1:57:42] The FBI took initially the screwdriver. [1:57:44] And then when I heard testimony about the things that they didn't, that they found that [1:57:46] were suspicious, example being the backpack, that's something that really bothers me, that [1:57:51] they say they traced the shooter, they traced the route that he went on, and then there [1:57:54] was an abandoned, we know, it looks like he's wearing some sort of a backpack. [1:57:57] We know that there was an abandoned backpack found at the bus stop in front of a library [1:58:00] and they felt that this should be taken into evidence. [1:58:03] They took it. [1:58:04] The FBI, this was the testimony of Amanda Baker, I believe her last name is, but you [1:58:08] might want to fact check that because I think I'm blending last names. [1:58:11] So she was the forensics for the FBI. [1:58:13] And then she says she gets a call on the 13th and they stopped testing on this backpack because [1:58:18] they find that the backpack actually belongs to somebody on Charlie's team. [1:58:22] But if you know the map of the layout of the campus, you're going, well, what the hell [1:58:25] are they doing all the way up? [1:58:25] This is nowhere near anywhere. [1:58:27] And by the way, that's not an acceptable answer for why you just gave it back. [1:58:30] That's not that's like, why would you give it back? [1:58:31] You're acting like no one's ever been killed by somebody on their team before, right? [1:58:33] So I found that to be very strange that it was on the exact route that the alleged gunman [1:58:38] ran and that their excuse was, we just gave it back because we heard that this was this [1:58:41] belonged to somebody on Charlie's team. [1:58:43] So that to me is this is why the the investigation itself feels underwhelming when you learn. [1:58:49] And this is completely crazy to me that the some of the artifacts that Charlie was wearing [1:58:54] were immediately returned to Erica. [1:58:56] That's absurd. [1:58:57] That is absurd. [1:58:57] Everything should be in evidence. [1:58:59] When you learn that the car that they carried Charlie in to go to the hospital, they had [1:59:03] immediately towed, cleaned and back up for resale. [1:59:06] That's absurd. [1:59:07] That should be sitting in evidence. [1:59:08] And any police officer that you speak to will say or a person that's been involved in a crime [1:59:11] will say, I didn't get my stuff back for years. [1:59:12] Had nothing to do with anything. [1:59:13] It was just around. [1:59:14] And I and they kept it into evidence until the trial was over and it has to be approved. [1:59:17] I think somebody said by the attorney general has to sign off on giving you those objects [1:59:20] back. [1:59:21] And we were told this is all fine. [1:59:22] And we see this is just one example. [1:59:24] Erica holding the crucifix. [1:59:28] That's that should be an evidence irrespective. [1:59:30] If you feel bad for her, I think she should have, you know, have it and it's sweet. [1:59:33] That should be an evidence immediately paving over the crime scene. [1:59:36] Is this is like the craziest thing ever? [1:59:38] You're it's like defies confidence. [1:59:39] You immediately. [1:59:40] And when you heard the guy who did it actually go up on a podcast and explain, I got the call. [1:59:44] They said it was a paver emergency. [1:59:46] I don't I've never in my entire career heard of a paver emergency. [1:59:48] They had already had someone come up and dig up the dirt. [1:59:51] So by the time he got there on Sunday, the dirt had already been dug up for him to lay [1:59:55] down pavers. [1:59:56] That is what people are looking at and going, this is weird. [1:59:59] There needs to be answers for why this was done. [2:00:00] And he tells us the call came from the feds and the governor's office. [2:00:03] UVUs washed their hands of it. [2:00:05] And what he's saying sounds true because we heard during the testimony, one person described [2:00:09] the regions of who was in control of everything. [2:00:11] The feds were in control of the courtyard. [2:00:12] So in order for anybody to have paved anything, that was federal territory, so to speak. [2:00:15] I'm maybe not using the best cop term, but the feds were in control of the [2:00:18] courtyard. [2:00:19] So these are things that I think should be answered for. [2:00:22] Why are we doing things differently than you would in any other criminal scenario of keeping [2:00:27] the evidence until we know more, until we're confident, you know, the various decoys. [2:00:31] I did it. [2:00:31] I did it. [2:00:32] It just doesn't look right. [2:00:34] Okay. [2:00:35] So go back to the question. [2:00:36] So what would you need to see for you to say something? [2:00:38] If they had, I was expecting here, we have him. [2:00:39] He took the shot. [2:00:40] Here it is. [2:00:40] And then I'd be like, great. [2:00:41] A clear image of him on the staircase. [2:00:42] I'm like, that's definitively Tyler Robinson. [2:00:43] And he was on campus. [2:00:44] We got nothing. [2:00:45] We got literally nothing. [2:00:46] But hearsay of people saying, but you basically get no case, basically no case off planet earth. [2:00:51] Do you get that? [2:00:51] Oh, we got a picture. [2:00:52] Here's him with the murder weapon. [2:00:54] Here's him taking the shot. [2:00:55] Most, most of it doesn't take place on a college campus. [2:00:56] It has surveillance everywhere. [2:00:57] Yeah. [2:00:58] One clear image of his car plates. [2:01:00] If you're asked the question, what would it take to convince? [2:01:03] It'd be the same question be asked to me, Andrew, what would take to convince you that [2:01:07] the oppositionals, right? [2:01:09] That he's a patsy or something like that. [2:01:10] Just good, clear, concise evidence that's been presented, right? [2:01:13] And is being presented that I could go through and link all together to see if there's actually [2:01:17] some clear picture of there being a patsy. [2:01:20] That's what it would take for me. [2:01:21] Okay. [2:01:21] Just a good, just a good, just a good, just a good evidentiary standard. [2:01:25] And then of course I would change my mind. [2:01:26] So, so just to qualify this. [2:01:28] So there is a possibility in the next few months that you may come out and say, guys, it's [2:01:31] done. [2:01:32] Tyler killed him. [2:01:32] So you're saying yesterday. [2:01:33] Thank you. [2:01:34] I think it's very important for the audience here. [2:01:35] Without question. [2:01:35] For you. [2:01:36] Is there anything that you could see for you to say, yeah, this guy was a patsy. [2:01:38] Of course, I'm going to always follow evidence. [2:01:41] So my, my whole thing is just this. [2:01:42] It's really important to me. [2:01:44] I don't mind people being truth seekers and justice searchers and the internet has helped [2:01:49] solve tons of crimes. [2:01:50] There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that, right? [2:01:52] However, there's also people who, you know, they, they not only don't solve crimes, but [2:01:56] they just come up with conjecture and they, what's called flooding the zone. [2:01:59] You flood the zone with tons and tons of conspiracy based ideas and they go nowhere. [2:02:02] Right. [2:02:03] And in fact, they actually take away from a legitimate investigation. [2:02:07] Now, I'm not even saying anybody here is purposely flooding the zone. [2:02:10] That's not even the claim. [2:02:10] All I'm saying is, is that the claims made absent, absence. [2:02:15] Oh, uh, this is just me not being convinced by the state's evidence. [2:02:18] Those become claims and claims have to be defended. [2:02:21] Just like mine have to be defended. [2:02:22] Yours have to be defended. [2:02:23] And that's what we're going to get to now. [2:02:24] Yeah. [2:02:25] You want to get into it? [2:02:26] No doubt. [2:02:27] We'll take an ad break. [2:02:28] And then we'll talk Erica Kirk and TPUSA. [2:02:30] And the conspiracies that have been conjectured by Candace Owens in regards to this case and [2:02:34] Charlie Kirk's assassination. [2:02:35] Folks, we'll take a three and a half minute break and we'll be back soon. [2:02:37] Let's go. [2:02:38] Another Erica Kirk. [2:02:39] And then now we're going to finally get into Erica Kirk conversation. [2:02:42] Thank you. [2:02:43] Finally. [2:02:43] Hey, hamburger. [2:02:45] Yes. [2:02:45] It's like, you know, like Reekon, like I was saying earlier, it's like listening to [2:02:49] like a couple's therapy session. [2:02:54] You know what I'm saying? [2:02:54] Um, but you know, and I will say this. [2:02:57] Okay. [2:02:57] Uh, yes. [2:02:58] Anonymous mystic. [2:02:59] She does not talk this fast. [2:03:01] All right. [2:03:01] I sped it up because, uh, we're trying to catch up to the present moment. [2:03:08] Um, just so you guys know, and we're getting there. [2:03:11] We're getting close to it now. [2:03:13] Um, just so you guys know. [2:03:16] All right. [2:03:16] But again, pinned to the, uh, bottom of the chat is a poll. [2:03:22] Let me know what your thoughts are on this. [2:03:25] Okay. [2:03:25] Do you agree? [2:03:27] Has, have you changed your mind about this, this whole situation due to this, uh, debate [2:03:34] for those of y'all who have been, you know, walking in where team Candace Owens, have you [2:03:39] changed your mind? [2:03:39] Are you now on this side of, Hey, TPS USA, TP USA had nothing to do with this. [2:03:45] And, and, and this is all one big, you know, misunderstanding, so on and so forth. [2:03:48] What are your thoughts on this? [2:03:49] Okay. [2:03:50] Um, definitely comment in the chat and of course vote. [2:03:54] You still with Candace or have you changed, you know, or are you with Andrew? [2:03:59] Let me know. [2:04:00] Okay. [2:04:00] So we're officially back. [2:04:01] Uh, Andrew, before we go into the other issues you want to talk about, is it fair to [2:04:04] say you're good defending your position of the overwhelming evidence? [2:04:07] Yeah. [2:04:08] Okay. [2:04:08] Beautiful. [2:04:09] You take the lead. [2:04:09] Go for it. [2:04:10] Yeah. [2:04:10] So I have a bunch of questions for you and I want to make it super painless, right? [2:04:15] So, uh, no traps, no gotchas. [2:04:17] I'm just going to ask them direct. [2:04:18] And I think that as long as they're not loaded, if they're loaded, you should not respond yes [2:04:22] or no. [2:04:22] But as long as they're not loaded, if I just directly ask them, I'm hoping that you'll [2:04:25] just give me a direct answer. [2:04:27] So here's the questions that I have. [2:04:29] Wait, wait, before we get into that, I would like to just reply to that. [2:04:30] So just to be clear, we agreed to debate our claims. [2:04:33] And then I agreed publicly that I have no issues having a conversation with you about other [2:04:37] things that I've discussed that were outside of the court hearing and things like other [2:04:40] evidence that's come across our lab and things that we've been speaking about. [2:04:42] But I just do want to make it clear to viewers that for whatever reason, you think that you [2:04:47] have a right to sort of depose me. [2:04:49] I'm not deposing you. [2:04:49] I just want to ask you some questions. [2:04:50] But you literally said that I want to be able to question you. [2:04:52] Well, this is a meta conversation. [2:04:54] Right. [2:04:54] But okay, so now we're transcending. [2:04:56] Like I used to use a word that you're saying, but this is what you're doing, right? [2:05:00] So this part to me feels like a bit of a- [2:05:01] So am I allowed to ask the questions? [2:05:03] I've already said you can ask questions, but I made it very clear to you via email and with [2:05:08] you in conversation that we should be speaking. [2:05:11] Yeah, I know, but I want to ask you some questions. [2:05:13] If you want to depose me, you should join Brigitte McCrone's defense team. [2:05:16] This is part- [2:05:16] I'm just going to ask questions. [2:05:17] Can you answer it? [2:05:18] Blah, blah, blah. [2:05:18] It's like, I don't know what you're going to ask. [2:05:20] I know. [2:05:20] And if you have issues with it, I'm going to answer as I see fit because I'm not- [2:05:22] I get it. [2:05:22] Yeah, I get it. [2:05:23] Just so we're clear. [2:05:23] Usually in the debate, if something's not loaded, I'm just directly- [2:05:26] Because you kept saying I'm Joe Rogan. [2:05:27] They have no evidence. [2:05:27] They have no evidence. [2:05:28] And now you're like, let's move away from the evidence. [2:05:29] You actually- [2:05:29] Yeah, okay. [2:05:31] Anyway, so direct question, super easy. [2:05:33] Was Lance Twig's DNA on the rifle, as far as you know? [2:05:35] We can't say that for certainty. [2:05:36] As far as you know. [2:05:37] I already answered that in the first part. [2:05:38] We can't say that for certainty. [2:05:39] I told you the context of which they spoke about those things. [2:05:42] So no, as far as you know. [2:05:43] We can't say that for certainty until we know what other the five sets of Prince Robert. [2:05:46] So that would be no as far as you know. [2:05:47] We can't say that for certainty. [2:05:48] You can say no as far as I know for certain. [2:05:51] We can't say that for certainty. [2:05:52] You can say that for certainty. [2:05:53] If your energy here is going to be like you're my dad and you can tell me how to speak or what I'm [2:05:57] supposed to say, you're just going to come up against the wall. [2:05:59] I'm familiar with this debate strategy. [2:06:01] Yes or no, yes or no, we're not debating anymore. [2:06:03] We're having a conversation. [2:06:04] So I already addressed that in the first half of this about why. [2:06:06] No, we're still definitely debating. [2:06:08] This is still. [2:06:08] No, it's not a debate. [2:06:09] This is you saying I want to probe things that sit outside of the evidence. [2:06:12] I actually already addressed this. [2:06:14] You asked me. [2:06:14] You're not going to go like where you're sitting and I'm on trial. [2:06:17] I'm not on trial. [2:06:18] Okay, great. [2:06:18] So you can have a conversation as we've agreed to. [2:06:20] Let's talk about the foreign legion. [2:06:22] Sure. [2:06:22] It was a foreign legion, do you believe, trying to kill you? [2:06:25] Yes, that's why I reported it to the correct officials in government. [2:06:28] That's what I was told and I handed over that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office. [2:06:32] What's your best piece of evidence for that? [2:06:33] Well, it was positive evidence. [2:06:35] It was told to me by somebody who is high up in the French government. [2:06:40] I passed off that information to Tulsi Gabbard's office. [2:06:42] I also passed it off to Trump's office, Donald Trump's office. [2:06:44] And that's all I can tell you. [2:06:46] I wouldn't be able to probe any evidence because I don't have the power to do that. [2:06:48] I'm not the federal government. [2:06:49] And I would also like to say that this becomes this other piece of what you do, [2:06:52] which is when people say this, I was told this and this is the evidence that I have. [2:06:55] And I'm willing to have that conversation and write the email to the correct government body [2:06:58] that deals with this. [2:06:59] Like, I can't hack into Emmanuel Macron's bank accounts and say whether or not the information [2:07:03] I agree, but then you go, well, where's your evidence? [2:07:05] It's like, well, my evidence is that I reported it. [2:07:06] I did the right thing that you're going to do. [2:07:07] So if somebody calls and says, hey, Andrew, there's a viable death threat against you. [2:07:10] And that person definitively has the rank to be able to tell you this. [2:07:13] And you say, well, what I'm going to do now is I'm going to report that to the feds. [2:07:16] And I go, what's your evidence? [2:07:16] It's like, well, I got the information and I gave the information that I got from who I got it to the right [2:07:20] body of people. [2:07:21] That's what I did. [2:07:22] Got it. [2:07:22] I just, I just want to make sure I'm not trying to trap you. [2:07:24] I just want to make sure I got it clear. [2:07:26] And that's why I said, I want to know what you're doing now, because this has always been the thing. [2:07:28] It's like, we actually can't win on the overwhelming claim. [2:07:30] So we're just going to go and bring up everything that I think can try to embarrass her. [2:07:33] I reported exactly as I received it. [2:07:34] I'm not trying to embarrass you. [2:07:35] I just want to make sure that I get your positions clear. [2:07:37] I have not said, yeah, go ahead. [2:07:38] Now you have stated multiple times that you believe that Israel's involved in the death of Charlie Kirk. [2:07:42] Can you give me- [2:07:43] Yes, we can pull up the clip. [2:07:44] I'm sorry. [2:07:45] I'm just saying. [2:07:46] Can I finish a sentence? [2:07:46] Go ahead. [2:07:47] Can you give me the context for what you're, are you talking about? [2:07:50] Like when I say, generally speaking, why people think that Israel's involved? [2:07:53] Okay. [2:07:53] Where's your question? [2:07:54] Yeah. [2:07:54] Do you have any positive evidence whatsoever that Israel killed Charlie Kirk? [2:07:58] Well, I couldn't say Israel was on the ground and shot and killed Charlie Kirk. [2:08:00] I would say that there are various things that we're trying to establish, one being a motive. [2:08:04] And since I don't believe that Tyler Robinson and his transferee 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- [2:08:27] Yeah, but do you have positive evidence? [2:08:29] I'm answering the question as I feel like I want to answer it. [2:08:30] Like I said, you don't get due for an hour and a half pepper questions. [2:08:32] But the question I'm asking is about positive evidence. [2:08:34] I'm telling you that in any case, establishing a motive and what, 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. [2:08:46] Sure. [2:08:46] 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. [2:08:53] 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. [2:09:04] People change their opinions. [2:09:05] I understand. [2:09:05] And then there was the rabid. [2:09:06] I mean, not even that. [2:09:06] Everything was about trying to convince the public how much he loved Israel. [2:09:09] So then other than intuition, how you feel about things, do you have any evidence Israel was involved in killing Charlie Kirk? [2:09:13] I have already said, and if you're watching my show in the context of what I said, this is the general sense of why people think Israel's involved. [2:09:19] We don't, nobody has made the claim that Israelis, there were also, you know, obviously Joe Kent. [2:09:23] I mean, Ian Carroll made the claim. [2:09:24] 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. [2:09:30] I think most people would like to probe that. [2:09:31] Now, it could be, maybe they were students, you know, and they were Israeli students in Utah that day. [2:09:36] 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. [2:09:43] He was quite busy. [2:09:44] 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. [2:09:52] And again, the almost desperate lies about Charlie shifting opinion on Israel lead us to believe that there could be an Israeli angle in this. [2:10:00] But we cannot say for certainty that Israel called the shots and this is how it happens. [2:10:04] But it is definitively, I think, a thread that a lot of us would like to see. [2:10:07] There's no positive evidence. [2:10:08] Whatever you want to say, positive, negative, however you want to say it. [2:10:11] I don't need to have a conversation. [2:10:13] Material evidence and other evidences which would point you to it. [2:10:15] Well, what we've said on our show is what we've said, which is this feels like a conspiracy building. [2:10:21] There's no reason to lie about these things, and yet people are lying. [2:10:24] BB ain't acting right. [2:10:25] The Hamptons thing was weird. [2:10:27] 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 and Israeli AI'd photo on the president's feed, doesn't feel right. [2:10:36] Do you have any evidence that Erica Kirk or TPUSA participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk? [2:10:40] 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? [2:10:45] Okay. [2:10:45] So then you don't believe that they did? [2:10:47] 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. [2:10:53] Okay. [2:10:53] Fair. [2:10:53] Your team is sending messages in the back saying they have a video they want to play. [2:10:56] Okay. [2:10:56] Go ahead. [2:10:56] I don't know what the video is. [2:10:58] Okay. [2:11:02] If you're, yes, you said that there's a video you want to play that Candace said she has full confidence Israel was involved? [2:11:10] Yep. [2:11:11] Yeah. [2:11:12] He said evidence that they killed him. [2:11:14] I said this is why people think they're involved in it. [2:11:16] They have the clip. [2:11:17] They can play the clip. [2:11:17] Yeah. [2:11:17] They're referring to a clip. [2:11:19] Yeah. [2:11:22] Via whom? [2:11:24] My guess is Pierre. [2:11:26] Erica. [2:11:26] Erica. [2:11:27] I think that there's a reason. [2:11:28] Pierre knew that Charlie was dead first. [2:11:30] I think there's a reason he was a priority. [2:11:32] How, why, I think France and Israel are involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination. [2:11:35] And, um, I'm going to put that out there with full confidence. [2:11:39] Okay. [2:11:39] Also involvement. [2:11:40] I understand. [2:11:41] Yeah. [2:11:41] So you think you, you, with full confidence, you think that France and Israel. [2:11:45] Yeah. [2:11:46] I mean, the person that gave me that thing that I reported said that a French foreign [2:11:49] legion were on the ground that day. [2:11:50] Again, this would be, this would be at a professional limitation for me to then go and probe that [2:11:54] information that I handed over. [2:11:56] I can't do that. [2:11:56] I'm not the United States government. [2:11:57] But you don't have any positive evidence of that. [2:11:58] I don't, can you just stop? [2:11:59] It's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying positive evidence. [2:12:02] I've just asked me what I think. [2:12:03] I've just tell you. [2:12:04] Yes. [2:12:04] I think they are involved. [2:12:05] That's a claim. [2:12:06] No, I said, here's what, here's what I think. [2:12:08] I have every right to ask you about your claim. [2:12:10] And if there's positive evidence for your claim. [2:12:11] I literally just said, I think, and I am allowed to think. [2:12:14] Yeah. [2:12:14] You're allowed to think, but you're making a claim. [2:12:16] I have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think. [2:12:18] I agree. [2:12:19] You're allowed to think. [2:12:20] Nobody's disputing whether or not Kansas City is allowed to think. [2:12:22] What I'm asking is if you have positive evidence. [2:12:23] What is your issue with this statement? [2:12:24] I think that Israel is involved. [2:12:27] That's not what, that's not just what you said. [2:12:29] You said that it's with full confidence. [2:12:32] Yes. [2:12:33] You would think that if you had full confidence. [2:12:34] Can you have confidence to think when you think? [2:12:35] But if you, if I said, for instance, I think I'm going to be late to work, right? [2:12:39] With full confidence. [2:12:40] I would say my evidence for that is that I'm 20 minutes away and I need to be there in five. [2:12:43] Andrew, Andrew. [2:12:44] That's how you would know whether or not you had full confidence. [2:12:45] I'm just going to tell you something. [2:12:46] Hang on, let me finish, let me finish, let me finish. [2:12:48] If it was the case that I said I have full confidence I'm going to be late to work, [2:12:51] I would say my evidence that I'm going to be is that work is 20 minutes away, right? [2:12:54] And I have to be there in five. [2:12:55] So I have full confidence. [2:12:56] That's why I would think that. [2:12:57] So I'm asking if you think that Israel and France were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, [2:13:01] and you say with full confidence, I'm just asking for the evidence or at least walk me [2:13:05] through the mindset of why it is that you could think that with evidence. [2:13:08] I actually don't have to walk you through why I think. [2:13:09] I can also, I can give you something that I think with full confidence. [2:13:12] I think with full confidence that, you know, you lost the substance of this debate. [2:13:14] And now you're moving toward things that I have said that I think, which I can do. [2:13:17] I'm a lot of pertinent to this debate. [2:13:19] It's not exactly pertinent to this debate. [2:13:20] It's not pertinent because our debate claims- [2:13:22] These are claims made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. [2:13:25] That's the complete substance of the debate. [2:13:26] No, actually, would you like to remind him of what our debate claims actually were? [2:13:29] And would you like to remind that you said I could ask you about any of these things to my heart's content? [2:13:32] I said, feel free, but you did not get to structure how I'm allowed to reply or ask me why are you allowed to think? [2:13:36] I'm not structuring how you're allowed to reply. [2:13:37] I'm just asking you direct questions. [2:13:37] I have full confidence that you do not feel that you represented your claim well. [2:13:43] And so now what you came prepared to do is to present yourself like a professor of fallacies. [2:13:46] I just want to know. [2:13:47] And to say, you're not allowed to say that. [2:13:48] You can't. [2:13:49] It's my podcast. [2:13:49] You can say whatever you want. [2:13:50] Nobody's disputing that. [2:13:51] It seems like you are disputing it. [2:13:53] I'm asking specifically why you think that. [2:13:53] I think that when this is all said and done, I've already explained to you. [2:13:55] I explained at the beginning of this why I think Israel is ultimately going to be proven to have involvement in this. [2:14:00] I just explained to you in the middle. [2:14:02] And now you're wanting me to structure the sentence or provide evidence. [2:14:04] You don't have to. [2:14:05] You're just allowed to think. [2:14:07] And I've explained to you my thought process. [2:14:09] I don't need to structure it in a sentence. [2:14:10] If you feel like a professor today, you picked the wrong day. [2:14:12] Don't you think that like tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people would want to know what Candace owns positive evidence for why it is? [2:14:18] That Israel and France were involved in the most traumatic public assassination of Gen Z's lifetime is? [2:14:24] That's why they watch my podcast. [2:14:25] So you're just going to drip to them? [2:14:27] Like, here's why I think that? [2:14:28] I, every time we come across any of these discussions, they're watching this in context and they know why I'm saying it. [2:14:32] So, for example, when you're bringing up, well, Candace, where's your evidence for France doing this? [2:14:37] I just told you someone who was high ranking in the French government, right? [2:14:39] Who's nameless? [2:14:40] Of course. [2:14:41] Of course. [2:14:41] Of course. [2:14:42] Of course. [2:14:42] So there's good reason to doubt this? [2:14:43] So it's not a conspiracy, though, if I then took it to the federal government. [2:14:45] Like, you can't just go out there making a claim to the federal government. [2:14:47] You get in trouble for making false statements and things of that nature. [2:14:49] So, and then you go, well, I'm going to probe that. [2:14:51] Well, how can you probe that? [2:14:52] This happened to me. [2:14:52] I can ask you, well, that's not what I'm probing specifically. [2:14:54] This is my podcast. [2:14:55] I am sharing my life and my experiences and what has happened to me. [2:14:58] And you're basically coming in like you're going to, what, regulate how I'm allowed to say it? [2:15:01] Nope, I'm not trying to regulate anything. [2:15:02] I'm asking very pertinent questions. [2:15:04] You're sounding a bit like a professor trying to regulate and say, Candace, you can't say I think. [2:15:06] You sound very defensive and like you just don't want to answer questions. [2:15:09] I did answer your question three times. [2:15:10] I just didn't say it in the way that you wanted me to say it. [2:15:12] You just kind of obfuscate and you run away from it. [2:15:13] But I would like for you to actually focus on it. [2:15:14] I'm going to go through every clip that you guys have prepared because it's pretty, I think with full confidence, people will recognize the strategy that you're trying to employ. [2:15:21] So let's get to the next clip you have prepared. [2:15:22] Sure. [2:15:23] They can pull up whatever clips they want. [2:15:24] Whatever it is that you guys have prepared. [2:15:25] But I would still, on this point, I just want to make sure that you have full confidence that France and Israel were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. [2:15:31] I think in the end. [2:15:32] And you have no evidence for it at all that you'll give us. [2:15:34] Well, I already did tell you where it came from. [2:15:37] Like I said, I can explain it to you. [2:15:38] I can't understand it for you. [2:15:39] Did that same higher up tell you that he was going to kill, that France killed Charlie Kirk or just that you were in danger? [2:15:43] They said that the French Foreign Legion was involved in On the Ground that day. [2:15:46] I've already said that. [2:15:47] You just don't like hearing it. [2:15:48] No. [2:15:48] And I just have a curiosity. [2:15:48] Yes. [2:15:49] When you pass down that message to Tulsi or Trump. [2:15:52] Tulsi's office, yes. [2:15:53] Tulsi's office. [2:15:53] Are you giving them who told you that? [2:15:56] Or you're just saying, here's what I heard from somebody. [2:15:58] And I have this information. [2:16:00] 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. [2:16:05] It was kind of weird about like, maybe they're not the correct office to you. [2:16:08] I did receive a response from Tulsi Gabbard's office, but I don't think there was ever any investigation into what I said. [2:16:14] So the call was, hey, I've been told somebody. [2:16:17] The email. [2:16:17] Yes. [2:16:18] The email was, I've been told somebody. [2:16:19] I have information, yeah, that the French Foreign Legion was on the ground during Charlie's assassination. [2:16:25] And that, I mean, it was a lot of information. [2:16:28] But you didn't give specifics who it was from. [2:16:30] Not in the first email because I figured they would like, yeah. [2:16:31] Perfect. [2:16:32] So if they do contact you, are you comfortable giving 100% who it is? [2:16:36] I would absolutely give them as much information as possible. [2:16:38] And can I ask the question, if whoever's the U.S. government, why are you not? [2:16:41] Yes, it's very strange to me. [2:16:42] You know, so if that's the case, now they may respond back and say, we did, you know, that's their position. [2:16:46] I did, that's why I did it in writing. [2:16:47] And so I'm glad that's the case. [2:16:49] Yes. [2:16:50] And right away in Trump's office, his, like, Margot got right back to me. [2:16:53] She said it was on his desk. [2:16:54] So he has that. [2:16:55] And if you do say that and they contact that individual, obviously you don't have to leak your sources here. [2:17:00] So is there enough credibility where that person would be willing to talk to them and explain to them exactly what their sources are? [2:17:04] Yes. [2:17:05] Okay. [2:17:05] I mean, that's. [2:17:06] It seems reasonable. [2:17:06] And so why he's asking me to defend that is like. [2:17:08] I'm not. [2:17:09] I think those are two different things. [2:17:10] That's more something I'm asking. [2:17:11] Two of totally different claims. [2:17:11] Why are they not reaching out to you? [2:17:13] I've asked that many times on my podcast. [2:17:15] What do you think about that, Andrew? [2:17:17] What? [2:17:17] The fact that she emailed, she gave it, and nobody reached out to want to contact the source. [2:17:21] They probably didn't think it was actionable, is my guess. [2:17:23] But even if they did think it was actionable, great. [2:17:25] Every lead should be followed up on within the confines of what's rational and reasonable. [2:17:29] Is it fair to say that this is maybe a different individual because this is a person that was involved with TPS and had a relationship with Charlie? [2:17:35] No, no, her relationship. [2:17:37] Like this isn't just anybody. [2:17:38] So if an average person sends it, yes. [2:17:40] Yeah, but I mean, we don't know who the source is. [2:17:42] We don't know any of this. [2:17:43] But then if it wouldn't you, if you were in that department, wouldn't you want to, even you assign it to one of your guys. [2:17:48] There's no guarantee they didn't look into it. [2:17:50] How do we know? [2:17:50] We don't know. [2:17:51] How could they if they didn't come get the information? [2:17:53] More of the information. [2:17:54] Because it was a long file. [2:17:55] This is a separate. [2:17:56] This has got nothing to do with the debate. [2:17:57] This is more on. [2:17:58] Well, I just I sent the email, assuming that you go and you make a report. [2:18:02] You think they're going to come back to you and say, hey, what's more information? [2:18:05] We're investigating this. [2:18:05] And that didn't happen, which is what I raised. [2:18:07] I'm asking, did you send them the source of the claim? [2:18:08] Especially because this was at a time where they were saying that they wanted to explore every possible lead. [2:18:11] I even texted Dan Bongino. [2:18:13] So actually, it was three offices. [2:18:14] Let me ask one question. [2:18:15] The executive office, Dan Bongino, and the Tulsi Gabbard's office. [2:18:20] Okay, so a follow-up to that is the following. [2:18:22] If they contact you to say, is that specifically to the French government or Israel's involvement in the killing of children? [2:18:28] That wasn't about Israel. [2:18:28] Those are two separate things. [2:18:29] That wasn't about Israel. [2:18:30] They were saying the French foreign, that person as a part of it was saying that it was the French foreign legion that was on the ground that day. [2:18:34] I'm surprised that I'm called you. [2:18:35] Then I find that to be very strange, too. [2:18:36] I do as well. [2:18:37] Because who would want to make a report? [2:18:38] I mean, I've never made a report with the federal government. [2:18:40] Let me just ask one question. [2:18:41] Let me just ask one question and I'm going to bring it to you. [2:18:44] The question is, in regards to, I've not seen that clip, so I'm seeing it now. [2:18:47] I'm full confidence, I believe, that Israel-French was involved. [2:18:50] 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? [2:18:58] So, in terms of Israel, I mean, what I've said is what I publicly have said here. [2:19:02] I do think that at the end of this, we are going to find that Israel was involved, I do. [2:19:06] Now, 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 is that they won't even explore anything else that's going on in Charlie's life personally. [2:19:16] So, if we're not satisfied that Tyler Robinson did this in any way, then every alternative theory should be explored. [2:19:21] Other evidence should be brought forward. [2:19:22] We've done that in our capacity. [2:19:23] Like, when people keep saying she has no evidence, it's kind of crazy. [2:19:25] I think we've broken, like, more stories than any news source in the world. [2:19:28] I mean, down to pictures, details, police officers, what the dog's name was, because we're not the only people that believe there's a conspiracy here. [2:19:34] 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. [2:19:42] Down to the U.S. Marshals believe there was a conspiracy. [2:19:44] They were, my sources at the U.S. Marshals were saying they were basically sat in a wild goose chase that day. [2:19:47] But do you see how you say my sources? [2:19:50] I'm not allowed to have sources. [2:19:50] Well, the thing is, if I said, I have sources that claim none of that's true. [2:19:55] In fact, my sources claim that her sources are lying. [2:19:57] My sources claim that there is, none of them believe that there's a conspiracy. [2:20:00] My sources claim all of them really think that Tyler Robinson was a lone gunman. [2:20:04] If I just said that as a hypothetical, wouldn't you say, what? [2:20:06] Yeah, I think what probably adds weight is, like, then when I drop photos of the car that no one was supposed to see, people go, okay, her sources are legit. [2:20:11] So, and then when what I say is then proven in court and nobody knew those things, people are recognizing that my sources are legit. [2:20:17] When I say Charlie was scared in the last days and then I dropped the text message, which you've just learned about a couple of weeks ago, of him saying he was leaving the pro-Israel cause when everyone was lying about that, then they say, I think Kansas' sources are legit. [2:20:28] 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. [2:20:42] It seems like Kansas' sources are legit. [2:20:43] So, I've proven myself in the market. [2:20:44] 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. [2:20:52] How would that actually, hang on, hang on, I'm almost done. [2:20:54] How would that legitimize, well, it's not his debate. [2:20:58] 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, all the police believe it's a conspiracy, everybody believes it. [2:21:09] How would that legitimize any of that? [2:21:10] Well, what I am saying to you, and 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. [2:21:24] We've presented photos, we have presented videos, never before seen stuff, the public has never seen it. [2:21:28] And so what that does is your audience goes, okay, when she says that she has these sources, clearly she's telling the truth. [2:21:32] 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. [2:21:38] You cannot watch my content. [2:21:39] I'm not here to tell you that you have to watch my content or believe everything I'm saying. [2:21:42] Well, don't you think questioners should get questioned as well? [2:21:46] By who? [2:21:47] I'm not committing a crime, am I? [2:21:48] Am I just saying what I think is collecting options? [2:21:49] Well, I mean, aren't most of the people you ask questions of not actually committing crimes? [2:21:51] But what do you mean they should answer questions where, like at a police station, like what are you saying? [2:21:54] No, just like if you want people to come in and answer questions for you, I have questions about this in the investigation, I have questions about this, I have questions about that. [2:22:01] You want them to answer your questions. [2:22:03] Doesn't it seem totally fair that you answer back the questions people have for you? [2:22:06] No, they're not answering our questions, so it's also fair that they don't answer them. [2:22:09] That's why I said Andrew Colvett should be in this chair, he's not. [2:22:11] But isn't that a double standard? [2:22:12] No, it's not, because he's not doing it. [2:22:14] Yeah, but that would still be a double standard. [2:22:15] If you're requesting that he does do it, then that seems to infer that you think he owes you answers. [2:22:19] Oh, so inferences are allowed again? [2:22:20] They never weren't. [2:22:21] So that seems to infer that you think that he owes you answers. [2:22:24] If that's the case, then don't you owe answers? [2:22:25] Well, I feel like I'm answering your questions and his questions about, I mean, I'm talking about Andrew Colvett. [2:22:30] His position is he's a spokesperson for Turning Point USA. [2:22:33] 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 sown of distrust, I would imagine, and forget answering my questions because I doesn't need to be mad. [2:22:45] Aren't you sowing a lot of those seeds of distrust? [2:22:46] Well, I think they're doing a pretty good job themselves, if I'm being honest. [2:22:49] You can blame it on Candace all you want. [2:22:50] Well, you know, the thing is funny. [2:22:52] People act like I'm ground zero. [2:22:53] I'll be fair with you. [2:22:54] I think I'm ground zero of people not trusting Turning Point USA. [2:22:56] I think that there was some PR there. [2:22:57] I think there was some PR there. [2:22:58] Sure, they could have done better. [2:22:59] Absolutely. [2:22:59] I'm not disputing any of that. [2:23:01] One thing, though, that I am, I want to just directly ask you is, do you actually believe that anybody in TPUSA or Erica Kirk or Erica actually participated, had foreknowledge of or facilitated the murder of Charlie Kirk? [2:23:14] I'm not going to get myself into a legal pickle here. [2:23:17] Everything I've said is on my podcast. [2:23:19] How would that get you in a legal pickle? [2:23:19] I think firmly that if I was the investigating officers, I would seat them all, and I would ask questions. [2:23:26] I would at this phase. [2:23:28] I would. [2:23:29] Okay, but what does that mean? [2:23:30] Does that mean that you do think so? [2:23:31] I think it was not a sufficient investigation into what is what we know to be true of 80% of homicides. [2:23:38] It's usually conducted by someone you know, right? [2:23:41] And the fact that that was never even considered, that, like I said earlier, the backpack was returned. [2:23:45] How do you know that was never considered? [2:23:46] Because they gave back the backpack, as just one example. [2:23:50] They gave back the backpack. [2:23:51] They gave back the... [2:23:52] That doesn't show a conspiracy. [2:23:54] Well, I mean, it shows that the police trusted everybody and didn't just hold things up for a second. [2:23:58] Yeah, they ruled them out as suspects. [2:24:00] That quickly. [2:24:00] I'm not comfortable with that investigation. [2:24:02] It's a pretty big organization. [2:24:03] There's a $100 million incentive. [2:24:04] People, this is... [2:24:05] What $100 million incentive? [2:24:06] What I'm saying is his organization. [2:24:07] Like, it had grown to, I think it was $100 million. [2:24:09] Plus per year. [2:24:09] Yeah, per year, if that's something you want to fact. [2:24:11] Your team wants to play a video, if you don't mind. [2:24:13] There's a video they want to play of Candace said it's impossible to not believe Erica's complicit. [2:24:18] If you guys want to play that video. [2:24:20] Yeah. [2:24:20] That's also disaster. [2:24:21] And so right now, their guys are going out, and they're going to look for evidence. [2:24:23] And then by May, which is fortunately around the corner, then she'll see what they found. [2:24:28] So what the F is that performance? [2:24:31] How could you sit up there and say, I, I, yes, I 100% believe Tyler Robinson did it. [2:24:38] That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erica Kirk is not complicit [2:24:42] somehow. [2:24:43] Because what... [2:24:44] Those two thoughts actually don't even follow. [2:24:47] How would it be the case that even if Erica Kirk did believe that Tyler Robinson was 100% [2:24:51] responsible for the death of Charlie Kirk? [2:24:53] Let's say she believed it with every fiber of her being, believed all the evidence, because [2:24:56] she did. [2:24:56] She just actually did. [2:24:58] Would it then follow that somehow she's complicit in his death? [2:25:02] I didn't say complicit in death. [2:25:04] You added those two words. [2:25:05] Okay. [2:25:05] It's what's she complicit in. [2:25:06] Yes. [2:25:07] So showing this narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty. [2:25:09] So you're chopping up clips. [2:25:09] Like I said, you didn't have the confidence coming in to be. [2:25:11] Okay, well, tell me. [2:25:11] What does that mean? [2:25:12] What does complicit mean? [2:25:13] We are showing a clip of her on Barry Weiss, which I can't remember the date that she did [2:25:16] that interview. [2:25:16] That was a terrible interview, by the way. [2:25:18] She has asked, do you feel with 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson did this? [2:25:22] And she says, I do. [2:25:23] Then again, context matters. [2:25:25] I sit down with Erica for four hours under the assumption that she had some evidence, right? [2:25:29] Like I'm like, I actually, this is why I did not engage in any like Erica, everyone's [2:25:33] questioning what she's wearing and all this stuff. [2:25:34] I was like, I'm going to wait here because I don't know, just, it feels weird to think [2:25:38] that do I, did I think that some of her mannerisms were weird and stuff like that? [2:25:41] Yeah. [2:25:42] But that's not, you can't convict somebody on weird mannerisms. [2:25:44] And then when I sat down with her and I was expecting for her to say, well, you know, [2:25:49] I'm obviously the victim on the case and we got to see the shot, you know, taken or this [2:25:53] or that, whatever it is. [2:25:55] Great. [2:25:56] You know, that's why she's being, that's why she has that much confidence two months ago. [2:25:58] And when I sat down with her, it was nothing. [2:26:01] It was nothing. [2:26:01] Okay. [2:26:02] So this is a conversation. [2:26:03] How would that make her complicit? [2:26:05] Complicit. [2:26:06] Again, you said complicit in the death of Charlie Kirk. [2:26:09] Well, if you let me finish my sentence, I could tell you that. [2:26:11] But my point being is that then you take a look at this and you go, okay, well, this [2:26:12] is weird. [2:26:13] Why would you have this confidence? [2:26:15] And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, okay, great. [2:26:18] I want to go out there and defend you now. [2:26:19] I want people to know that you can't say this stuff publicly, but you know more things. [2:26:22] And she just blanks. [2:26:23] And then she says, well, I'm going to call the lawyer. [2:26:25] And she called the lawyer. [2:26:26] Again, all of this is on my show. [2:26:27] So out of context, clips is not going to work because I know what I say on my show. [2:26:29] So we call her lawyer and her lawyer says to us, she calls him on the phone, pardon [2:26:33] me. [2:26:34] And it's me, her and Justin Strife. [2:26:35] And he's, I'm like, okay, great. [2:26:37] What do you guys have? [2:26:37] He goes, well, we don't have anything yet. [2:26:39] That's not, we're not at that phase yet. [2:26:40] And I'm like, well, what do you mean you don't have anything? [2:26:41] And he says, well, don't you know how it works? [2:26:43] It's a probable cause hearing. [2:26:44] So basically the state says that they're going to bring this forward. [2:26:47] And now our people go out and they look for the evidence to assert that Tyler Robinson [2:26:51] is guilty. [2:26:52] And so I asked her directly, her lawyer directly, the phone's in between us. [2:26:55] I'm like, wait, so just so I'm clear, you haven't seen anything that the public hasn't [2:27:00] seen? [2:27:00] And he says, no. [2:27:02] So I'm going back in my head and I'm going, okay, so why is Erica saying with such a degree [2:27:06] of certainty, like she was sent out to convince the public and people bit, by the way. [2:27:09] I remember even Megyn Kelly was like, uh, you know, let's wait. [2:27:12] She's going to have access to things. [2:27:13] I did think she had access to things that we didn't have. [2:27:15] Why express that confidence to the public? [2:27:17] As opposed to just being like, we don't know yet. [2:27:18] I feel confident he's involved. [2:27:20] They made the rest. [2:27:20] I don't understand. [2:27:21] How would any of this make her complicit? [2:27:22] And what? [2:27:23] Well, I've already told you what she was, she's complicit in trying to fool the public [2:27:26] into thinking this is some open and shut case. [2:27:27] How's she trying to fool the public into this? [2:27:30] If she believes it, if she believes that Charlotte, that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk, if she believes [2:27:34] that, how would that be complicit in anything? [2:27:37] I do. [2:27:38] Are you saying that you think she doesn't believe it? [2:27:39] I don't believe that at that stage she sat down with Barry Weiss, that that's what she [2:27:42] believes. [2:27:42] No, but that's my opinion. [2:27:43] Right. [2:27:43] But so when you just say complicit, you just mean she believes that Tyler Robinson killed [2:27:47] Kirk. [2:27:48] That's it. [2:27:49] That's what we were talking about. [2:27:50] That's why I said, if your strategy was to dice up clips and take it out of context and [2:27:53] make it seem like she was complicit. [2:27:54] No strategy, you can explain everything. [2:27:54] Yeah. [2:27:54] But then why not just play the full thing? [2:27:56] Like why? [2:27:57] Because we don't have like infinite amounts of time. [2:27:59] I'm guessing you probably don't want to watch. [2:28:00] I'm going to go back to my theory that you didn't feel confident that you could defend [2:28:03] your claim that it was overwhelming evidence. [2:28:05] So now you're trying to move towards doctored clips and getting me to respond to it. [2:28:07] Well, there's no doctor in anything. [2:28:08] I'm just making sure that we got this right. [2:28:10] Yes. [2:28:10] That what you're actually saying is that Erica is just complicit in believing it. [2:28:13] When I re-examined her actions backward, because I did not have this perspective of [2:28:16] her at the beginning, which is why it's so funny to me that you guys make it seem like [2:28:20] I'm ground zero. [2:28:21] People thought Erica was sus from day I forgive him. [2:28:23] And I was not a part of that. [2:28:24] I did not lean into that. [2:28:25] I did not contribute to that. [2:28:26] I was getting actually terrible messages from my fans being like, Candace, you and [2:28:30] Charlie always say to go with your intuition. [2:28:31] You won't address this, how we all feel about her. [2:28:34] Things changed for me when I saw that Zoom call. [2:28:36] I will tell you that for sure. [2:28:38] And the fact that she lied to me. [2:28:39] So I sat across from her and, you know, got to, I wanted to have that conversation publicly, [2:28:43] but they're probably grateful they didn't do it publicly. [2:28:46] She told me some lies. [2:28:48] And so the next thing that happens naturally when somebody lies to you, you go, when any [2:28:52] person lies to you, whether it's a toddler, people only lie when they're trying to obscure [2:28:56] something else. [2:28:57] Have you addressed what that lie was? [2:28:58] Yeah, I've talked about, we have a list of lies that we've been told by you. [2:29:00] We can find that. [2:29:01] In the meeting with her. [2:29:02] Well, no, I didn't want her to cage up. [2:29:04] I didn't want to do this because I didn't know what to expect. [2:29:07] Like I didn't, I didn't know if she was going to be like, I'm so overwhelmed with everything, [2:29:10] you know, and I don't know who to trust the organization. [2:29:13] And I don't know what I'm doing. [2:29:14] Like I didn't know. [2:29:15] I didn't want to. [2:29:15] Just out of curiosity, before anything happened with Charlie, how close were you and Erica? [2:29:20] Not very close. [2:29:20] So there's not a relationship. [2:29:22] No, I mean, like I would say it's totally normal. [2:29:24] Like it's not like there was any issues at all. [2:29:27] She was always, we were always nice to each other. [2:29:28] It just is, our life went to a different phase, right? [2:29:31] So Charlie and I hitting the ground, running around, traveling four days a week. [2:29:34] Now I get married. [2:29:35] I find love in my life. [2:29:36] I get married and I get pregnant. [2:29:37] I've been pregnant. [2:29:38] I haven't stopped being pregnant. [2:29:39] And what you want out of life changes. [2:29:40] You don't want to be running around for four days a week and traveling on a plane nonstop. [2:29:45] You suddenly want to start building a home and live. [2:29:46] I was desiring that suburban life. [2:29:48] Did you guys ever do the double dates? [2:29:49] You, George, her, and Charlie? [2:29:50] Was there ever double dates between the four of you? [2:29:52] I was, you know, engaged to George quickly. [2:29:54] We were planning our wedding. [2:29:55] I was kind of in my bubble with George. [2:29:56] George traveled with me and Charlie, but Erica and him were just starting to date at the beginning [2:29:59] of 2019. [2:30:00] George and I were planning our marriage. [2:30:01] So George really got to know Charlie. [2:30:03] I wouldn't say that I really got to know Erica. [2:30:04] I was just rooting for them because I knew how much Charlie wanted to, you know, find love. [2:30:08] And so I was kind of his wing woman throughout that phase. [2:30:11] And I was just happy. [2:30:12] And I never was under the impression, obviously, that they were going to get married when they were [2:30:16] dating. [2:30:16] So it wasn't like I would have was conscious. [2:30:17] I really need to get to know this person. [2:30:18] And so it was just kind of normal that by that time, because of where I was in my life, [2:30:23] that I wasn't spending any time getting to know Erica. [2:30:26] So the complicit part about Erica to you, is that a gut feeling? [2:30:29] You think it transformed when she lied? [2:30:32] You can take the lead. [2:30:32] I'm just asking questions. [2:30:33] Yeah. [2:30:33] I don't know. [2:30:33] I don't know. [2:30:34] I actually don't understand. [2:30:35] I still understand what she's, do you think she's complicit in? [2:30:38] Yeah. [2:30:38] So when I say Erica's complicit, that's my opinion. [2:30:40] When you tweeted Erica's too retarded to kill her husband. [2:30:43] Would you like to explain how you developed your evidence, your positive evidence for [2:30:47] the fact that Erica was retarded? [2:30:50] Yeah, sure. [2:30:50] So I just think all women are retarded. [2:30:52] Oh, so you're allowed to just say stuff. [2:30:53] I'm sorry. [2:30:54] Hold on. [2:30:55] He actually said that? [2:30:57] I'm sorry. [2:31:01] What a statement. [2:31:03] He said what? [2:31:05] I never knew he said that about Erica Kirk. [2:31:09] What? [2:31:09] She's too R-word to take the life of Charlie Kirk, and he's here on behalf of TPUSA. [2:31:21] This guy is coming in. [2:31:23] I'm sorry. [2:31:24] I'm sorry. [2:31:25] I'm sorry. [2:31:26] How can't we done? [2:31:27] This debate is over. [2:31:30] They picked him? [2:31:32] Okay. [2:31:34] You know, I don't like using that word, the R-word. [2:31:36] Okay. [2:31:36] I think it's the wrong word to say. [2:31:39] Okay. [2:31:40] But she really, he really, he really tweeted that? [2:31:44] Yeah. [2:31:45] And he's, and he thinks all women are the R-word. [2:31:51] All women. [2:31:52] He said it. [2:31:52] Not me. [2:31:53] He said it. [2:31:55] I'm sorry. [2:31:55] We got to roll that back just a little bit. [2:31:58] We got to relive that moment. [2:31:59] I'm sorry. [2:32:00] We're almost up to the, up to the live. [2:32:02] That's why we're going in such a speed. [2:32:05] But why would you say that about, yeah, she, he said she's too retard, okay, to do that. [2:32:20] And then he says, all women are, are that all women are dumb. [2:32:26] I still don't understand what she's, do you think she's complicit in? [2:32:29] Yeah. [2:32:29] So when I say Erica's complicit, that's my opinion. [2:32:31] When you tweeted Erica's too retarded to kill her husband. [2:32:35] Yeah. [2:32:35] Would you like to explain how you developed your evidence, your positive evidence for [2:32:39] the fact that Erica was retarded? [2:32:41] Yeah, sure. [2:32:41] So I just think all women are retarded. [2:32:43] Oh, so you're allowed to just. [2:32:44] He just lost half of the viewership right now. [2:32:48] He just lost half of them right now. [2:32:50] Say stuff. [2:32:50] Who knew? [2:32:51] So, and by the way, and what dramatically transformed your opinion of Erica after going to the headquarters? [2:32:57] Because you were pretty hostile about. [2:32:59] I wasn't hostile towards him. [2:33:00] You don't think calling somebody too retarded. [2:33:02] No, come on. [2:33:03] That's like normal tongue-in-cheek stuff for me online. [2:33:05] Oh, you're being tongue-in-cheek. [2:33:07] Usually when I call someone retarded, I'm being tongue-in-cheek, yeah. [2:33:09] Like, for instance, you got supporters. [2:33:11] I mean, if you were, if you want to use the same exact argument, you would take a supporter [2:33:14] like Owen Benjamin. [2:33:15] He called you bad names and he called your husband bad names. [2:33:19] Are you just, you're just like, well, that's no biggie. [2:33:22] I've never answered him on anything that he said. [2:33:24] I'm saying that you now are her biggest defender. [2:33:25] So do you still think she's. [2:33:26] I'm not her biggest defender. [2:33:27] Do you still think she's too retarded? [2:33:28] No, no, no, no. [2:33:29] I didn't know Erica Kirk. [2:33:30] I'd never met her before. [2:33:31] Okay, but you had an issue with Turning Point being led by a bunch of fembots saying, [2:33:35] I'm talking about the feminist angle. [2:33:37] Still do. [2:33:37] And then suddenly you go to the headquarters. [2:33:38] Still think it's a terrible idea. [2:33:39] You go into the headquarters. [2:33:40] Now all of a sudden you've got text messages that you're sharing with them. [2:33:43] You say that you and your wife are getting involved with management. [2:33:46] No, no, no. [2:33:47] I'm not involved in any management at Turning Point. [2:33:48] Well, I'm pretty sure there is a clip of you where you say that your wife went to their [2:33:51] recent conference and sat down. [2:33:53] And then when you were on Joe Rogan. [2:33:53] No, no, no, no. [2:33:54] Hang on. [2:33:54] I'll explain what happened just so that you understand. [2:33:56] Yeah. [2:33:56] So I was invited there to do some debate training. [2:33:59] That's literally what I was invited there to do on recommendation. [2:34:02] So I went down and did some debate. [2:34:03] That's the first time I ever met anybody at TPUSA. [2:34:05] Okay. [2:34:05] And then you said you sat down with Erica. [2:34:08] Well, I didn't sit down to her. [2:34:09] I talked to her in a hallway. [2:34:11] So you didn't sit down and speak with Erica? [2:34:12] No, I didn't have like some sit down long conversation. [2:34:14] We talked in a hallway. [2:34:15] Okay. [2:34:16] Is that when you gave her the hug? [2:34:17] Yeah. [2:34:18] Gave her the hug right there. [2:34:18] My wife did too. [2:34:19] We were both very sorry for what happened to her. [2:34:20] Okay. [2:34:20] So at what point did you start receiving text messages from that you cited in your opening [2:34:26] statement? [2:34:26] Well, I just reached out to TPUSA and said, I'm prepping for a debate. [2:34:29] Is there anything that's pertinent that I can use here? [2:34:31] Do you find it interesting that people have been asking for, you know, basic answers to [2:34:35] questions and you're saying that you walked into their headquarters and reached out and [2:34:38] they- [2:34:38] It's amazing, isn't it? [2:34:39] If you reach out in good faith and you're not demonizing them and saying that they're [2:34:41] complicit in the murder of people's deaths, that perhaps they're actually willing to [2:34:45] release things to you that are pertinent other than thinking that, you know, perhaps you're [2:34:49] diabolical and don't have the best intentions. [2:34:51] I feel like if I was going to release that information, I didn't demand that it be released [2:34:53] to me. [2:34:54] I actually never demanded that it be released. [2:34:56] I just simply said that this is what was going on in the last 48 hours. [2:34:59] Maybe to the media, they could release it. [2:35:00] They can release it to PBD. [2:35:02] They decided to release it to a guy that called Erica too retarded in June. [2:35:05] So what? [2:35:05] Yeah. [2:35:05] I just think it kind of shows that Turning Point is sending you as their horse. [2:35:09] Well, I don't know where you- [2:35:10] They just don't have the courage to have the conversation. [2:35:12] If they were just releasing something in good faith to answer questions- [2:35:15] Do you have any evidence of that claim? [2:35:17] It's not evidence. [2:35:18] You're sharing your opinion that she's too retarded. [2:35:20] I can't share my opinion that I think it's going to register as really obvious to the [2:35:23] public that rather than presenting that throughout the course of everybody wanting to know what [2:35:27] Charlie was going through through his last days, they decided to give it to you to come [2:35:29] to my house as some sort of a surprise. [2:35:31] Do you think the public's not smart enough to see through that? [2:35:32] Do you think that if you know- [2:35:33] Talking about terrible PR. [2:35:34] If you know that there's a huge debate that's coming up that's going to be probably one of the [2:35:37] most viewed that year, and one of the debaters calls you and says, [2:35:40] I'm taking this position. [2:35:41] This is the position that I feel like there's the most evidence for. [2:35:44] And Candace also agreed to answer many of my questions in regards to this. [2:35:47] So if you've got pertinent evidence here that I can use, I'd definitely like to take a look. [2:35:50] It was actually amazing to me. [2:35:52] It really was actually amazing to me how if you approach people in good faith and just [2:35:55] say, hey, I'd actually like to know what the facts and details are around this, they [2:35:58] actually do talk to you. [2:36:00] It's amazing. [2:36:00] Yeah. [2:36:01] I just do not believe, A, that they are doing this in good faith. [2:36:04] I don't believe that anything you have done is demonstrated that's in good faith. [2:36:07] It demonstrates that you walked into Turning Point USA headquarters and came out of a different [2:36:09] man because you were critical of the organization. [2:36:11] Still am. [2:36:11] We're critical of Erica, and now you're sitting here going, Candace, I want to interrogate [2:36:14] you for an hour and a half about everything you've ever said about Erica. [2:36:16] Have you ever been critical of somebody that you hadn't met and then you meet them and [2:36:18] you're less critical of them? [2:36:19] And the inverse has happened too. [2:36:21] I was less critical about Erica and now I'm more critical about her. [2:36:23] But I'm asking you, isn't it the case that there's people you've been critical of and [2:36:25] then you've met them and you're less critical after you meet them? [2:36:27] Too retarded. [2:36:28] I feel like if you think that she's dumb and you, let's just talk about your record. [2:36:32] I mean, you're a person that has spent time in what most people would term to be the manosphere [2:36:36] talking about- [2:36:37] Kind of. [2:36:38] Well, yeah. [2:36:38] I debate against the- [2:36:39] Against feminists. [2:36:40] And red pillars. [2:36:41] Okay. [2:36:41] And a lot of the actual, so I'm a Christian ethicist. [2:36:44] And then you go on to Joe Rogan and you're like soft explaining away why Erica had to take [2:36:48] over Charlie's company when they don't have a parent at home. [2:36:50] So now you're a feminist icon? [2:36:51] Like you just go into the headquarters and you just shift all of your perspectives? [2:36:53] Because that's a bizarre criticism. [2:36:55] Like nobody's in the bigger girl boss position than you. [2:36:57] I'm actually- [2:36:58] You're in the biggest of the girl boss positions. [2:37:00] Like you don't have to do this. [2:37:01] You just do do this. [2:37:02] You could definitely not do it at all and be fine, right? [2:37:04] But you still do. [2:37:05] I would say that you are making a comparison that cannot be compared because Erica's husband [2:37:11] was just assassinated in front of the world. [2:37:13] Which makes sense. [2:37:14] Why should we take the organization over? [2:37:15] No, it makes sense why you would go home to your kids, just so you know. [2:37:17] Wait a second. [2:37:17] That's bizarre. [2:37:18] They don't have a parent and they've just suffered a trauma. [2:37:20] You don't go into the office six days later. [2:37:21] You want to protect your husband's legacy. [2:37:23] Yeah, right. [2:37:23] And you're trying to find some new normal. [2:37:25] The legacy is his children, not the organization. [2:37:26] It's both. [2:37:27] No, it- [2:37:27] Yes, it is both. [2:37:28] It's totally rational and reasonable to believe that it would be both Turning Point USA [2:37:32] that is part of Charlie Kirk's legacy. [2:37:33] He worked his whole life for it. [2:37:34] I think this is why people think she's us. [2:37:35] And his children. [2:37:36] Now, for you though, to say that anybody's a girl boss, right? [2:37:39] That's like the pot calling the kettle black. [2:37:40] That came out of your mouth. [2:37:42] No, that was you. [2:37:43] You brought up girl boss. [2:37:44] Girl boss came out of your mouth. [2:37:45] Yeah, I'm just saying. [2:37:46] I'm telling you that you brought up this idea that I'm defending some feminist nonsense. [2:37:50] I'm not. [2:37:51] I'm pointing out that they're- [2:37:52] She's not qualified to take over his company. [2:37:55] There's always objective outliers to each situation. [2:37:57] In fact, it's the exception that proves the rule. [2:37:59] And the interesting thing here is like, I'm still just as critical of feminism inside [2:38:02] of TV USA as I've always been. [2:38:04] And I'm just as critical of any pro-Zionist position as I've ever been. [2:38:08] None of that's ever changed. [2:38:09] By the way, I would think it's the most rational, reasonable thing on planet Earth to do if you [2:38:14] wanted to actually see an organization change to try to work with leadership or reach out [2:38:17] to leadership to try to do so. [2:38:19] Doesn't that make the most of my sense? [2:38:20] I would like to state for the record that I think Erica is underqualified to run the [2:38:25] organization. [2:38:25] And on the more emotional aspects, I agree with what seems to be a majority opinion, because [2:38:32] I'm not going to say it's scientific, that any woman that would leave her kids and go [2:38:36] right into the office after their husband was publicly assassinated does not have their [2:38:39] priority straight. [2:38:40] Okay, well, I understand that you can have those criticisms, but I'm not understanding [2:38:44] still how that would make her complicit. [2:38:46] I don't have to keep answering the same question. [2:38:48] So let's get it. [2:38:49] Do you feel like you got an answer to how it's complicit? [2:38:50] Your team is asking to play a clip. [2:38:52] So if we want to play this clip to just finish this segment on the Erica Kirk topic, we can [2:38:56] spend some time on that as well. [2:38:57] So if you guys are ready in the back, we're ready. [2:38:58] And causing that 30-06 diameter, as would happen with a petting explosive, as we've demonstrated [2:39:05] to you in the past, it accidentally, because of how Charlie was crouched, went up and hit [2:39:09] his neck. [2:39:11] And that ruined everything. [2:39:13] It ruined everything. [2:39:14] It was problematic. [2:39:15] It's the reason why Tarleton had to scramble to get the cameras down, because they were never [2:39:19] supposed to see it. [2:39:20] They could have said reasonably that a 30-06 got eaten by Charlie, much more recently, [2:39:26] obviously, than saying that the chicken bones in his neck stopped it because he ate vegetables. [2:39:34] They panicked. [2:39:35] That was what, then, that's why Tarleton was nervous on the phone with me. [2:39:37] Again, this is my theory, and I am now very much sticking to it. [2:39:40] Okay? [2:39:41] They panicked. [2:39:42] It's the reason Erica had to step out once. [2:39:43] That's why she would have gotten on the phone with Tarleton so quickly, because I was going, [2:39:47] why is Tarleton saying, well, I didn't want Erica to relive? [2:39:49] Oh, that's why I did it. [2:39:49] He didn't have an answer. [2:39:50] He was nervous. [2:39:50] It was crazy. [2:39:52] But he acknowledged it. [2:39:52] He spoke to Erica immediately. [2:39:53] Why did you speak to Erica immediately? [2:39:56] Do you believe that there was a shape charge that killed Charlie? [2:39:59] Hey, can I ask you why you keep starting clips mid-sentence? [2:40:01] Probably to get to where the clip is. [2:40:03] No, it doesn't seem that way, because you can always start a clip at the beginning of a sentence. [2:40:06] Like, you're just starting, like, it's completely out of context. [2:40:08] Wait, I didn't prepare the clips, but it's fine to ask it to back it up. [2:40:12] Like I said, I don't need to say what's happening here, because the internet will clock it. [2:40:16] But in this episode, we are now going, and that's why I said we're now going to look at some alternative theories. [2:40:22] I made it very clear that this was a theory that I didn't want to look at. [2:40:25] This is, I believe, because I don't have every episode on my head, [2:40:27] but I'm pretty sure this is an episode where we presented the evidence that was in the car, [2:40:31] the photos of what was in the car, right? [2:40:33] And so we are now inferring off of what we see in the car that this very much does look like, [2:40:38] that we see a bunch of shattered road microphone, [2:40:42] which was an early theory that I was actually interested in, [2:40:45] but couldn't really wrap my head around what was the shape charge explosive, [2:40:48] as I say at the beginning of the episode. [2:40:49] Like, it was just not my expertise, [2:40:51] and I was concerning myself with timelines and stories, [2:40:53] and St. Louis didn't make sense. [2:40:54] Without question, Terrell Farnsworth is someone who made me think that we were missing a big part of the story. [2:41:00] So I'm walking them through John Bray's theory, [2:41:03] if we started to insert what we are actually observing [2:41:06] with the evidence that we're taking a look at and what took place that day. [2:41:09] So we're completely in the hypothetical right here. [2:41:11] And you're now introducing this. [2:41:13] If that's the case, if you're just hypothetically exploring it, [2:41:15] that's why I'm just asking directly. [2:41:16] Yes, but that's obvious when you watch this episode. [2:41:18] So that's why it feels like I'm in the middle of an interview with CNN, [2:41:21] when they pull up random clips, and they're like, [2:41:23] what's this? [2:41:24] What's this? [2:41:25] You watched the episode. [2:41:25] You know what it is. [2:41:26] I'm just trying to make sure. [2:41:26] Do you think that your alternative theory, [2:41:29] do you believe- [2:41:29] I think John Bray's theory should be explored, yes. [2:41:31] Okay, do you think that Charlie Kirk was killed with an explosive? [2:41:34] I think that that is a possibility, yes. [2:41:36] Okay, good. [2:41:36] And it should be explored. [2:41:37] He's done a lot of work on it. [2:41:38] John Bray has done good work, [2:41:39] and I think that that's why that theory is now starting to gain steam [2:41:42] since we released the second set of the photos of what was in the car. [2:41:46] I think it's viable. [2:41:47] So this was the big thing I wanted to get into with you on the explosives, too. [2:41:50] What is it about that theory that's actually compelling to you? [2:41:52] So I looked into the explosive mic theory multiple times, [2:41:55] and the biggest thing that stood out to me is there's no explosion. [2:41:59] There's literally no explosion. [2:42:01] In fact, there's videos when the shot rings out that kills Charlie, [2:42:05] at least it sounds like a shot to me, [2:42:06] people are actually looking up towards where the gun is being fired. [2:42:11] They're looking away for where the sound is. [2:42:13] Like, where's the actual explosion? [2:42:15] Well, for every person that you say looks away, [2:42:17] there's going to be a person that was looking forward. [2:42:19] We have former Marines that have gotten on and said, [2:42:23] it looks to me like there's an explosion under his shirt, right? [2:42:24] You obviously saw Rob O'Neill go on to, [2:42:30] I'm forgetting which platform it was, [2:42:31] where he said, it's the first thing I thought was- [2:42:32] Rob O'Neill is the man that killed Osama Bin Laden. [2:42:34] Yeah, and I think he's qualified to say what he believes he saw. [2:42:36] We should actually, since they're pulling clips, [2:42:38] we should run that clip of Rob O'Neill and what he said [2:42:40] and what he observed in his experience. [2:42:42] So I'm going to take that. [2:42:44] And also there were people who tested, [2:42:46] like immediately spoke to the media that day [2:42:47] who said the same thing, [2:42:48] that they thought that something happened under his shirt. [2:42:49] That was actually, if you go back to my first episode, [2:42:50] when I was just observing what I saw with my eyes, [2:42:52] I was asking the serious question, [2:42:54] I was seriously saying, [2:42:54] why is it like somebody shot him from underneath? [2:42:56] Why is his shirt moving first? [2:42:57] That doesn't make sense to me. [2:42:58] And I'm not- [2:42:59] That's because of air dispersal from the bullet. [2:43:01] So whenever a bullet is shot, a projectile shot, [2:43:04] you can actually run this experiment yourself if you have a rifle. [2:43:07] Take like an empty box of ammunition and put it on the table [2:43:09] and then fire it near the muzzle [2:43:11] and that box will actually blow off the table. [2:43:13] Okay, so question for you. [2:43:15] Does that box go sideways off the table? [2:43:17] It can. [2:43:17] It can. [2:43:18] Yeah, it can. [2:43:18] It depends on the dispersal. [2:43:19] 3,000 pounds of energy or 2,000 pounds of energy coming at you. [2:43:23] That's how much it carries. [2:43:23] Well, it's not 2,000 pounds of energy. [2:43:25] We can fact check that. [2:43:26] How many pounds of energy is it? [2:43:28] A 30-odd-six being shot 150 yards away. [2:43:31] That's a great question for Grok. [2:43:32] I'm going to say when we looked at it, [2:43:33] it was between 1,500 and 2,000, I'm pretty sure, [2:43:35] pounds of energy coming at you [2:43:36] and you just go upward into the side. [2:43:38] I don't really buy that. [2:43:39] I'm going to just say I just think that that's not possible. [2:43:42] It doesn't go through on top of that, [2:43:43] so it's another miracle. [2:43:43] You didn't get blown backwards. [2:43:44] It didn't go through. [2:43:45] But I also want to say that you're saying this can happen [2:43:47] and Rob O'Neill is infinitely more qualified, [2:43:49] I think, to speak on that. [2:43:50] Why? [2:43:51] Well, because he's actually shot and killed people. [2:43:53] Why would that have anything to do with anything? [2:43:55] Did he slow down all the videos of the people he shot [2:43:57] to see if their clothes moved? [2:43:59] Well, why are you able to start your prison as a fact? [2:44:00] Because I'm going to tell you how projectiles were. [2:44:03] I guarantee you this guy's not going to disagree [2:44:05] with what I'm about to say. [2:44:06] If it is the case that you have energy [2:44:08] and you have mass and the mass is moving in the air, [2:44:11] the air has to go somewhere. [2:44:12] It doesn't have a choice. [2:44:13] I think you're totally BSing right now, man. [2:44:16] Not only am I not BSing, I'm telling you the truth. [2:44:18] If a bullet is moving in air, [2:44:20] air has to move out of way of bullet. [2:44:21] But maybe not at the bottom of a shirt here. [2:44:23] I don't know. [2:44:23] I disagree with that. [2:44:24] I'd like to say for the record, [2:44:26] I've watched some of you do these sorts of things [2:44:27] where you assert something with a lot of confidence. [2:44:29] You can back check it. [2:44:30] Back check if bullets displace air. [2:44:32] Not about whether it displace air, [2:44:33] it's where it disperse the air. [2:44:34] Underneath his shirt here. [2:44:35] It's not underneath the shirt. [2:44:36] Well, it's this big [2:44:37] and you're telling me it's going to hit his neck. [2:44:38] Candace, it's not underneath the shirt. [2:44:39] It starts up here and the collar's moving [2:44:41] and then you see the wave here [2:44:42] as he's moving backwards. [2:44:43] No. [2:44:44] Yeah. [2:44:44] That's not true. [2:44:44] It's not. [2:44:45] And we obviously can't show that clip. [2:44:46] I disagree with you. [2:44:47] Okay, I understand you can't show it [2:44:48] for TOS purposes. [2:44:49] Exactly. [2:44:49] I disagree with you. [2:44:50] People can go watch [2:44:51] and make up their own minds. [2:44:51] We don't need to debate it. [2:44:52] Whether or not it was the first thing I said [2:44:53] was why is his shirt moving first? [2:44:55] That didn't make sense to me. [2:44:56] It almost looks just like this. [2:44:57] It goes across. [2:44:58] His necklace breaks first [2:44:59] before Charlie even reacts. [2:45:00] If you watch it in slow, [2:45:02] his necklace breaks first, [2:45:02] which I thought was very odd. [2:45:03] And then you see a puff here [2:45:05] and then the next thing you know, [2:45:05] there's the entry wound on his neck. [2:45:08] I would not confidently assert [2:45:10] that I see smoke. [2:45:10] I've never said it on my platform. [2:45:11] Do you think that an explosion [2:45:12] generally has smoke? [2:45:14] I don't think that there's [2:45:15] any quality version of video [2:45:16] that would get us to be able [2:45:17] to answer that question [2:45:18] other than Terrell's 4K footage [2:45:19] that he has from the front. [2:45:20] There's a lot of, [2:45:21] if you look at the Israeli pagers, [2:45:23] it's assumed that it's a similar, [2:45:25] if not the same type of explosive [2:45:26] that was used inside the pagers [2:45:27] that would have been used [2:45:28] inside of this road mic. [2:45:29] I think that you should, [2:45:30] since you love debating, [2:45:31] you should debate someone [2:45:32] like John Bray [2:45:33] who's worked on that theory [2:45:33] for 11 months [2:45:34] and ask those sorts of questions [2:45:35] of how shape charge would work. [2:45:37] I presented the evidence [2:45:38] of what was in the car [2:45:38] and I also at that episode [2:45:40] that you're clipping said [2:45:41] John Bray has done [2:45:42] an unbelievable amount of work on this [2:45:43] and I think he has debated [2:45:45] a ton of people actually [2:45:46] regarding this topic. [2:45:47] So that's the route [2:45:48] that I would send you on. [2:45:49] Yeah, that's fine. [2:45:49] For the purposes of my show, [2:45:51] I do believe to answer your question [2:45:53] that it is a hypothetical. [2:45:54] I mean, that it is a theory [2:45:55] that should be thoroughly explored. [2:45:57] There's two clips [2:45:57] your team wants to show. [2:45:59] One of them is the Rob O'Neill clip [2:46:00] since we're on it. [2:46:00] So if you guys are ready [2:46:01] in the back before we go to ad break, [2:46:02] if you want to pull it up, [2:46:03] this is a good time to do so. [2:46:04] Good to see you, General Holt. [2:46:10] A lot of things bother me [2:46:11] about this. [2:46:14] Nothing in particular [2:46:15] and it's not like I'm out there [2:46:16] saying big lie [2:46:17] or a conspiracy [2:46:17] or someone did it. [2:46:18] I'm just saying [2:46:18] I've been in a lot of shootings [2:46:19] that have killed [2:46:20] more than a handful of people [2:46:21] and this thing looked shady [2:46:22] off the bat. [2:46:23] I mean, just, [2:46:23] I've killed people closer [2:46:25] than I saw the camera [2:46:25] and I've never seen [2:46:26] a shirt move like that. [2:46:27] That looks like an explosion to me. [2:46:29] Just the fact that no one [2:46:30] started doing first aid [2:46:31] to Charlie Kirk, [2:46:32] they were more concerned [2:46:33] about getting SIM cards [2:46:33] out of cameras, [2:46:34] removing cameras [2:46:34] and then getting him [2:46:35] off the X somehow. [2:46:37] Didn't seem a lot of concern [2:46:37] for his life. [2:46:38] It seemed like just clean it up [2:46:39] and then, I mean, [2:46:40] I've been told they paved it over [2:46:41] a couple days later [2:46:42] and then you get Erica Kirk [2:46:43] behind all the razzle dazzle [2:46:45] and she's really quick [2:46:46] to forgive the alleged shooter [2:46:47] which technically says [2:46:49] that was him [2:46:49] because I forgive him [2:46:50] but then she can't forgive [2:46:51] Candace Owens [2:46:51] for having an opinion [2:46:52] or asking questions [2:46:53] and they mock people by saying [2:46:54] oh, I'm just asking questions. [2:46:55] Yeah, I'm a CEO Team 6 [2:46:56] Sniper. [2:46:57] I'm asking a lot of questions [2:46:58] and no one wants to answer them [2:46:58] and you're able to ask. [2:47:00] He's actually said very little [2:47:01] about the explosive there. [2:47:03] I'm saying he observed, [2:47:04] he said he shot people up close [2:47:05] and he's never seen [2:47:06] a shirt move like that [2:47:07] and it looked to him [2:47:07] like an explosive. [2:47:08] That's what he just said. [2:47:08] When I play that video [2:47:10] at full speed, [2:47:11] I can't see a shirt moving. [2:47:13] I can only see a shirt moving [2:47:14] when we slow it way down. [2:47:15] So if I'm in real time, [2:47:16] I'm just assuming this, right? [2:47:18] I mean, if I was in real time [2:47:19] and I was in like [2:47:20] a close quarters combat [2:47:21] you kill somebody's situation [2:47:22] and I shot them, [2:47:24] would you even see the shirt move? [2:47:25] Well, I just feel like [2:47:26] five minutes ago [2:47:27] you were arguing that [2:47:28] it was because the bullet [2:47:28] carried air. [2:47:29] Now you're saying you don't see [2:47:30] the shirt move at all? [2:47:30] Yeah, but that's, [2:47:31] if you slow it down, [2:47:33] the disbursement of air, [2:47:34] that's where you're going [2:47:34] to see it, right? [2:47:35] It's going to be very quick. [2:47:36] Very, very, very, very fast. [2:47:37] Yeah, that's not what I saw [2:47:38] and clearly it's not what he saw [2:47:40] and he thinks that [2:47:41] there could be an explosive. [2:47:42] So I'm just saying to you, [2:47:43] people disagree with you. [2:47:43] Your opinion's not a fact. [2:47:44] That's all. [2:47:45] I understand. [2:47:45] That's a good place for us to, [2:47:47] if we have another break [2:47:48] and then we can keep [2:47:49] answering your questions. [2:47:50] Yeah, I mean, I think, [2:47:51] yeah, sounds good. [2:47:57] All right, you guys, [2:47:57] I want to tell you about ethos [2:47:58] because life has a way [2:48:00] of changing your priorities [2:48:01] when you least expect it. [2:48:02] And now we are up to date. [2:48:07] Hold on, let me get up to, [2:48:10] now we are at the live. [2:48:12] Holy crap. [2:48:14] Now we are up to, [2:48:15] we are now on the live. [2:48:18] So I am going to make sure, [2:48:21] yep, playback is normal. [2:48:22] So we're good to go. [2:48:24] What do you think so far? [2:48:25] Do you think Andrew's holding, [2:48:27] holding, you know, holding water? [2:48:29] Is he posing? [2:48:31] Oh, excuse me. [2:48:35] Is he posing a strong argument [2:48:37] or is this all a nothing burger [2:48:39] in your opinion? [2:48:41] What are your thoughts? [2:48:45] Definitely comment. [2:48:46] Let me know. [2:48:54] Yeah. [2:48:55] Andrew probably still needs [2:48:56] a smoke break for sure. [2:48:57] He definitely is a smoker. [2:49:00] You could tell. [2:49:16] I feel like nothing has been [2:49:18] like solved. [2:49:24] You know what I mean? [2:49:32] There is, [2:51:04] there is something else [2:51:12] that I did want to share [2:51:13] with y'all, [2:51:14] but I don't want to like [2:51:18] pull the video up [2:51:19] and then they get back [2:51:21] from their, [2:51:21] their break and all that. [2:51:23] So I figured we'll just, [2:51:25] we'll just wait. [2:51:26] We will just wait. [2:51:32] Check in to see [2:51:48] if there's any other, [2:51:49] any other news going on. [2:54:07] Oh, [2:54:08] let's not forget. [2:54:09] Caroline Levitt. [2:54:11] All right. [2:54:11] Fantastic. [2:54:12] So Andrew, [2:54:12] if you want to go [2:54:13] with your last couple thoughts. [2:54:14] Okay. [2:54:15] Yeah. [2:54:15] So I just have two, [2:54:16] two more clips to play. [2:54:17] Okay. [2:54:18] Right. [2:54:18] And here we go. [2:54:19] We can do final thoughts. [2:54:21] I'm guessing. [2:54:23] I, [2:54:24] yeah, [2:54:24] I feel like we got [2:54:26] where we were trying to go [2:54:27] or at least for the most part. [2:54:29] So the two other clips, [2:54:32] I do want to play the Twigs clip. [2:54:33] That one is important to me. [2:54:35] The Twigs DNA clip. [2:54:36] Yeah. [2:54:36] And they're going to pull it up [2:54:37] just to have you respond. [2:54:39] Well, [2:54:39] you don't have to play it [2:54:40] because like if you're saying that [2:54:41] when I initially watched it, [2:54:43] I thought that Lance Twigs' DNA, [2:54:45] like he was directly responding to that [2:54:46] because the testimony [2:54:47] was a bit confusing. [2:54:48] They started by saying [2:54:48] that they were going to, [2:54:50] like explaining [2:54:52] how they got the samples [2:54:53] and they said Lance, [2:54:54] Matt and Amberson, [2:54:55] sorry, [2:54:55] Lance, [2:54:56] Matt and Amber Robinson, [2:54:57] how they got their DNA samples. [2:54:59] And then they started speaking [2:55:01] about the gun [2:55:01] and said, [2:55:02] you know, [2:55:02] multiple prints [2:55:04] were found on them. [2:55:05] And then they moved [2:55:05] and they said Lance Twigs' DNA [2:55:07] was found on the screwdriver. [2:55:08] When I went back [2:55:10] and re-watched it, [2:55:11] I realized, [2:55:11] well, [2:55:11] they haven't officially said [2:55:12] that Lance or Amber [2:55:13] are on the gun. [2:55:15] So I think I've already conceded [2:55:16] that we don't know that. [2:55:17] So I think like, [2:55:18] but if you're, [2:55:19] if you want to play the clip to- [2:55:20] Well, no, this is directly [2:55:21] you saying it is on the gun. [2:55:24] Twigs' DNA is on the gun. [2:55:25] Yeah, I'm saying that. [2:55:25] I feel like I've already said to you, [2:55:27] like I've made that concession. [2:55:29] Just to be clear, [2:55:30] whenever I make a mistake, [2:55:31] I just correct it. [2:55:32] So that's why [2:55:33] when you were asking me three times, [2:55:34] I've already said, [2:55:36] we don't know yet. [2:55:37] And I've corrected that mistake. [2:55:39] So if the purpose of you showing this [2:55:41] is to demonstrate [2:55:42] that Candace makes mistakes sometimes [2:55:44] when she's taking in a lot of information [2:55:46] and she's reading through legal documents [2:55:48] and she's trying to remember [2:55:50] nine hour testimony. [2:55:51] It's just demonstrate something else. [2:55:52] It is in fact the case, [2:55:53] we're all going to make mistakes. [2:55:55] I'm going to make mistakes. [2:55:55] And I've already conceded. [2:55:56] I've already conceded. [2:55:57] You're going to make mistakes in the case. [2:55:58] Yeah. [2:55:58] But in this case, [2:55:59] you were very adamant [2:56:00] that his DNA was on the gun itself. [2:56:04] Yeah. [2:56:04] So I'm just saying that [2:56:06] it's not ruled out. [2:56:06] We know that there's five plus prints. [2:56:08] I've said this so many times. [2:56:09] I had to rewatch the testimony. [2:56:11] Again, it's like nine hours a day. [2:56:12] It got very scientific [2:56:14] when they were speaking about this. [2:56:15] And I think I wrongly extrapolated [2:56:17] that they meant all three of them [2:56:18] were on the prints [2:56:19] when the only person [2:56:20] they officially named was Matt Robinson. [2:56:21] So we don't know yet [2:56:22] if Lance Twiggs [2:56:24] has his DNA on the gun [2:56:27] officially just yet. [2:56:29] Okay. [2:56:29] I've already conceded that. [2:56:31] Sure. [2:56:31] So that's fine. [2:56:32] And then the last one [2:56:33] is one with Erica Kirk. [2:56:34] Sure. [2:56:35] This is like the Erica Kirk. [2:56:37] All right, Erica. [2:56:39] You could just sit down with me, Erica, [2:56:40] but we can do it this way. [2:56:41] This goes back to a previous claim [2:56:43] that you made. [2:56:43] Yeah, sure. [2:56:45] Straight to jail. [2:56:47] Straight to jail. [2:56:49] We're questioning at least, Erica. [2:56:51] I don't care who's Matt. [2:56:52] I really do not care [2:56:53] who wants to be upset [2:56:55] after this episode. [2:56:57] Really, [2:56:57] you'll be wasting your breath. [2:56:58] You can spend a billion dollars [2:57:00] on influencers [2:57:00] because this is all [2:57:01] becoming increasingly inexplicable. [2:57:03] You are asking me [2:57:05] to be an idiot, actually, [2:57:06] and I cannot do that for you. [2:57:08] Someone once commented [2:57:09] beneath this show [2:57:11] that if the situations [2:57:13] were reversed [2:57:14] and there were this many [2:57:16] verifiable lies... [2:57:20] Straight to jail? [2:57:22] Yeah, so that's the show intro [2:57:23] and straight to jail. [2:57:24] Straight to jail is a monopoly term. [2:57:25] Okay. [2:57:26] So do not pass go. [2:57:27] Yeah. [2:57:27] Do not collect $200. [2:57:28] Yes, it's... [2:57:30] Obviously, tongue-in-cheek [2:57:31] and then we explain [2:57:32] that actually I think [2:57:32] that she should be brought in [2:57:33] for questioning [2:57:34] because of inconsistencies. [2:57:35] So this is the exact episode [2:57:36] when I started to think [2:57:37] that she should be sat down [2:57:40] and questioned. [2:57:41] And I still believe that. [2:57:42] I still hold the perspective [2:57:43] that Erica should be sat down [2:57:45] and she should be properly questioned. [2:57:47] Do you know that she hasn't been? [2:57:49] No, actually. [2:57:50] That would be a great thing [2:57:51] for the spokesperson [2:57:51] of Turning Point USA [2:57:52] to say that she's already sat through. [2:57:53] Yeah, but why do they... [2:57:54] I mean, my guess would be she hasn't [2:57:55] because they returned everything to her. [2:57:57] Yeah. [2:57:57] But I... [2:57:57] Why do they owe you that, though? [2:57:59] Why do they... [2:57:59] They don't owe me anything. [2:58:00] That's my show you're watching. [2:58:01] Just, you know, [2:58:02] the clips that you're pulling [2:58:02] from my show. [2:58:03] So if I want to say something [2:58:05] on my show, I can say that. [2:58:06] You can't. [2:58:07] I didn't say they owe me something. [2:58:08] I don't think that's ever... [2:58:09] You can't, but if you say, like, [2:58:10] you need to be sat down [2:58:11] for questioning [2:58:11] and you don't even know [2:58:12] if they haven't been, [2:58:14] that's strange, right? [2:58:15] Do you know if they have been? [2:58:17] No. [2:58:17] I have no idea. [2:58:18] So you're just saying, [2:58:20] what if they haven't been? [2:58:21] Yeah. [2:58:21] If you're... [2:58:21] If you're just kind of [2:58:22] filling the air with... [2:58:23] If your entire thing is... [2:58:24] Just junk. [2:58:24] If you're... [2:58:25] No, it's not junk. [2:58:26] If the query is, [2:58:28] why is it that Erica Kirk's [2:58:29] not being sat down [2:58:30] for questioning, [2:58:31] but you have absolutely [2:58:32] no knowledge [2:58:33] whether or not [2:58:33] she's been sat down [2:58:34] for questioning or not, [2:58:35] what that does [2:58:36] is it creates an innuendo. [2:58:37] It creates an inference. [2:58:38] It creates out to the ethos [2:58:40] that this should be happening [2:58:42] because something's wrong here [2:58:44] when you actually [2:58:45] don't have the knowledge [2:58:45] that anything's wrong at all. [2:58:47] I just think that [2:58:48] my opinion is that [2:58:49] she should be sat down [2:58:50] and questions. [2:58:52] But you're not sure [2:58:52] if she hasn't been. [2:58:53] Yeah, and you're not sure [2:58:54] if she has been either. [2:58:56] So, like I said, [2:58:57] I feel like now [2:58:57] you're just kind of [2:58:58] filling the air with nonsense [2:58:59] because training points [2:59:00] like we want to make sure [2:59:02] that you go in there [2:59:02] and you defend Erica [2:59:03] and I have to say, [2:59:04] I don't think you've done [2:59:05] an extraordinary job at that. [2:59:06] But I'm not here [2:59:07] to defend Erica. [2:59:08] The thing is though, [2:59:08] it's like... [2:59:09] I would say that [2:59:09] since four out of five [2:59:10] of the clips [2:59:10] that you had on the ready [2:59:11] when we asked you guys [2:59:12] ahead of time. [2:59:13] I mean, I want to just assert [2:59:15] how professionally [2:59:16] we have dealt with this debate. [2:59:17] As you can see, [2:59:18] we have not planned [2:59:19] any gotcha clips for Andrew. [2:59:21] I expressed to him [2:59:22] that what we were going to do [2:59:23] was just to use people [2:59:24] for fact checks [2:59:24] because I might not [2:59:25] remember something [2:59:26] or I do remember something [2:59:29] and you're saying no [2:59:29] and that is what I think [2:59:31] will register to people [2:59:32] as very fair. [2:59:33] Well, wait, I expressed these... [2:59:33] We did not take [2:59:34] out of context clips [2:59:36] of Andrew [2:59:36] to try to... [2:59:37] But I am congratulating [2:59:37] for saying that I was [2:59:39] going to bring claims. [2:59:39] We did not... [2:59:40] That's crazy. [2:59:41] When you said you were [2:59:41] going to bring claims [2:59:42] that you would want me [2:59:43] to speak to, [2:59:43] you didn't say, [2:59:45] I intend on sitting you down [2:59:46] with out of contexted clips [2:59:49] which we said to you [2:59:50] before in an email, [2:59:51] any clips you want to share [2:59:52] with us, send it over, [2:59:53] let's assert a debate claim [2:59:54] so that we can both [2:59:55] be ready to respond to it. [2:59:57] This just... [2:59:57] That's not really what happened. [2:59:58] Well, what didn't happen? [3:00:00] Yeah, this... [3:00:01] The way that you're [3:00:02] framing the exchange, [3:00:03] that's not actually [3:00:04] what happened. [3:00:05] We were negotiating... [3:00:06] It is true, [3:00:06] we negotiated out [3:00:07] the claim itself, right? [3:00:10] Which one's going to take [3:00:11] which position? [3:00:12] I wanted to make sure [3:00:12] that I had at least [3:00:13] an hour and a half on mine [3:00:14] and you got the time [3:00:15] for yours to question me. [3:00:16] We did. [3:00:17] We got through [3:00:17] your hour and a half on mine, [3:00:19] roughly an hour and a half [3:00:20] now on mine. [3:00:21] That's basically [3:00:22] how this went. [3:00:22] But in the beginning, [3:00:23] I did not take an hour [3:00:24] and a half to just [3:00:25] pull out of context [3:00:26] this with Andrew. [3:00:26] I actually debated [3:00:27] the substance [3:00:28] of what's going on [3:00:28] in this trial and this hearing [3:00:29] and I do think that you fell... [3:00:31] I think you fell short of that. [3:00:32] There's nothing out of... [3:00:33] Hang on. [3:00:34] There's nothing here [3:00:35] except holding you [3:00:35] to account for your claims. [3:00:36] Yes or no. [3:00:38] Well, we were supposed [3:00:39] to be debating the case [3:00:41] and whether or not [3:00:42] there was overwhelming evidence. [3:00:44] These are your claims [3:00:45] about the case. [3:00:46] No, you then admitted [3:00:47] that now you're getting [3:00:48] into another sphere [3:00:50] and you want to talk [3:00:51] about the transcendentals [3:00:52] and things that I've said. [3:00:53] And we got through... [3:00:53] And like four out of five [3:00:54] of your clips [3:00:55] are about Erica Kirk. [3:00:55] So the general perception... [3:00:57] I don't think four out of five [3:00:57] even were. [3:00:57] ...is your turning points horse. [3:00:59] I think quite a few of them were. [3:01:01] Were there three Erica's [3:01:03] or four? [3:01:03] So you're just making stuff up? [3:01:04] Can we get a count [3:01:05] of how many were about Erica? [3:01:06] I feel like... [3:01:06] I think it was three. [3:01:07] Three. [3:01:08] Okay. [3:01:08] Three. [3:01:08] I said four. [3:01:09] But those are extraordinary claims [3:01:11] which is why you were asked about them. [3:01:12] Okay. [3:01:12] Well, okay. [3:01:14] But the point being [3:01:14] is now you're veering [3:01:15] into trying to get me [3:01:16] to defend my opinions [3:01:17] and then you completely [3:01:18] shirk responsibility [3:01:19] when I point out yours. [3:01:20] No, they're not claims. [3:01:21] No, they're claims. [3:01:22] When you tweet Erica [3:01:22] is too retarded, [3:01:23] you go, [3:01:24] that's just whatever [3:01:25] and then you move on. [3:01:25] That's a claim [3:01:26] that I'm responsible [3:01:27] for the claim. [3:01:29] Well, earlier [3:01:30] when I brought it up, [3:01:30] you said that [3:01:31] it was tongue-in-cheek. [3:01:32] Yes. [3:01:33] Sure. [3:01:34] That's me responding [3:01:35] to your criticism [3:01:36] of the claim. [3:01:38] That's all I'm doing here. [3:01:39] I was interested [3:01:40] and... [3:01:41] And I'm happy [3:01:42] to get into [3:01:42] also the Patsy stuff now [3:01:44] if you would like to. [3:01:45] Your team has one more clip [3:01:46] that they want to play [3:01:46] from seven days ago. [3:01:47] They got one more clip. [3:01:48] We were getting [3:01:49] into the Patsy stuff [3:01:50] and you stopped it [3:01:50] and I was explaining to you. [3:01:52] Oh, they have one more clip. [3:01:53] Okay, let's go. [3:01:55] They want to hit [3:01:55] the minimum of four clips [3:01:57] you were saying [3:01:57] with Erica, so... [3:01:58] 100%. [3:01:59] This is absurd. [3:02:02] Oh, boy. [3:02:04] Okay. [3:02:04] This is crazy. [3:02:05] And this is the one [3:02:06] you were saying [3:02:06] from seven days ago. [3:02:18] Okay, while they're [3:02:19] looking for that, [3:02:20] do you want to continue? [3:02:21] Yeah, I mean, [3:02:22] can I ask a question? [3:02:23] I know it's been... [3:02:24] Or can I ask a question? [3:02:25] Are we just in the... [3:02:25] Not really. [3:02:26] I'm just gonna... [3:02:27] Okay. [3:02:28] We're going to hold [3:02:28] to the actual contract itself. [3:02:31] The contract does not say [3:02:32] that you are allowed [3:02:33] to just question me [3:02:35] without me being able [3:02:36] to respond to you. [3:02:37] I've never said [3:02:38] you can't respond. [3:02:38] Or have a conversation. [3:02:40] That's crazy. [3:02:40] You've been able to respond [3:02:41] to every question [3:02:42] I've asked you. [3:02:42] And by the way, [3:02:43] the other thing is... [3:02:44] Let's have it your way. [3:02:45] I want it to look like... [3:02:46] Still happy to have it to be. [3:02:47] We've done everything [3:02:47] Andrew wanted to [3:02:48] so that people can [3:02:49] fairly assess the situation. [3:02:51] So you have it your way. [3:02:51] I will not ask a question. [3:02:52] Totally fair with me. [3:02:53] So are you good [3:02:55] with her asking the question [3:02:56] or no? [3:02:56] He said no. [3:02:57] Waiting for the clip. [3:02:58] Okay. [3:02:59] So you want to wait [3:02:59] for the clip first. [3:03:00] Okay. [3:03:01] Wow. [3:03:01] You guys have it in the back? [3:03:03] Because they have a contract. [3:03:05] You see what I'm saying? [3:03:06] Okay, beautiful. [3:03:07] Tea. [3:03:09] I need some chamomile tea. [3:03:12] They need some chamomile tea. [3:03:14] Damn. [3:03:16] They all need a... [3:03:17] I don't know. [3:03:18] They all need a drink [3:03:20] and a smile. [3:03:21] You need the Jeopardy thing. [3:03:22] The team told me they had it. [3:03:23] So that's what I heard. [3:03:25] Okay. [3:03:25] Come on, guys. [3:03:26] Did this crime. [3:03:28] Okay? [3:03:28] Because Lance Twiggs [3:03:29] has his DNA on the towel. [3:03:32] It's fine. [3:03:33] Lance Twiggs has his DNA [3:03:35] on the rifle. [3:03:36] Lance Twiggs has his DNA. [3:03:36] And to be clear, [3:03:37] Lance Twiggs' DNA [3:03:38] was not as degraded [3:03:41] as Tyler Robinson's DNA was [3:03:43] on Tyler's rifle. [3:03:45] It's Tyler's rifle, [3:03:46] but Lance's DNA. [3:03:46] Oh, you also said, [3:03:47] yeah, it's not as degraded [3:03:49] on the rifle. [3:03:49] Yeah, because I thought [3:03:50] he was one of the things. [3:03:51] But I've already... [3:03:52] That's what I mean [3:03:52] when I say that. [3:03:53] It just seems like [3:03:54] you're not actually here [3:03:55] trying to engage [3:03:56] because I... [3:03:57] Even before you got to this [3:03:58] and I knew that you had [3:03:59] some secret clip planned, [3:04:00] I said to you [3:04:01] when I re-watched [3:04:02] the testimony, [3:04:03] I realized that they didn't [3:04:04] explicitly say Lance Twiggs. [3:04:05] They said five other [3:04:06] profiles were on it [3:04:07] and that his was [3:04:09] the most degraded. [3:04:10] So I hope your team [3:04:11] feels fulfilled [3:04:12] in playing that. [3:04:14] Is there any more... [3:04:15] I'm happy to play [3:04:15] every clip that he has [3:04:17] on the ready. [3:04:17] Anybody? [3:04:18] You said you had [3:04:20] some new evidence [3:04:21] at the beginning of the... [3:04:22] Oh, yeah. [3:04:22] We should show that text message [3:04:23] that you read [3:04:24] just because I think [3:04:24] that's important for the public. [3:04:26] You shared it out of context. [3:04:27] I'll do it on my show. [3:04:29] I'll share the text message. [3:04:30] So you're going to read it [3:04:31] on my show [3:04:31] but not show it? [3:04:32] Correct. [3:04:33] I'll show it on my show [3:04:34] but that's what I'll do. [3:04:36] I'll show it on my show. [3:04:37] Can I ask why? [3:04:39] Well, because I want to [3:04:40] drip out the evidence. [3:04:42] You know, [3:04:42] you got to drip out [3:04:44] that evidence, [3:04:45] keep people coming back [3:04:46] for the show, right? [3:04:47] I don't know if snark [3:04:48] serves you so well. [3:04:49] I'm just saying, [3:04:50] like, yeah, [3:04:51] I'll release it there. [3:04:54] Yeah, that's my intention [3:04:56] but yeah, [3:04:57] I'm fine with closings [3:04:58] if you want to do closings. [3:04:59] I also would just, [3:05:00] if I may ask a question, [3:05:02] is that permitted? [3:05:03] Go ahead. [3:05:04] Just so I also have clarity [3:05:05] since your basis [3:05:07] has been evidentiary, [3:05:09] you keep saying [3:05:09] that you have evidence [3:05:10] or like you are following evidence, [3:05:12] which one of the charges against [3:05:15] or all of them [3:05:17] do you think [3:05:17] Tyler Robinson is guilty of? [3:05:21] The specific charge? [3:05:22] I love you too, Scorpio. [3:05:23] Yeah, so I think, [3:05:25] what I think is that [3:05:26] And I feel your pain. [3:05:28] Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk. [3:05:30] Yeah, but of the seven charges [3:05:32] that he's being charged. [3:05:33] Yeah, can we list them real quick? [3:05:34] I'll tell you exactly which ones. [3:05:36] We'll pull them up. [3:05:37] Well, do you know [3:05:37] any of the charges [3:05:38] that he's up for right now? [3:05:40] Yeah, of course. [3:05:41] But I want to make sure [3:05:41] that we have them listed. [3:05:43] Yeah, but like that's, [3:05:44] can you name one? [3:05:45] Because my general perspective [3:05:46] is that you don't actually [3:05:47] care about this case. [3:05:48] You're not following the case. [3:05:49] That's the question. [3:05:51] You're just not following it enough? [3:05:52] It seems pretty, [3:05:53] like if you're going to engage [3:05:54] and you're going to say [3:05:54] the evidence is overwhelming [3:05:56] that Tyler Robinson is guilty, [3:05:57] I just think that you should, [3:05:59] like can you tell me one charge? [3:06:00] Then let's do the counter. [3:06:01] You can really, [3:06:02] hang on, this is a great gotcha. [3:06:03] No, no, no. [3:06:03] You just got to ask me, [3:06:05] play clips out of context, [3:06:06] put me in the hot seat, [3:06:07] so please just answer the question. [3:06:08] This is fair. [3:06:09] Name all seven [3:06:10] since you've been following the case. [3:06:11] Okay, sure. [3:06:12] Go ahead. [3:06:12] You name one. [3:06:13] Yeah, you name all seven. [3:06:14] I'm happy to do that, [3:06:15] but can you name one? [3:06:16] I think he's, [3:06:17] I think he's been charged with murder. [3:06:19] That's actually incorrect. [3:06:19] Okay, great. [3:06:20] Now name all seven. [3:06:21] He doesn't even, [3:06:22] this is like. [3:06:23] Name all seven. [3:06:24] And I. [3:06:24] Can you name all seven? [3:06:25] I can. [3:06:26] Then do it. [3:06:27] I paid $300,000 for this. [3:06:29] Do it. [3:06:29] I'll count them. [3:06:30] Go ahead. [3:06:31] You don't have to put your fingers up. [3:06:32] Okay, name them. [3:06:33] Yeah, sure. [3:06:34] Oh, this is laughable. [3:06:35] The first charge is aggravated murder [3:06:36] because that's what carries [3:06:36] a death sentence in the state of you. [3:06:38] No, that's not, [3:06:39] that is literally not murder. [3:06:40] Okay. [3:06:40] And so just for people, [3:06:41] no, don't, [3:06:44] to explain to people the difference [3:06:45] of why that really matters [3:06:46] and shows that he doesn't actually [3:06:47] care about this at all [3:06:48] is because aggravated murder, [3:06:50] it's narrowly defined. [3:06:52] And because it carries a death sentence. [3:06:54] I'm not, [3:06:54] I'm going to answer the question. [3:06:55] Okay, I'm waiting. [3:06:56] You're just going to recognize [3:06:56] that your strategy of thinking [3:06:58] that people are intimidated [3:06:58] when you try to put a time constraint [3:07:00] doesn't work [3:07:00] and you'll be better [3:07:01] the next time you're doing someone. [3:07:01] I got it. [3:07:02] I got it. [3:07:02] Give me the other ones. [3:07:04] The more you cut me off, [3:07:05] the longer I'll take. [3:07:06] Do you want to just wait [3:07:06] for me to finish [3:07:07] of why that's a big difference [3:07:08] so that people don't walk away? [3:07:09] No, I just want you [3:07:09] to list the charges. [3:07:10] Yeah, I'm going to do that. [3:07:12] You just don't get to pretend [3:07:13] that there's a time constraint [3:07:14] for me to do that. [3:07:14] Well, how long does it take [3:07:15] you to list seven charges? [3:07:17] Because I'm speaking. [3:07:18] You just got to. [3:07:18] It sounds like you're just delaying it [3:07:20] because you don't know them. [3:07:20] I know all seven of them. [3:07:22] I'm going to say again [3:07:23] because you're going to get embarrassed. [3:07:24] You don't have to rush this. [3:07:25] I'm also showing an example [3:07:27] of a very flawed debate strategy. [3:07:30] I actually am under no time constraint. [3:07:32] I got one. [3:07:32] Great. [3:07:33] The second charge [3:07:34] is the felony discharge of a weapon. [3:07:38] The next two charges [3:07:39] are for obstruction of justice. [3:07:42] Okay. [3:07:42] The next two charges [3:07:43] are for witness tampering. [3:07:45] And what's the specific charges, though? [3:07:47] That is them. [3:07:48] Obstruction of justice, [3:07:49] obstruction of justice, [3:07:50] witness tampering, [3:07:51] witness tampering. [3:07:52] Okay. [3:07:52] And there's no other specifics to him. [3:07:54] Well, I can tell you [3:07:55] why he's being charged with it. [3:07:56] No, no, no. [3:07:56] Just the charges [3:07:57] and then seven? [3:07:57] Yeah. [3:07:58] See, the bad thing [3:07:58] is when you try to be an a-hole [3:08:00] and it doesn't work. [3:08:00] What's the seventh? [3:08:01] The last charge [3:08:02] is violence in front of a minor. [3:08:04] Okay. [3:08:05] Got it. [3:08:06] So then he's being charged [3:08:07] with murder. [3:08:08] You just say aggravated murder. [3:08:10] That's the distinction. [3:08:12] You just want to- [3:08:12] It's a massive- [3:08:13] Got it. [3:08:14] You can't even- [3:08:14] You cannot say murder [3:08:15] versus aggravated murder. [3:08:16] Massive distinction. [3:08:17] This gets to the entire crux [3:08:18] of why him being up [3:08:20] up for the death sentence. [3:08:21] And I actually find [3:08:23] the defense's filing [3:08:26] about why this is not aggravated [3:08:27] to be very compelling [3:08:31] of why it's not aggravated murder. [3:08:32] Actually, if the state [3:08:33] was going to even try [3:08:34] to pull this off, [3:08:35] they should have charged him [3:08:36] with just murder. [3:08:37] And then I do also, again, [3:08:40] want to stress to audiences [3:08:41] that that debate strategy [3:08:43] of thinking that you have [3:08:44] to speak faster [3:08:45] or somebody puts your hand up [3:08:47] and they try to pretend [3:08:48] like it's some sport. [3:08:49] I think he thinks [3:08:50] it's a blood sport. [3:08:50] It's not. [3:08:51] It's about being right [3:08:52] and being principled [3:08:53] when you're engaging. [3:08:54] And you can make mistakes. [3:08:55] I make mistakes all the time. [3:08:57] But at least be genuine [3:08:58] in pretending that you care [3:09:00] about this case enough [3:09:00] to know one of the seven charges [3:09:02] that are up against Tyler Robinson [3:09:03] when you say the evidence [3:09:04] is overwhelming that he's guilty. [3:09:06] If you would like to move [3:09:08] to final statements, [3:09:08] I'm fine. [3:09:09] I want to make sure Andrew [3:09:10] has had the time [3:09:11] that he has requested. [3:09:12] I think your team [3:09:13] would like to pull up [3:09:14] the seven charges [3:09:14] that he just asked you about. [3:09:16] If you guys want to pull that up [3:09:17] just to confirm [3:09:18] the seven you went through. [3:09:21] Can you guys zoom in [3:09:22] a little bit? [3:09:23] Aggravated murder, [3:09:23] felony discharge of a firearm, [3:09:26] obstruction of justice, [3:09:29] which is counts three and four, [3:09:30] five and six, [3:09:31] tampering with a witness. [3:09:33] And count seven. [3:09:33] Seven violent offense. [3:09:34] I said offense [3:09:35] in the presence of a minor. [3:09:36] In front of a child. [3:09:37] Yeah. [3:09:37] Yeah. [3:09:38] So five, six, [3:09:39] tampering witness, [3:09:39] third degree felony. [3:09:40] Now I did notice something. [3:09:42] I just was curious about. [3:09:43] So she was right. [3:09:44] I'm just wondering. [3:09:45] When you pulled out your phone [3:09:46] just before you asked that question, [3:09:48] did somebody by chance [3:09:48] text you that question? [3:09:49] You can check my phone. [3:09:50] I'm just curious. [3:09:51] No, you can absolutely not. [3:09:52] I have not had one communication [3:09:54] with a single person, [3:09:55] not even my producers [3:09:56] who are in there [3:09:57] this whole time we were here. [3:09:58] You want to check my phone? [3:09:59] I'm happy to do it [3:09:59] because you're just going [3:10:00] to get double embarrassed. [3:10:01] Where's my phone? [3:10:02] Do you want to see it? [3:10:03] I'm just curious. [3:10:04] You can literally do that. [3:10:05] Here you go. [3:10:06] PBD, you're the moderator. [3:10:08] Take it. [3:10:09] Let's see if anyone [3:10:10] was texted at all [3:10:10] during this debate. [3:10:12] All right. [3:10:13] About the violent charges [3:10:15] or anything. [3:10:17] I'm looking through this. [3:10:18] You give me permission. [3:10:19] You have full permission [3:10:20] to go through my phone. [3:10:21] I don't need to cheat. [3:10:21] So the last one has [3:10:23] nothing to do with it. [3:10:24] It's just a compliment. [3:10:26] I haven't even read [3:10:27] my tech messages. [3:10:27] That's a compliment. [3:10:28] He's reading them. [3:10:30] You're okay. [3:10:30] You'll give me permission. [3:10:31] I'm just going to read [3:10:31] three of them to 1132 [3:10:32] because after that [3:10:33] I don't need to read it. [3:10:34] Damn, son. [3:10:35] Hey, no, they're texts. [3:10:36] Could have been Telegram. [3:10:37] Could have been something like that. [3:10:37] Oh, I have a signal. [3:10:38] You can check that too. [3:10:39] I only have signal. [3:10:41] Telegram I used in Russia [3:10:42] and that was it. [3:10:43] I downloaded it for Russia. [3:10:44] I'll take your word for it. [3:10:45] Yeah. [3:10:45] I don't need to like, [3:10:46] I deeply care about this case. [3:10:48] I don't need to pretend [3:10:48] to know stuff, [3:10:49] but I don't know. [3:10:49] I just, you know, [3:10:51] I have my other question [3:10:52] is about the steakhouse receipt. [3:10:55] You just said [3:10:56] that you were done [3:10:56] asking all your questions. [3:10:57] So, you know, [3:10:57] nothing there. [3:10:58] Yeah. [3:10:59] Do you have the steakhouse [3:11:00] receipts, my question. [3:11:01] I have said several times [3:11:02] that I have, [3:11:03] I have never said [3:11:04] I have the receipt [3:11:05] for the steakhouse. [3:11:06] I have said [3:11:06] the person who's working [3:11:07] on that story [3:11:07] is going to be forthcoming [3:11:08] with the receipt [3:11:09] and that was what [3:11:10] I was responding to [3:11:11] and he then dropped [3:11:12] the receipt. [3:11:13] He redacted elements of it [3:11:14] and I said, [3:11:15] stay tuned. [3:11:15] He's the one working [3:11:16] on that story. [3:11:17] Okay. [3:11:17] So you haven't actually [3:11:19] confirmed that Robinson [3:11:20] was at that steakhouse. [3:11:21] All I did, [3:11:22] as I said earlier [3:11:22] in this conversation [3:11:23] was I spoke to the owner [3:11:24] when I broke that story. [3:11:26] I think it was back in January. [3:11:27] I spoke to the owner, [3:11:29] understood what had happened [3:11:30] and that there was a receipt. [3:11:32] That's it. [3:11:33] That's the extent [3:11:33] of what I shared [3:11:34] is what happened. [3:11:36] Okay. [3:11:36] So to be clear, [3:11:37] there's no receipt. [3:11:39] No, I just said the opposite. [3:11:40] I said there is a receipt. [3:11:40] Well, you don't have [3:11:41] a copy of the receipt. [3:11:43] The receipt was published online. [3:11:46] Yeah, right. [3:11:46] With blurred out. [3:11:47] The person working [3:11:47] on this story [3:11:48] that blurred that out [3:11:50] is what I was referring to [3:11:51] when I said stay tuned [3:11:52] and keep following his stuff [3:11:53] because he went to go [3:11:54] do what I hadn't done, [3:11:56] which was he interviewed [3:11:56] the actual server. [3:11:57] So there's no evidence [3:11:58] that Tyler was at that steakhouse? [3:12:00] I would say the receipt [3:12:01] with his debit card number, [3:12:03] it would be some hard evidence [3:12:04] if that is... [3:12:05] I agree with that. [3:12:05] Yeah, so that's it. [3:12:06] But you're questioning me. [3:12:07] But is there, [3:12:08] as of right now... [3:12:09] He paid... [3:12:09] If you're asking me, [3:12:10] did he pay with a credit [3:12:11] or debit card, [3:12:11] the answer is yes. [3:12:12] No, no, no. [3:12:13] Is there proof [3:12:14] that that was actually [3:12:15] his debit card [3:12:15] that he paid with? [3:12:16] I think you should follow [3:12:18] the person [3:12:18] that is behind that story. [3:12:20] Well, the reason I'm asking you [3:12:22] is because you always [3:12:22] include it in your timeline [3:12:23] that he traveled [3:12:24] to the steakhouse. [3:12:25] Yeah, we've been building [3:12:26] a timeline with things [3:12:26] that we feel are... [3:12:28] But is there any actual evidence... [3:12:29] Utah 1102 approved? [3:12:30] I think speaking to the owner, [3:12:32] knowing that there's a receipt, [3:12:33] seeing the receipt [3:12:33] is good enough [3:12:35] to put on our timeline. [3:12:36] But the receipt itself, [3:12:37] the question I always had [3:12:38] about it is, [3:12:39] couldn't you just call [3:12:40] the merchant... [3:12:40] Like, if I've ever had [3:12:41] a merchant account, [3:12:42] I just call the merchant [3:12:43] account processor [3:12:43] and say, [3:12:44] what's the name on this? [3:12:45] Yeah, I would stay tuned. [3:12:47] I feel that the... [3:12:48] Having spoken to the owner, [3:12:50] that the evidence [3:12:51] is compelling enough [3:12:53] to put onto my personal timeline [3:12:55] of what took place [3:12:55] on that day, [3:12:56] that's where it's gonna stay. [3:12:58] And if it gets debunked, [3:12:59] I'm happy to take it off [3:13:00] if that's what you mean. [3:13:01] That's how an investigation works. [3:13:03] Like I said, [3:13:04] I did more than enough. [3:13:06] It would definitely pass [3:13:08] the test by the Utah 1102 rule, [3:13:12] for sure, for certain. [3:13:14] To be submitted as hearsay. [3:13:15] Well, yeah, beyond that, [3:13:17] because they didn't even have receipts. [3:13:18] They were like, [3:13:18] Bob told me this. [3:13:20] But the question is, [3:13:21] the receipt itself, [3:13:22] it has not been verified [3:13:23] to have been Tyler Robinson's. [3:13:25] Yeah, I just want to say [3:13:25] you're holding me [3:13:26] to a higher standard [3:13:27] than you are in the prosecution. [3:13:27] I'm not even holding me. [3:13:28] I'm just asking specifically. [3:13:30] Yeah, I've been very forthcoming. [3:13:32] I've told exactly what happened. [3:13:33] I spoke to the owner. [3:13:33] I got the tip, [3:13:35] and I chased it down. [3:13:35] So should that be added [3:13:36] in an official timeline [3:13:37] that you did? [3:13:37] It's my timeline. [3:13:38] It's my show, [3:13:39] and we can add [3:13:40] and subtract what we want, [3:13:41] and we do. [3:13:42] You can do what you want, sure, [3:13:43] but I'm asking, [3:13:44] should you include a thing [3:13:45] that you know [3:13:46] hasn't actually been verified [3:13:47] to be Tyler Robinson's? [3:13:48] Yes, you should. [3:13:49] If we're trying to build a timeline, [3:13:50] you should, yeah. [3:13:51] You don't think that that falls under? [3:13:52] And then you should remove it [3:13:53] if someone somehow debunks it, [3:13:55] but I think that [3:13:56] there is very strong evidence [3:13:58] that that is where he was, [3:13:59] and that is... [3:14:00] What's the strong evidence? [3:14:01] Just the two people [3:14:02] who said that they saw him? [3:14:03] You know, I'm actually all good with being... [3:14:05] I feel like I've sufficiently [3:14:06] answered your question [3:14:07] about how I got the information, [3:14:08] what happened next. [3:14:10] With the next stage [3:14:11] of this investigation [3:14:12] being somebody accessing his, [3:14:15] knowing what his debit card was [3:14:16] and confirming it, [3:14:17] yes, and I do believe [3:14:17] that that will happen. [3:14:18] If it does not happen [3:14:19] and it gets debunked, [3:14:20] I'll remove it [3:14:20] from my personal timeline [3:14:21] that I share on my show. [3:14:23] That officer, [3:14:23] the first officer [3:14:24] that was up on the roof, [3:14:26] do you remember his name? [3:14:27] Officer Bagley. [3:14:28] Yeah, what was his first name? [3:14:29] Christopher. [3:14:30] Christopher. [3:14:31] When Christopher got up on the roof, [3:14:33] you talk a lot [3:14:35] about how his camera died. [3:14:36] Well, he talked a lot [3:14:37] about that during [3:14:38] the preliminary hearing. [3:14:38] Yeah, about his camera died. [3:14:39] Yeah. [3:14:39] Do you think that he planted [3:14:40] that screwdriver up there? [3:14:42] No. [3:14:42] No? [3:14:43] Who do you think planted it? [3:14:45] I... [3:14:46] If we're just going on my... [3:14:47] Am I allowed to have an opinion? [3:14:48] Of course. [3:14:48] At this stage, [3:14:50] I would say that [3:14:51] I don't buy his assertion [3:14:53] on the stand [3:14:54] that he didn't check [3:14:55] to see if anybody [3:14:56] went onto the rooftop [3:14:57] before he got up there. [3:15:00] I do think that it's possible, [3:15:03] it's at least plausible [3:15:04] that the screwdriver was planted. [3:15:06] I don't believe him. [3:15:07] What I can say strongly [3:15:08] is that his cam died [3:15:12] at just the right time. [3:15:13] His body cam died [3:15:14] at just the right time. [3:15:15] I think that, [3:15:17] as you were just grilling me [3:15:18] about whether or not [3:15:19] I had got the merchant receipt [3:15:21] for a debit card, [3:15:23] that kind of makes it difficult [3:15:24] that we just have to sort of trust [3:15:25] that a screwdriver was found [3:15:27] and we don't have any [3:15:28] should-be evidence [3:15:30] of a police body cam. [3:15:31] But like I said, [3:15:32] you accept that stuff [3:15:33] and then are like, [3:15:34] did you call the merchant [3:15:35] and get... [3:15:36] It just seems like you... [3:15:38] No, I'm not adding... [3:15:39] Hold, like I said, [3:15:40] you hold the prosecution [3:15:41] to a state [3:15:42] to a higher standard [3:15:43] than you do to people... [3:15:44] I'm not adding unconfirmed evidence [3:15:45] to an official timeline [3:15:46] that I'm putting out either. [3:15:47] What do you mean an official timeline? [3:15:48] This is my timeline. [3:15:49] I made it at home. [3:15:50] So then it would be official [3:15:51] to your show? [3:15:53] Sure. [3:15:54] Yeah. [3:15:54] Okay, great. [3:15:55] So then your official timeline, [3:15:57] Candace Owens' official timeline, [3:15:58] includes a steakhouse stop [3:16:00] that has not actually [3:16:02] been confirmed at all. [3:16:03] Well, yeah, [3:16:03] it hasn't even been discussed [3:16:05] by the prosecution, [3:16:05] so it's not like you're debunking [3:16:08] that it happened. [3:16:09] Well, there's no evidence for it. [3:16:12] There's no good evidence [3:16:12] for it at all. [3:16:13] There's no camera there. [3:16:14] And the steakhouse receipt itself [3:16:16] has never been confirmed [3:16:17] to be Tyler Robinson's. [3:16:19] I'm assuming this is just [3:16:20] like a talking point [3:16:20] they gave you [3:16:21] and you got to like [3:16:21] keep pushing this or like... [3:16:23] I've been following it [3:16:23] very closely on X. [3:16:25] The receipt, [3:16:25] you weren't even following [3:16:26] the charges of Tyler Robinson, [3:16:28] but you really wanted to know [3:16:29] I've been following it [3:16:30] very closely on X. [3:16:31] Wait, you think... [3:16:32] I'm calling owners [3:16:33] of steakhouses [3:16:33] and having a conversation. [3:16:35] You're following combo on X. [3:16:36] I literally followed [3:16:37] the entire trial [3:16:38] or the preliminary live. [3:16:39] I was live with an attorney. [3:16:41] We covered all of it. [3:16:42] You think because I have [3:16:43] a momentary lapse [3:16:45] where I'm like, [3:16:45] oh, it's murder? [3:16:46] No, it's aggravated murder. [3:16:47] Come on. [3:16:48] You didn't know [3:16:48] any of the charges. [3:16:49] That's splitting hairs. [3:16:50] No, that's not splitting. [3:16:51] It means you didn't follow [3:16:52] the preliminary hearing at all. [3:16:53] No, it doesn't mean that at all. [3:16:55] You don't know any of the charges [3:16:55] that are against him [3:16:56] when this is like [3:16:57] getting literally [3:16:59] to the crux [3:16:59] aggravated murder [3:17:00] versus murder. [3:17:01] It's a death sentence. [3:17:03] And not only that, [3:17:04] let's point this out. [3:17:05] One of the major things here [3:17:07] is that this is [3:17:08] your official timeline. [3:17:10] It's mine. [3:17:11] Yes, who else is going to be? [3:17:12] Who else? [3:17:14] It would be Candace Owens. [3:17:15] I just don't know [3:17:16] what his issue is [3:17:16] with my timeline. [3:17:17] What's your issue with that? [3:17:19] Well, so the issue is [3:17:20] is that the entirety [3:17:21] of the evidence [3:17:22] revolves around [3:17:23] two people who claim [3:17:24] that he was there [3:17:25] and supposedly a receipt. [3:17:27] There's supposedly a receipt [3:17:28] where Tyler Robinson [3:17:29] paid for his steak [3:17:32] and his soft drink. [3:17:33] No alcohol, right? [3:17:35] No alcohol, right? [3:17:37] You know nothing [3:17:37] about the case. [3:17:38] But anyway, [3:17:41] this particular receipt, [3:17:43] they could have called [3:17:43] the merchant account, [3:17:44] confirmed it, [3:17:45] this type of thing. [3:17:47] To date, [3:17:48] this receipt has only [3:17:49] the blurred information [3:17:50] on it that would actually [3:17:51] give you the information [3:17:52] to confirm [3:17:53] whose receipt it is. [3:17:55] We have to date, [3:17:56] nobody has confirmed [3:17:57] that this was actually [3:17:59] Tyler Robinson's receipt [3:18:00] and yet inside [3:18:01] of Candace Owens' timeline, [3:18:03] which she states [3:18:03] over and over again, [3:18:05] when she says [3:18:05] this is the longest [3:18:07] 13 hours, [3:18:08] this is 13 and a half hours. [3:18:11] The requirement for [3:18:12] about what? [3:18:13] Roughly five and a half [3:18:14] or six hours of that [3:18:15] is that he went [3:18:16] to the steakhouse? [3:18:17] And so, [3:18:19] and that's not been confirmed [3:18:20] at all. [3:18:21] Not even a little bit. [3:18:23] I feel like saying [3:18:23] that I spoke to the owner [3:18:24] of the steakhouse [3:18:25] is me like not just [3:18:26] being on X [3:18:27] looking at opinions [3:18:28] but actually doing [3:18:28] the legwork [3:18:29] and that's why I, [3:18:31] like I said, [3:18:32] if you think this builds [3:18:33] up a rapport [3:18:33] with your audience [3:18:34] and makes you seem [3:18:35] like a serious person, [3:18:36] we don't have to keep [3:18:37] belaboring the point here. [3:18:38] I feel like I've demonstrated [3:18:40] that I did as much [3:18:40] as I could to confirm this [3:18:41] when it came in. [3:18:42] I spoke to the owner [3:18:43] of the restaurant, [3:18:45] you know, [3:18:46] obviously took down [3:18:47] everything he said, [3:18:48] noted that there was [3:18:49] in fact a receipt [3:18:50] that he pulled. [3:18:51] That receipt [3:18:52] that was published [3:18:52] is real. [3:18:54] A debit card [3:18:54] and a credit card [3:18:55] was used. [3:18:56] If for some reason [3:18:58] somebody misidentified [3:18:59] something down the line [3:19:01] or we find out [3:19:02] it's a different [3:19:02] Tyler Robinson, [3:19:03] I'm happy [3:19:04] to remove it [3:19:05] from my timeline [3:19:05] but for right now [3:19:06] I think that there's [3:19:07] enough under the Utah [3:19:09] 1102 rule [3:19:09] for me to keep it there. [3:19:11] I don't really think [3:19:11] we need to keep going [3:19:12] into circles [3:19:12] about this receipt. [3:19:13] It's my timeline. [3:19:14] I don't know why [3:19:15] the 1102 rule [3:19:16] would apply here [3:19:17] for your timeline. [3:19:18] Because you [3:19:18] constantly cite things [3:19:20] that are said [3:19:21] in that courtroom [3:19:21] that have less [3:19:22] evidentiary support [3:19:23] than me contacting [3:19:25] and speaking [3:19:25] with the owner [3:19:28] of the restaurant. [3:19:29] It's not like [3:19:29] I dreamed it [3:19:30] as, just use your expression, [3:19:32] so it's in my timeline [3:19:33] and I'm going [3:19:34] to keep it there [3:19:34] if that's cool. [3:19:34] Sure, you can keep [3:19:35] whatever you want there. [3:19:36] I'm just saying [3:19:37] that there's no evidence [3:19:38] he was ever there. [3:19:38] Okay, thank you. [3:19:39] No hard evidence anyway. [3:19:41] Yeah, I'm fine with closing. [3:19:42] Okay, so the last thing [3:19:43] we're going to do [3:19:43] before we go into ad break [3:19:44] right after this [3:19:45] will be final thoughts. [3:19:46] I'll be asking both of you [3:19:47] if anything [3:19:48] on your opinion, [3:19:51] thoughts changed [3:19:52] on the case [3:19:53] and then we'll finish [3:19:54] it up from there. [3:19:55] So with that being said, [3:19:55] a three and a half minute break [3:19:57] and we'll come back [3:19:58] for final thoughts. [3:19:58] Oh my God. [3:19:59] All right, you guys, [3:20:00] if someone followed you [3:20:00] everywhere that you went [3:20:01] to record what you searched [3:20:02] and studied your habits, [3:20:04] you've called the police. [3:20:04] Oh my God. [3:20:05] Come on. [3:20:07] Come on already. [3:20:09] Oh, yo, yo, yo, yo, yo, yo, yo, yo, yo. [3:20:12] Okay. [3:20:15] Okay, let me just say this. [3:20:17] Let me just be real. [3:20:18] I mean, you know, [3:20:19] I'm still, [3:20:20] I'm kind of waiting [3:20:20] to see how it ends. [3:20:23] Excuse me. [3:20:25] Before I give my final thought, [3:20:29] but she's killing it right now. [3:20:31] I'm sorry, guys. [3:20:35] Hold on though. [3:20:36] Hold on. [3:20:37] Hold on. [3:20:39] Hold on. [3:20:40] She's killing it right now. [3:20:42] But do I think [3:20:43] that she's absolutely correct? [3:20:45] No. [3:20:46] Do I think that she, [3:20:47] did she change my mind [3:20:49] on everything? [3:20:50] Hell no. [3:20:51] I still think [3:20:53] that Tyler Robinson [3:20:54] is the guy [3:20:56] that pulled the trigger [3:20:58] on Charlie Kirk. [3:20:59] But like I said, [3:21:01] she hasn't changed my mind. [3:21:03] Okay. [3:21:03] I still think [3:21:03] that there's other people. [3:21:04] I do think other entities [3:21:08] were involved [3:21:09] in this situation. [3:21:10] I truly do. [3:21:12] I truly think [3:21:12] that there are other entities [3:21:13] that may have been involved [3:21:15] in orchestrating [3:21:16] the unaliving [3:21:17] of Charlie Kirk. [3:21:18] But here's the thing. [3:21:20] This here, [3:21:22] like she is, [3:21:24] she is literally [3:21:25] holding her own [3:21:27] very, very well. [3:21:29] Okay. [3:21:29] She is holding her own [3:21:30] very well. [3:21:32] But she's very good at debates. [3:21:35] This is what she's good at. [3:21:36] So, [3:21:37] and this is what she does [3:21:38] all the time. [3:21:39] Whereas Andrew, [3:21:41] he's just falling [3:21:41] all over the place [3:21:42] and he's clearly [3:21:43] a hired hand. [3:21:45] That's what I think. [3:21:46] That's what I truly think. [3:21:47] I think he's a hired hand. [3:21:49] I think what she said [3:21:50] about TPUSA, [3:21:52] having her come, [3:21:53] having him come in [3:21:54] and speaking on, [3:21:55] on their behalf, [3:21:56] I think that's literally [3:21:57] what it is. [3:21:58] I truly think [3:21:59] that's what it is. [3:22:00] So as much [3:22:01] as they're trying, [3:22:01] she's trying, [3:22:02] he's trying so hard [3:22:03] to debunk her. [3:22:05] He can't [3:22:06] because everything's [3:22:07] just kind of falling apart. [3:22:08] She's like, [3:22:09] hey, [3:22:09] you're taking, [3:22:11] you're taking things [3:22:12] out of context. [3:22:12] You're not letting this, [3:22:14] you're not finishing [3:22:14] the sentence. [3:22:15] You're doing, [3:22:16] you know, [3:22:16] you're asking, [3:22:17] you're saying X, [3:22:18] Y, [3:22:18] and Z, [3:22:18] and she's coming back [3:22:19] with facts. [3:22:20] She's, [3:22:20] well, [3:22:21] not facts, [3:22:21] but she's coming back [3:22:22] with proof. [3:22:23] How's that? [3:22:23] A lot of what she's saying [3:22:25] is opinion. [3:22:26] She has every right [3:22:27] to have an opinion. [3:22:28] Okay. [3:22:29] Yes, [3:22:30] there's some other things [3:22:30] that she's saying [3:22:31] as far as the steakhouse [3:22:33] receipt and all that. [3:22:34] It's like, [3:22:35] yeah, [3:22:35] I think that's [3:22:35] important information [3:22:37] that needs to be delved into [3:22:38] and investigated in as well. [3:22:40] Yes, [3:22:40] I agree that there's [3:22:41] a lot of things, [3:22:42] a lot of elements [3:22:43] within this case [3:22:44] that are very strange, [3:22:45] right? [3:22:46] That, [3:22:47] you know, [3:22:47] body cam footage, [3:22:49] the body camera dies out [3:22:50] when he's up there [3:22:51] on top of the roof. [3:22:52] How convenient [3:22:52] that the body cam dies out [3:22:54] right around that time [3:22:55] when, [3:22:56] you know, [3:22:56] he could easily do something [3:22:58] when the body camera [3:22:59] dies out, [3:23:00] you know, [3:23:01] planting evidence, [3:23:02] so on and so forth, [3:23:03] right? [3:23:04] And I know a lot of people [3:23:05] like, [3:23:05] wait a second, [3:23:06] he had to put together [3:23:07] the, [3:23:07] he had to, [3:23:09] so you mean to take, [3:23:10] you mean to tell me [3:23:11] he took apart the bullet, [3:23:12] took apart the weapon, [3:23:14] jumped down the, [3:23:15] after shooting him, [3:23:18] jumped off the roof, [3:23:19] then ran over to the bushes, [3:23:20] then put it back together, [3:23:22] wrapped it up in a towel [3:23:23] and put in the bushes. [3:23:24] It doesn't make sense. [3:23:26] You see what I'm saying? [3:23:26] So there's a lot of things [3:23:27] within the information [3:23:29] that the public does know [3:23:30] that just doesn't make [3:23:31] any sense. [3:23:32] And she's asking [3:23:33] all those questions [3:23:34] and all those questions [3:23:36] make absolute sense [3:23:38] asking those questions. [3:23:39] Where I think [3:23:40] that she's wrong [3:23:41] is just flying off [3:23:43] the handle [3:23:44] and pointing the finger [3:23:45] at everybody. [3:23:46] You see what I'm saying? [3:23:47] Anybody and everybody [3:23:48] that's in TPUSA. [3:23:50] Shoot, [3:23:51] she's even brought in [3:23:52] that the French [3:23:53] were involved. [3:23:54] Israel is involved. [3:23:56] French, [3:23:56] Israel and French [3:23:57] were involved. [3:23:58] You see what I'm saying? [3:23:59] It's getting, [3:24:01] it's pretty wild. [3:24:03] Okay? [3:24:03] Now, [3:24:04] here's the thing. [3:24:07] If Andrew came to her [3:24:09] with a more solid approach, [3:24:12] I don't think he would look [3:24:13] like he's floundering. [3:24:16] But here's the thing. [3:24:18] You are also going [3:24:19] head to head [3:24:19] with somebody [3:24:20] who's very good [3:24:21] at debating. [3:24:23] So no matter [3:24:24] what she says, [3:24:26] it's going to sound [3:24:27] like it makes sense. [3:24:29] You see what I'm saying? [3:24:30] Shoot, [3:24:31] she should run for president. [3:24:33] I'm just being real. [3:24:34] Not saying that she should. [3:24:36] I'm just saying [3:24:36] if she's this good [3:24:39] at it, [3:24:41] I guarantee you [3:24:42] she'd be a [3:24:43] dude just fine [3:24:44] in these debates [3:24:46] running for president. [3:24:47] Okay? [3:24:48] Because it's all about [3:24:49] forking over BS. [3:24:52] Right? [3:24:53] Giving people BS information [3:24:55] and trying to [3:24:56] spout it out [3:24:57] as truth. [3:24:58] But here's the thing. [3:24:59] All right? [3:25:01] She's killing it. [3:25:02] She's destroying [3:25:03] Andrew. [3:25:04] For sure. [3:25:05] Andrew's now looking [3:25:05] like Boo Boo the Fool. [3:25:07] He looks like, [3:25:08] like I said, [3:25:08] he looks like [3:25:09] a hired hand [3:25:10] that got paid [3:25:11] to get flown out there [3:25:12] to try [3:25:14] to destroy her. [3:25:15] Because clearly, [3:25:16] you know, [3:25:17] he debates too, [3:25:18] but he's not as strong [3:25:19] of a debater [3:25:20] as her. [3:25:22] You know what I'm saying? [3:25:23] She's more of a master [3:25:24] debater [3:25:25] than he is. [3:25:27] You see what I'm saying? [3:25:28] Sure, [3:25:29] he teaches people [3:25:30] how to debate [3:25:32] as well. [3:25:33] But she's more, [3:25:35] she has her PhD [3:25:37] in debate. [3:25:38] Okay? [3:25:38] I'm just going to keep it [3:25:39] completely real. [3:25:41] But I'm going to try [3:25:46] to see if I find [3:25:47] something else. [3:25:49] There is something else [3:25:49] I wanted to show you guys. [3:25:51] It's a little bit [3:25:52] of a left turn, [3:25:53] but I do want to share [3:25:53] this with you guys [3:25:54] because we got, [3:25:55] they're going to be, [3:25:56] I don't know how long [3:25:57] this break is going to be, [3:25:58] so just give me [3:25:58] one second, guys. [3:26:15] This was pre-recorded. [3:26:16] This is not pre-recorded, [3:26:17] just so everybody knows. [3:26:19] This is purely live. [3:26:20] This is a little bit [3:26:21] scarier than pre-recorded [3:26:22] because pre-recorded [3:26:23] can do edits, [3:26:24] so whether you agree [3:26:25] with them or not, [3:26:26] let's make sure [3:26:26] we respect both of them [3:26:28] for having this sit down [3:26:29] and before the final thoughts, [3:26:31] I want to make sure [3:26:31] you guys hear that [3:26:32] from me as well [3:26:33] for inviting me here as well. [3:26:35] Of course. [3:26:35] I do know one day, [3:26:36] I think it was last week, [3:26:38] you sent a message [3:26:39] on one of our accounts. [3:26:41] You said, [3:26:41] can I talk to Patrick? [3:26:42] We got on the call. [3:26:43] You said, [3:26:43] Patrick, [3:26:43] can you moderate this? [3:26:44] And I said, [3:26:44] great, [3:26:45] let's do this. [3:26:46] And so before we wrap up, [3:26:47] final thoughts, [3:26:48] I'll come to you first. [3:26:50] Yeah, [3:26:50] she had nothing. [3:26:51] Just nothing. [3:26:53] For all of her claims [3:26:54] of Patsy, [3:26:56] nothing. [3:26:57] She didn't have [3:26:57] a single claim. [3:26:58] She didn't have [3:26:58] a single solid piece [3:26:59] of evidence. [3:27:00] She had no positive evidence [3:27:01] Israel's involved [3:27:02] in anything. [3:27:03] No positive evidence [3:27:04] that France is involved [3:27:07] in anything. [3:27:08] No positive evidence [3:27:10] TPUSA is involved [3:27:11] in anything. [3:27:12] No positive evidence [3:27:13] that Erica Kirk [3:27:14] is involved in anything. [3:27:16] When I asked her [3:27:16] about her claims [3:27:17] about Erica Kirk, [3:27:18] yeah, [3:27:19] it was just fun. [3:27:20] It's just fun. [3:27:21] Or yeah, [3:27:22] I do think that she needs [3:27:23] to sit down [3:27:23] and ask some questions [3:27:24] or answer some questions, [3:27:26] but you know what? [3:27:29] I don't even know [3:27:30] if she has. [3:27:31] Maybe she has. [3:27:32] I have no idea. [3:27:33] Yes, [3:27:33] I'm going to have [3:27:34] an official timeline [3:27:35] with unconfirmed evidence. [3:27:36] That's just fine. [3:27:37] Hey, [3:27:38] it's hearsay. [3:27:39] If that's good enough [3:27:39] for the state, [3:27:40] it's good enough for me. [3:27:40] But my biggest problem [3:27:41] with the state [3:27:42] is that they're admitting [3:27:43] all this hearsay. [3:27:45] It's like she's [3:27:46] a contradiction machine. [3:27:48] On top of all of this, [3:27:49] the thing that I wanted [3:27:50] to get out of this [3:27:51] more than anything else [3:27:52] was to just demonstrate [3:27:54] one thing. [3:27:55] Yes, [3:27:55] it's true. [3:27:56] I'm not perfect on the case. [3:27:58] I'm not going to ever [3:27:58] pretend that I am [3:27:59] and never did. [3:28:01] But what has been [3:28:02] made very clear to me [3:28:04] is that there's nobody [3:28:05] with an alternative theory [3:28:07] that has any evidence [3:28:08] for it at all. [3:28:09] None. [3:28:10] Zero. [3:28:11] And the continuous [3:28:12] kind of expression, [3:28:15] we're running an investigation. [3:28:17] What kind of investigation [3:28:18] builds a timeline out [3:28:20] on a receipt [3:28:22] that they don't even confirm? [3:28:23] What kind of investigation [3:28:25] tries to make [3:28:26] these bold claims [3:28:28] that Israel's involved [3:28:30] and France is involved [3:28:31] and all these different [3:28:32] players are involved [3:28:33] and never shows any evidence? [3:28:34] We're just asking questions. [3:28:36] It's my, [3:28:36] it's again, [3:28:37] like I said, [3:28:37] my opening, [3:28:37] it's always intuition, [3:28:39] my feelings, [3:28:40] how I feel about things, [3:28:42] how I think about things. [3:28:44] Andrew, [3:28:44] how many times [3:28:45] did you hear this today? [3:28:46] Andrew, [3:28:47] you can't tell me [3:28:48] how I'm supposed to think. [3:28:49] Yeah, [3:28:49] nobody's trying to tell you [3:28:50] how to think. [3:28:51] But you should rationally [3:28:53] come to your conclusions [3:28:54] based on evidence [3:28:55] and facts. [3:28:56] And the truth is, [3:28:57] is that 90% [3:28:58] of what you're saying [3:28:58] is simply intuition based. [3:29:01] It's, [3:29:01] it did, [3:29:02] it came to me in a dream. [3:29:03] It's intuition. [3:29:04] Almost none of it [3:29:05] has any evidence at all. [3:29:06] Just, [3:29:07] I'm skeptical [3:29:08] because these people [3:29:08] over here said things [3:29:09] and that makes me skeptical. [3:29:12] It's like, [3:29:12] but no evidence. [3:29:13] Note this [3:29:14] to the audience, [3:29:15] to everybody watching. [3:29:16] You might hate my guts. [3:29:17] That's fair enough. [3:29:18] I get that. [3:29:19] I'm not the most likable man. [3:29:21] I understand that too. [3:29:23] But there was nothing, [3:29:24] I mean, [3:29:25] no evidence at all [3:29:27] that Tyler Robinson [3:29:28] was a patsy [3:29:29] that was ever [3:29:30] put forward by Candace [3:29:32] this entire debate. [3:29:34] Now, [3:29:34] maybe you could say [3:29:35] that we stalemated [3:29:36] when it came to [3:29:37] whether or not [3:29:37] Robinson did it. [3:29:39] She says, [3:29:39] I found the evidence convincing [3:29:40] or unconvincing. [3:29:43] Andrew says he found [3:29:43] the evidence convincing. [3:29:45] Okay, [3:29:45] fair enough. [3:29:46] Maybe you can't do [3:29:46] too much about that, [3:29:47] but there was nothing. [3:29:48] She had nothing [3:29:49] for Robinson being a patsy, [3:29:51] nothing for any [3:29:53] of her conspiracies, [3:29:54] not a zero zilch, [3:29:56] and she backed away [3:29:57] on a bunch of them. [3:29:57] This is the first time [3:29:58] I think she's ever [3:29:59] really backed away [3:30:00] from the Twigs thing. [3:30:02] First time I've heard [3:30:03] her back away [3:30:03] from the Erica thing, [3:30:04] back away from [3:30:05] TPUSA, [3:30:06] being very cautious [3:30:07] about making any [3:30:08] of those claims now, [3:30:09] whereas on her show, [3:30:11] much more likely [3:30:11] to be making those claims. [3:30:12] So she just had nothing [3:30:13] the entire debate, [3:30:15] zero. [3:30:17] Candace? [3:30:18] Well, [3:30:19] I think that is [3:30:20] quite a conclusion, [3:30:22] admitting somewhere. [3:30:23] Maybe we stalemated. [3:30:24] It probably signifies [3:30:25] what I've been saying [3:30:26] from the beginning, [3:30:26] that you didn't feel [3:30:27] that you were strong [3:30:29] on the actual facts [3:30:30] and the evidence, [3:30:31] which I was willing [3:30:32] to engage with you. [3:30:33] I wanted to go over [3:30:34] the screwdriver, [3:30:34] I wanted to go over [3:30:35] the towel, [3:30:35] the things that you've mentioned, [3:30:36] and you wanted to then [3:30:37] move the conversation [3:30:38] into a defense [3:30:40] of Erica Kirk [3:30:41] and her character [3:30:42] and what I've said [3:30:44] about Erica, [3:30:44] which is my opinion [3:30:45] and I have not edited [3:30:47] that opinion [3:30:47] after discussing with you. [3:30:49] I would like to extend [3:30:51] a compliment to you [3:30:53] for being willing [3:30:54] to sit down [3:30:54] and to have the conversation. [3:30:56] I still walk away [3:30:58] feeling that the people [3:31:00] who are jumping [3:31:02] on the bandwagon [3:31:03] about this case [3:31:04] don't care about this case. [3:31:05] They don't care [3:31:05] about Erica Kirk. [3:31:06] It tends to be follow [3:31:07] that they take a meeting [3:31:09] with Turning Point USA [3:31:10] and they come out [3:31:11] and suddenly have [3:31:13] a lot of junk [3:31:14] to say about Candace Owens [3:31:15] and I do want to also stress [3:31:17] that Turning Point USA [3:31:19] tried to pepper him [3:31:20] with something [3:31:21] as a surprise. [3:31:22] He showed clips [3:31:23] that were meant [3:31:23] to be a surprise. [3:31:24] I did no such thing. [3:31:26] I stressed to PBD [3:31:27] from the beginning [3:31:27] that I was grateful [3:31:29] he was taking this on [3:31:29] and that I wanted this [3:31:30] to be a clean debate [3:31:31] because I believe [3:31:33] I can win this [3:31:33] on the merits [3:31:34] and I believe [3:31:34] that I did win this [3:31:35] fully on the merits [3:31:36] by engaging the evidence [3:31:38] of what has happened. [3:31:39] I do still believe [3:31:41] that there is more evidence [3:31:42] which supports [3:31:43] that there are [3:31:44] more people involved [3:31:46] and that Tyler Robinson [3:31:47] has been set up [3:31:48] and that none [3:31:50] of the evidence [3:31:50] that was presented [3:31:51] was in any way [3:31:52] overwhelming [3:31:53] which is why I think [3:31:54] you wanted to move [3:31:54] to end that discussion [3:31:55] quickly [3:31:56] and to speak to me [3:31:57] about France [3:31:58] and to talk [3:32:00] about this [3:32:00] paying which receipt [3:32:01] and my timeline [3:32:02] I want to remind people [3:32:04] that a lot of the [3:32:05] at-home investigators [3:32:08] which you were open to [3:32:10] as you called them [3:32:10] internet sleuths [3:32:11] I think it was [3:32:12] on a show [3:32:13] that you did [3:32:13] right after Charlie [3:32:14] was assassinated [3:32:14] that internet sleuths [3:32:15] would solve this [3:32:16] this is the reason [3:32:18] why Charlie [3:32:18] a year on [3:32:19] is still a conversation [3:32:21] every single day [3:32:21] trending on Twitter [3:32:22] I knew Charlie [3:32:24] I cared about Charlie [3:32:25] I care about [3:32:25] finding out [3:32:27] what the truth is here [3:32:28] my heart is in [3:32:29] the right place [3:32:29] I think anybody [3:32:30] who watches my show [3:32:31] or even just [3:32:31] watched this debate [3:32:32] knows that if I get [3:32:33] something wrong [3:32:34] I'll instantly correct [3:32:34] it and own it [3:32:35] I don't I'm not arrogant [3:32:36] I don't need to sit here [3:32:37] and pretend that I [3:32:38] didn't misspeak [3:32:39] on the Lance thing [3:32:40] it hasn't been ruled out [3:32:41] but you saw that he [3:32:42] just really wanted [3:32:43] to hammer that point [3:32:44] you know part of [3:32:45] being a well-meaning [3:32:46] person is to concede [3:32:48] when you are wrong [3:32:49] to take something [3:32:50] off a timeline [3:32:51] when you know [3:32:51] it's not right [3:32:52] and I would like to [3:32:53] think that that is [3:32:54] why I have earned [3:32:55] the audience that [3:32:56] continues to follow me [3:32:57] because they know [3:32:57] my heart's in the right [3:32:58] place [3:32:59] that I deeply cared [3:32:59] about Charlie [3:33:00] and I deeply care [3:33:00] about the answers [3:33:01] I want to thank [3:33:02] Andrew's team [3:33:03] who are providing [3:33:04] the fact checks [3:33:04] it's a very small [3:33:05] room that they're in [3:33:06] I want to as always [3:33:08] thank my team [3:33:08] who worked really hard [3:33:09] to make this happen [3:33:10] and flip this set [3:33:10] and for to you [3:33:12] PBD just for being [3:33:14] a great moderator [3:33:15] I think very fair [3:33:16] letting us both speak [3:33:17] and making sure [3:33:18] that Andrew got out [3:33:19] of this what he wanted [3:33:20] which is a little more [3:33:22] than what I wanted [3:33:22] but I'm very content [3:33:24] with how I dealt [3:33:25] with this [3:33:25] I don't need to [3:33:27] convince the audiences [3:33:28] with the magic trick [3:33:29] of what they need [3:33:29] to think about this [3:33:30] debate [3:33:30] they can watch it [3:33:31] and draw their own [3:33:31] conclusions [3:33:32] beautiful [3:33:33] fair from both of you [3:33:34] I think the audience [3:33:35] won and again [3:33:36] from the beginning [3:33:37] all of this [3:33:38] is because of [3:33:39] how much love [3:33:39] and respect [3:33:40] we have for Charlie [3:33:41] Kirk [3:33:41] a great man [3:33:42] that's no longer [3:33:42] here with us [3:33:43] his one year [3:33:44] anniversary is coming [3:33:45] up here [3:33:45] I can't believe [3:33:46] it's that quick [3:33:47] that is here [3:33:47] the audience [3:33:48] I think you also [3:33:49] won if you did [3:33:50] support the Crucible [3:33:52] support the Candice show [3:33:53] support the PBD podcast [3:33:55] subscribe to the channel [3:33:56] this is how you help [3:33:57] these voices get out [3:33:59] even more [3:33:59] especially going into [3:34:00] future when this happens [3:34:01] you want a lot of [3:34:02] independent creators [3:34:03] to have these types [3:34:04] of discussions [3:34:05] and last but not least [3:34:06] the two of you [3:34:06] I respect you guys again [3:34:08] for having this conversation [3:34:09] it is not easy to do so [3:34:11] hopefully this will lead [3:34:12] to more discussions [3:34:13] a lot of different things [3:34:14] we talked about [3:34:15] I'm sure there will be [3:34:16] a lot of follow up [3:34:17] with that being said [3:34:17] take care everybody [3:34:18] God bless [3:34:19] have a great weekend [3:34:20] bye [3:34:21] interesting [3:34:25] okay guys [3:34:27] let me close this [3:34:29] end this poll [3:34:33] here real quick [3:34:34] and out of [3:34:37] 1.1k votes [3:34:39] 1,100 votes [3:34:41] 66% of y'all [3:34:43] think that [3:34:44] Candace Owens [3:34:46] is right [3:34:47] in this debate [3:34:48] let me just say this [3:34:50] and I know [3:34:51] I just pulled up [3:34:52] a comment [3:34:53] and I agree [3:34:54] with that [3:34:55] I don't think [3:34:59] she's [3:35:00] 110% [3:35:01] correct [3:35:01] or right [3:35:02] with her [3:35:03] theories [3:35:03] but here it is [3:35:04] those are her [3:35:07] theories [3:35:07] and she has [3:35:08] every right [3:35:08] to have those [3:35:09] theories [3:35:09] did she handle [3:35:10] herself in the [3:35:11] debate [3:35:11] absolutely [3:35:12] but that's what [3:35:13] she's really good [3:35:14] at [3:35:14] she's good [3:35:15] at that [3:35:16] she's good [3:35:16] at selling [3:35:17] and you know [3:35:19] like selling [3:35:19] on her own [3:35:21] points [3:35:22] what I think [3:35:24] fell apart [3:35:25] here [3:35:25] was the [3:35:27] and I'm just [3:35:28] checking to see [3:35:28] what the [3:35:29] what the crucible [3:35:30] did [3:35:30] no they just [3:35:31] ended the feed [3:35:31] and that's [3:35:32] it [3:35:32] but one [3:35:35] thing I think [3:35:35] that's really [3:35:36] bad [3:35:36] as far as [3:35:37] the when [3:35:39] it comes to [3:35:39] the crucible [3:35:40] side of [3:35:40] things or [3:35:40] the side [3:35:41] of Andrew [3:35:42] Wilson [3:35:43] I think [3:35:44] he fell [3:35:45] on his [3:35:45] face [3:35:45] I'm gonna [3:35:47] be real [3:35:47] I think [3:35:47] he fell [3:35:48] on his [3:35:48] mother loving [3:35:49] face [3:35:49] why [3:35:51] because I [3:35:53] think that [3:35:53] they were [3:35:54] too busy [3:35:54] trying to [3:35:55] debunk [3:35:55] her [3:35:56] I think [3:35:56] they were [3:35:57] always trying [3:35:57] to get [3:35:57] the gotcha [3:35:58] moment [3:35:58] and they [3:36:00] just [3:36:00] the gotcha [3:36:01] moments [3:36:01] just never [3:36:02] landed [3:36:02] you know [3:36:03] what I [3:36:03] mean [3:36:03] those [3:36:04] gotcha [3:36:04] hits [3:36:05] they tried [3:36:06] and failed [3:36:07] over and [3:36:09] over and [3:36:09] over again [3:36:10] at least [3:36:10] to me [3:36:11] you know [3:36:12] they were [3:36:12] trying really [3:36:13] hard to [3:36:13] make her [3:36:14] look like [3:36:14] the fool [3:36:15] and she [3:36:16] came back [3:36:17] with her [3:36:17] own [3:36:18] pieces of [3:36:19] information [3:36:19] you know [3:36:20] her own [3:36:21] response [3:36:22] to those [3:36:23] things [3:36:23] they're [3:36:24] basically [3:36:25] saying [3:36:25] like how [3:36:25] can you [3:36:26] say this [3:36:26] that [3:36:26] the third [3:36:26] about her [3:36:27] about [3:36:27] Erica [3:36:28] Kirk [3:36:28] and all [3:36:28] that [3:36:29] it's [3:36:29] like [3:36:29] well [3:36:29] you know [3:36:29] these are [3:36:30] my [3:36:30] opinions [3:36:30] this is [3:36:31] what I [3:36:31] think [3:36:31] I mean [3:36:32] there's [3:36:32] nothing wrong [3:36:32] with that [3:36:33] there is [3:36:34] nothing wrong [3:36:34] with her [3:36:34] having an [3:36:35] opinion [3:36:35] zero [3:36:36] none [3:36:37] zilch [3:36:37] she has [3:36:38] every right [3:36:39] to have [3:36:39] those opinions [3:36:40] do we have [3:36:41] to agree [3:36:42] with those [3:36:42] opinions [3:36:42] no [3:36:43] that's why [3:36:43] they're [3:36:44] opinions [3:36:44] they're [3:36:45] not facts [3:36:45] the other [3:36:46] thing too [3:36:47] is [3:36:47] let's not [3:36:48] forget [3:36:48] Andrew [3:36:49] yes they [3:36:50] came in [3:36:50] with the [3:36:51] like the [3:36:52] documents [3:36:52] from [3:36:53] you know [3:36:54] from [3:36:54] hearings [3:36:55] and you [3:36:55] know [3:36:55] indictment [3:36:56] you know [3:36:57] from [3:36:57] certain types [3:36:58] of documents [3:36:59] and all [3:36:59] that as [3:36:59] well [3:37:00] but [3:37:00] like I [3:37:01] said [3:37:01] it's not [3:37:02] like they [3:37:02] came in [3:37:05] with like [3:37:05] see now [3:37:06] you can [3:37:06] see how [3:37:07] TPUSA [3:37:08] had nothing [3:37:09] to do [3:37:09] with you [3:37:11] know Charlie [3:37:11] Kirk's [3:37:11] demise or [3:37:12] you know you [3:37:13] could clearly [3:37:14] see that Erica [3:37:14] Kirk had [3:37:15] nothing to do [3:37:16] with his [3:37:16] demise so on [3:37:17] and so forth [3:37:17] this would [3:37:18] have been the [3:37:19] opportunity if [3:37:20] this was [3:37:20] TPS [3:37:21] TPUSA's [3:37:22] you know [3:37:23] being behind [3:37:24] this whole [3:37:24] thing and [3:37:25] basically [3:37:25] funding [3:37:27] Andrew [3:37:29] Wilson's [3:37:30] opportunity to [3:37:30] sit down [3:37:31] with her [3:37:31] I think [3:37:33] this was [3:37:34] a situation [3:37:35] where they [3:37:35] could have [3:37:36] used that [3:37:36] opportunity [3:37:36] to expose [3:37:39] more information [3:37:40] to exonerate [3:37:42] the likes [3:37:43] of the [3:37:44] organization [3:37:45] and Erica [3:37:46] Kirk [3:37:46] but they [3:37:47] didn't really [3:37:47] do that [3:37:48] now did [3:37:48] they [3:37:48] at least [3:37:50] that's not [3:37:51] what I [3:37:51] saw in [3:37:51] this [3:37:51] interview [3:37:52] in this [3:37:52] debate [3:37:53] and then [3:37:54] here's the [3:37:54] other thing [3:37:54] how is it [3:37:55] a debate [3:37:55] if she's [3:37:56] not allowed [3:37:57] to ask [3:37:57] questions [3:37:58] like [3:37:58] rebuttal [3:37:59] or like [3:38:00] not [3:38:00] rebuttal [3:38:00] but ask [3:38:01] questions [3:38:01] to Andrew [3:38:02] you know [3:38:04] what I'm [3:38:04] saying [3:38:04] remember [3:38:04] at the [3:38:04] near the [3:38:05] end [3:38:05] she's [3:38:05] like [3:38:06] can I [3:38:06] ask [3:38:06] some [3:38:06] questions [3:38:07] and he's [3:38:07] like [3:38:07] that's [3:38:08] not [3:38:08] that's [3:38:09] not [3:38:09] what we [3:38:10] have [3:38:10] in the [3:38:10] contract [3:38:10] that's [3:38:13] not [3:38:13] you know [3:38:13] let's [3:38:13] let's [3:38:14] stick [3:38:14] to what [3:38:14] we [3:38:14] contractually [3:38:15] agreed [3:38:16] to [3:38:16] so she's [3:38:17] just [3:38:17] supposed [3:38:17] to be [3:38:18] sitting [3:38:18] there [3:38:18] getting [3:38:18] hit [3:38:19] with [3:38:19] questions [3:38:19] period [3:38:21] it's [3:38:28] a wildest [3:38:28] thing [3:38:29] you know [3:38:31] if the [3:38:33] debate [3:38:34] felt [3:38:34] weird [3:38:34] did it [3:38:35] not feel [3:38:35] did it [3:38:36] not feel [3:38:36] weird [3:38:37] this [3:38:38] debate [3:38:39] the debate [3:38:40] the debate [3:38:41] it felt [3:38:43] like it [3:38:43] wasn't [3:38:43] even a [3:38:43] debate [3:38:44] y'all [3:38:44] it felt [3:38:47] more like [3:38:48] we're just [3:38:48] going to [3:38:48] have her [3:38:49] in here [3:38:49] we're going [3:38:50] to have [3:38:50] you know [3:38:50] the hot [3:38:51] light [3:38:51] on you [3:38:52] know [3:38:52] on top [3:38:52] of her [3:38:53] and it's [3:38:53] going to [3:38:54] be like [3:38:54] where were [3:38:54] you on [3:38:55] the 12th [3:38:55] you know [3:38:55] what I'm [3:38:56] saying [3:38:56] that's [3:38:57] the vibe [3:38:57] I'm [3:38:58] getting [3:38:58] you know [3:39:00] so here's [3:39:02] the thing [3:39:02] you may [3:39:04] not be a [3:39:04] fan of [3:39:05] Candace [3:39:05] Owens [3:39:05] and I [3:39:05] understand [3:39:06] that [3:39:06] not a [3:39:07] lot of [3:39:07] people [3:39:07] are [3:39:07] I'm [3:39:09] not [3:39:09] either [3:39:09] okay [3:39:10] there are [3:39:12] you know [3:39:12] I'm [3:39:12] not a [3:39:13] fan of [3:39:13] Megyn Kelly [3:39:13] I'm [3:39:14] not a [3:39:14] fan of [3:39:14] what's [3:39:16] his face [3:39:17] Tucker [3:39:18] Carlson [3:39:18] but every [3:39:19] once in a [3:39:20] while they [3:39:20] say something [3:39:21] that has [3:39:21] a point [3:39:21] every once [3:39:23] in a while [3:39:24] I'm not [3:39:27] sitting here [3:39:28] saying she [3:39:28] has a [3:39:28] point [3:39:28] here [3:39:29] all I'm [3:39:30] saying is [3:39:30] that she [3:39:30] held her [3:39:31] own [3:39:31] that's [3:39:32] a massive [3:39:33] difference [3:39:33] it's not [3:39:35] like she [3:39:35] came in [3:39:36] with [3:39:36] hard evidence [3:39:37] either [3:39:37] you see [3:39:38] what I'm [3:39:39] saying [3:39:39] so in [3:39:40] a way [3:39:40] this debate [3:39:41] was for [3:39:42] entertainment [3:39:43] purposes only [3:39:44] there was [3:39:45] no eye [3:39:46] opening [3:39:47] revelation [3:39:47] that was [3:39:48] revealed [3:39:49] in this [3:39:50] debate [3:39:50] whatsoever [3:39:51] this was [3:39:52] a very [3:39:53] sad [3:39:53] attempt [3:39:53] on trying [3:39:55] to knock [3:39:55] this woman [3:39:56] off her [3:39:58] high horse [3:39:59] or off [3:40:00] her [3:40:00] mountain [3:40:01] of [3:40:02] conspiracies [3:40:02] that she [3:40:03] does have [3:40:03] you see [3:40:05] what I'm [3:40:06] saying [3:40:06] she held [3:40:08] her own [3:40:08] though [3:40:08] she definitely [3:40:09] did [3:40:09] don't get [3:40:10] it wrong [3:40:11] she absolutely [3:40:13] held her [3:40:13] own [3:40:14] she did [3:40:14] not falter [3:40:15] she did [3:40:16] not waver [3:40:17] and that's [3:40:18] pretty much [3:40:19] all you [3:40:19] really need [3:40:20] when it [3:40:21] comes to [3:40:21] a debate [3:40:22] stand [3:40:23] strong [3:40:24] in your [3:40:24] opinions [3:40:25] and don't [3:40:26] waver [3:40:26] don't let [3:40:28] up [3:40:28] that's [3:40:30] what every [3:40:30] master [3:40:31] debater [3:40:32] will tell [3:40:32] you [3:40:32] right [3:40:34] so she [3:40:37] did her [3:40:37] thing [3:40:37] crazy [3:40:42] crazy [3:40:44] but you [3:40:44] know [3:40:44] like I [3:40:45] said [3:40:45] we gonna [3:40:45] we gonna [3:40:46] leave [3:40:46] we gonna [3:40:47] leave this [3:40:48] we just [3:40:48] left that [3:40:48] and now [3:40:49] I'm like [3:40:49] well I [3:40:50] didn't hear [3:40:51] anything [3:40:51] new [3:40:51] you know [3:40:53] I was [3:40:53] hoping that [3:40:54] would be [3:40:54] like [3:40:54] Andrew [3:40:56] would come [3:40:57] out with [3:40:57] some sort [3:40:58] of big [3:40:58] thing [3:40:59] within the [3:41:00] case [3:41:00] or something [3:41:01] like that [3:41:01] showing proof [3:41:01] of this [3:41:02] that and the [3:41:02] other [3:41:03] they never [3:41:05] expanded upon [3:41:06] certain things [3:41:07] except for [3:41:08] Andrew trying [3:41:08] to be like [3:41:09] what got you [3:41:10] to that [3:41:10] revelation [3:41:11] oh that's [3:41:11] interesting that [3:41:12] you think [3:41:12] that what [3:41:13] what got [3:41:14] you to [3:41:14] to that [3:41:15] inference [3:41:15] inference [3:41:16] was the [3:41:17] word [3:41:17] inference [3:41:18] is the [3:41:18] word of [3:41:19] the day [3:41:19] today [3:41:19] kids [3:41:20] inference [3:41:22] okay [3:41:23] yeah [3:41:24] in fact [3:41:25] I even [3:41:27] looked up [3:41:27] the literal [3:41:28] breakdown [3:41:29] of what [3:41:29] inference [3:41:30] was or [3:41:31] is [3:41:31] while we [3:41:32] were [3:41:32] watching [3:41:32] so let me [3:41:33] pull this [3:41:33] up really [3:41:34] quick [3:41:34] so what [3:41:35] does [3:41:35] inference [3:41:35] mean [3:41:36] just for [3:41:36] you guys [3:41:37] to know [3:41:37] all right [3:41:38] because he [3:41:38] said it [3:41:38] a lot [3:41:39] that's why [3:41:40] it's the [3:41:41] code word [3:41:41] of the [3:41:41] debate [3:41:42] all right [3:41:43] an inference [3:41:43] is a [3:41:44] conclusion [3:41:44] or educated [3:41:46] guess [3:41:46] you make [3:41:47] based on [3:41:48] facts [3:41:48] evidence [3:41:49] and reasoning [3:41:49] it is the [3:41:50] process of [3:41:51] figuring something [3:41:52] out when [3:41:52] it's not [3:41:53] directly stated [3:41:54] or seen [3:41:55] so there [3:41:57] you go [3:41:57] so that's [3:41:58] what he [3:41:58] was inferring [3:41:59] to with [3:42:01] the inference [3:42:01] just so you [3:42:04] know [3:42:04] yes it is [3:42:05] not fact [3:42:05] okay [3:42:07] it's [3:42:08] an educated [3:42:09] conclusion [3:42:10] or a [3:42:11] guess [3:42:11] you make [3:42:12] based on [3:42:13] facts [3:42:14] evidence [3:42:14] and reasoning [3:42:15] so it's [3:42:16] not the [3:42:16] facts [3:42:16] it's just [3:42:17] what you [3:42:18] come up [3:42:19] with [3:42:19] okay [3:42:20] it's what [3:42:21] you gather [3:42:22] all right [3:42:23] yeah [3:42:23] it's a [3:42:25] theory [3:42:25] it's a [3:42:26] hypothesis [3:42:27] right [3:42:28] so again [3:42:29] very very [3:42:31] interesting stuff [3:42:32] that we saw [3:42:33] you're inferring [3:42:35] to the inference [3:42:36] of what [3:42:37] the evidence [3:42:38] has been [3:42:38] inferring to [3:42:39] you see what [3:42:42] I'm saying [3:42:42] so [3:42:44] interesting [3:42:45] do you [3:42:49] feel more [3:42:49] solid in [3:42:50] your theories [3:42:50] about [3:42:51] Tyler [3:42:52] Robinson [3:42:53] and the [3:42:54] Charlie Kirk [3:42:54] case [3:42:54] are you [3:42:56] still [3:42:56] side-eyeing [3:42:57] Erica Kirk [3:42:57] are you [3:42:58] still [3:42:59] side-eyeing [3:42:59] TPUSA [3:43:01] what are [3:43:02] your thoughts [3:43:02] I really [3:43:03] do think [3:43:04] that [3:43:05] Andrew [3:43:06] I agree [3:43:07] on this [3:43:07] part [3:43:08] with [3:43:08] Candace [3:43:09] Owens [3:43:09] I agree [3:43:10] I truly [3:43:11] believe [3:43:11] that [3:43:12] Turning Point [3:43:15] USA [3:43:15] TPUSA [3:43:16] basically [3:43:18] funded [3:43:19] Andrew [3:43:20] to go [3:43:20] out there [3:43:21] to debunk [3:43:22] Candace [3:43:25] Owens [3:43:25] because [3:43:26] you know [3:43:26] even [3:43:27] Candace [3:43:27] was saying [3:43:28] like [3:43:28] you're [3:43:28] the [3:43:28] Trojan [3:43:29] horse [3:43:29] you're [3:43:30] basically [3:43:30] coming [3:43:30] in [3:43:31] to [3:43:31] come [3:43:31] off [3:43:32] like [3:43:32] oh [3:43:32] you know [3:43:32] we're [3:43:33] here [3:43:33] to [3:43:33] have [3:43:33] a [3:43:33] friendly [3:43:33] debate [3:43:34] only [3:43:36] to [3:43:36] find [3:43:36] out [3:43:36] that [3:43:37] everything [3:43:39] that's [3:43:39] getting [3:43:40] funneled [3:43:40] through [3:43:40] you [3:43:41] is [3:43:41] from [3:43:41] the [3:43:42] people [3:43:42] over [3:43:43] at [3:43:43] TPUSA [3:43:44] but [3:43:44] they [3:43:44] don't [3:43:44] have [3:43:44] the [3:43:44] balls [3:43:45] to [3:43:45] be [3:43:45] here [3:43:46] in [3:43:46] the [3:43:46] same [3:43:47] room [3:43:47] with [3:43:47] me [3:43:47] to [3:43:48] debate [3:43:48] on [3:43:49] camera [3:43:49] which [3:43:50] makes [3:43:50] no [3:43:50] sense [3:43:51] right [3:43:51] it [3:43:52] makes [3:43:52] them [3:43:52] look [3:43:53] even [3:43:53] more [3:43:53] it [3:43:53] makes [3:43:53] them [3:43:54] look [3:43:54] weak [3:43:54] to [3:43:55] be [3:43:55] honest [3:43:55] and [3:43:58] I [3:43:58] would [3:43:58] have [3:43:58] rather [3:43:59] had [3:43:59] a [3:44:00] TPUSA [3:44:00] individual [3:44:01] you know [3:44:02] like [3:44:02] Andrew [3:44:03] Colvitt [3:44:04] or [3:44:04] Blake [3:44:06] okay [3:44:07] shoot [3:44:08] even [3:44:08] Erica [3:44:08] Kirk [3:44:09] in [3:44:10] that [3:44:10] room [3:44:10] to [3:44:10] debate [3:44:11] Candace [3:44:12] Owens [3:44:12] she [3:44:13] called [3:44:14] it [3:44:14] I [3:44:15] agree [3:44:15] with [3:44:15] her [3:44:15] on [3:44:15] that [3:44:16] so [3:44:18] this [3:44:18] was [3:44:19] not [3:44:20] good [3:44:20] for [3:44:21] Andrew [3:44:22] I [3:44:22] don't [3:44:22] think [3:44:22] just [3:44:26] wasn't [3:44:26] solid [3:44:29] Candace [3:44:30] Owens [3:44:30] will [3:44:30] have [3:44:30] a [3:44:30] debate [3:44:31] where [3:44:32] you [3:44:32] know [3:44:33] she'll [3:44:33] be [3:44:33] proven [3:44:34] wrong [3:44:34] but [3:44:34] I [3:44:35] wouldn't [3:44:35] hold [3:44:36] your [3:44:36] breath [3:44:36] on [3:44:37] that [3:44:37] anytime [3:44:37] soon [3:44:38] but [3:44:39] guys [3:44:39] unfortunately [3:44:40] I gotta [3:44:40] wrap up [3:44:40] the show [3:44:41] so [3:44:41] that [3:44:42] is [3:44:42] the [3:44:42] show [3:44:43] I [3:44:43] appreciate [3:44:44] all y'all [3:44:44] for being [3:44:44] here [3:44:45] really [3:44:45] means [3:44:45] a lot [3:44:45] thank [3:44:45] you [3:44:45] so [3:44:46] much [3:44:46] for [3:44:46] tuning [3:44:46] in [3:44:46] and [3:44:46] being [3:44:47] a part [3:44:47] of the [3:44:47] conversation [3:44:47] please [3:44:48] do me [3:44:48] a favor [3:44:49] before [3:44:49] we [3:44:49] head [3:44:49] out [3:44:50] hit [3:44:50] that [3:44:50] like [3:44:51] button [3:44:51] down [3:44:51] below [3:44:52] crush [3:44:52] do [3:44:52] to [3:44:52] do [3:44:53] hit [3:44:53] that [3:44:53] reaction [3:44:53] button [3:44:53] if you're [3:44:54] watching [3:44:54] on these [3:44:54] other [3:44:54] platforms [3:44:55] if you [3:44:55] are [3:44:56] watching [3:44:56] on these [3:44:56] other [3:44:56] platforms [3:44:57] like [3:44:57] facebook [3:44:57] x [3:44:58] twitter [3:44:58] instagram [3:44:58] tiktok [3:44:59] rumble [3:44:59] twitch [3:44:59] kick [3:45:00] make sure [3:45:00] you hit [3:45:01] that [3:45:01] follow [3:45:01] button [3:45:01] don't [3:45:03] forget [3:45:03] to [3:45:04] subscribe [3:45:04] right [3:45:04] here [3:45:04] on my [3:45:05] youtube [3:45:05] channel [3:45:05] go check [3:45:06] out my [3:45:06] new [3:45:07] channel [3:45:07] pascal [3:45:07] shorts [3:45:08] subscribe [3:45:09] over there [3:45:10] and that [3:45:11] would be [3:45:11] greatly [3:45:12] appreciated [3:45:12] more content [3:45:13] coming out [3:45:14] over there [3:45:15] all right [3:45:16] hit that [3:45:17] join button [3:45:18] down below [3:45:19] become a [3:45:19] member [3:45:19] check out [3:45:20] my patreon [3:45:21] and of [3:45:21] course [3:45:21] check out [3:45:22] pascalmerch.com [3:45:23] oh no [3:45:25] is there an [3:45:26] active shooter [3:45:26] thing [3:45:26] okay [3:45:27] i might be [3:45:29] back on [3:45:29] sooner than [3:45:30] you think [3:45:30] but anyway [3:45:31] time to wrap [3:45:33] up this [3:45:33] particular show [3:45:34] but if i don't [3:45:35] see you guys [3:45:35] anytime soon [3:45:36] this you know [3:45:37] over the weekend [3:45:37] please have a [3:45:38] great weekend [3:45:39] enjoy it [3:45:39] make it [3:45:40] everything you [3:45:41] need it to be [3:45:41] in and more [3:45:42] because you [3:45:42] deserve it [3:45:43] okay [3:45:43] but anyway [3:45:44] it's time to [3:45:45] get going guys [3:45:46] stay safe [3:45:46] out there [3:45:47] be good to [3:45:47] yourselves [3:45:48] be good to [3:45:49] one another [3:45:49] this is the [3:45:50] pascal show