Candace - Candace Owens x Baron Coleman: The Real UVU Review. | Ep 407

Episode Date: October 23, 2026

Baron Coleman joins me for my last show before maternity leave to go over everything we know and where things stand with the investigation now. Keet​ ​ Go visit https://keet.io/CandaceOwens - Download it free and invite the one person you talk to most. And while you’re there - join my private group: https://bit.ly/Keet-Chat-Candace Glacier App​ ​ Get 20% off the first 3 months at http://www.TheGlacierApp.com/candace PureTalk​ ​​​​ Make the switch to PureTalk and get Unlimited Data for $29.95 for LIFE at http://www.PureTalk.com/Owens. DISCLAIMER: Taxes and fees not included. Some restrictions apply. See PureTalk.com for details. Offer ends 11/15/26. American Financing​​​​ NMLS 182334, http://www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. Visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Owens or call 800-795-1210. Average savings based on borrowers who save over $199.99. Candace Clips Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@ClipsCandaceOwens Candace Official Website: https://candaceowens.com Candace Merch: https://shop.candaceowens.com Candace on Apple Podcasts: https://t.co/Pp5VZiLXbq Candace on Spotify: https://t.co/16pMuADXuT Candace on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/RealCandaceO Candace en Español: https://www.youtube.com/@CandaceOwensEnEspanol Candace Owens em Português: https://www.youtube.com/@CandaceOwensemPortugues Candace Owens en Français: https://www.youtube.com/@CandaceOwensEnFrançais Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The new Subaru Cross Trek Hybrid is the most fuel-efficient cross-track yet. That means less time filling your tank and more time filling your day. More court time. More ride time. More lake time. More camp time. More go time. The new 2027 Subaru Cross-Trek hybrid. Consumer Reports top-rated subcompact SUV. Stop by your local Subaru dealership or visit Subaru.ca to learn more. Consumer Reports does not endorse products or services. All right, you guys, happy Thursday. Actually, Baron, do you want to try that?

The intro, they're going to miss me saying, all right, you guys, happy. I can try it. All right, you guys. Welcome in, welcome in. Welcome in. It's going to be a combo. Welcome in, welcome in, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. Boy, do we have a class for you today.

I've been wanting to do this for a very long time. Going backwards. So much has happened in one year since the beginning of this trial. We've obviously dedicated me and Baron. It feels like a year of our life to this. And there's been so much information. And it's hard to sort of go back and remember what happened. And so I'm hoping that we can put this all together for you so that you can reflect, remember, and refresh yourselves on what you need to know going into the trial.

Since there's going to be a trial date set, we should know more about that tomorrow. So let's jump right in and welcome back to Candace and Barron, kind of. Yeah. Okay, where to begin? Like I said, there is a lot to understand. A lot to unpack. There are some things I actually don't even know, and I'm going to have to just completely toss a baron because he went down some rabbit holes that I didn't go under, didn't go, follow him into, and he knows a lot of stuff about the warrants that were filed, which is actually

really important. But I think the best place to start, as I was thinking about how to pull this all together, is to just remind everybody of what the official narrative is regarding Tyler Robinson, I mean, and I'm putting that in air quotations for a reason, what he did on September 10th. I think that's a good place to start, right? So, Baron, I'm just going to walk them through that so everybody remembers. We hear from Lance Twiggs in his testimony that he believes that Tyler Robinson woke up around 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. on the morning up September 10th, and he left the assumption is that he then drove all the way up to UVU campus. We then know that he pulls in to UVU campus around 8.30 a.m.

And he is going to be wearing the maroon shirt. He's going to be wearing the light colored shorts. And he's going to have on a black hat with a white logo and light colored shoes. We then know that, which is a story that we broke, is that he drives at first to the top of the parking structure. And he just sort of lingers there for about seven to eight minutes. before, and in my, again, I don't want to read into it, so I'm just going to deliver the facts. We don't know what he's doing in the car before he then goes to a lower level and then he gets out of his vehicle. At this point, the federal narrative is that he walks toward the amphitheater.

He approaches a as of yet unnamed Turning Point USA employee. And he asks, is this where they are having the event? I do want to interject right here and say that I find this to be. problematic because we now know that Turning Point USA's first employees did not arrive until just about 9 o'clock a.m. That was in the parking lot away from the amphitheater. They didn't get to the amphitheater until even later than that. Right. So this is going to be, I think, a tricky spot. And again, they may have evidence of this and we're supposed to think that he walked up. He asked them this question. Again, seems weird to me also just because Tyler Robinson

and could have used his context clues on that. The flyer says it's going to happen in this event. You see them pulling in stuff, but whatever. We will leave it at the federal narrative. At that point, we know that we're told that he then is going to, after he goes up to at 933, after he goes up to this person at Turning Point USA, We are then told at 933-ish a.m., he leaves the UVU parking structure.

So that was it. He just came on to campus to ask a question, to ask if this event was here, didn't trust the flyer, and he thought the best person to ask was somebody working at the actual event, and then he leaves, and that we know that he gets caught on the campus footage going up and down the staircases. Then, despite leaving at 9.30 a.m., neighborhood cameras are going to catch him just before, 10 a.m. Now he's still walking in his room shirt, so we don't know what he did. It gets just parked off campus, decided to park off campus, returns to campus, and he walks through the tunnel, and he decides he's going to grab some chick filet and he's going to eat. And so he heads towards

the Sarensen building. He purchases food. He sits down, enjoys a meal, right? And like I said, he's parked off campus now. And we do have a map of what they say happens next. And I do want you to walk them through it because it's quite exceptional what they're saying happens. Again, this is around 10, 10 a.m. after he's enjoying some chickfilet on campus. Yeah, he could take a really easy path to scope out the Losey Center. Could you pick up the map? Or he could do what we see here on the screen, which is walk down the road, enter the UVU campus through the tunnel, walk over and get some chickfilet and then leave and head to the wooded area over there. drop off a backpack, head over to the Gunther building, which is, shockingly, the home of the UVU

police department, walk somehow from the Gunther building to the computer science building, and then go from the computer science building on the walkway to the low sea center railing. If you look at that, you think, man, that looks pretty messy. Why did he walk all the way to the woods to drop off a backpack, only to circle around to the police department before going into two other buildings and then to the Losey Center railing, you're not alone. You're not alone. Because a lot of us have the same question.

Why didn't he just walk from the Chick-Fillay to the Losey building? It's about 10 feet, 20 feet. And he would have saved himself a lot of steps. He wouldn't have had to worry about how to get the backpack away from the wooded area. He wouldn't have had to walk by the police department. He wouldn't have had to walk through multiple buildings, presumably being seen on camera. How else would they have known he was there? So it's a map that's problematic.

Yes. It's a map that raises serious questions about the federal narrative, just looking at that. And I do want to say this is where they declined to show us footage. Yeah. This is where they say we have him on camera. He's eating at Chick-fil-A. You're at a preliminary hearing. You got one shot to pull everything together.

You've had a full 10 months to pull all this together. Why are they not showing us any of this footage in particular of him eating at the Chick-fil-A, sitting down. And then also, if you want to bring that back up, Chris, I actually want to keep talking about this map. This map is crazy to me. Okay, so like, just so you guys are following that, again, 9.57 a.m. They're going to catch him walking to the neighborhood. And he is then for, I don't even know why he's entering the tunnel. Like, that's not the easiest way to get onto campus. Then he goes to Chick-fil-A, I find that to be, you can stop there to be problematic because of all the places, if you're going to commit a crime and you are motivated by LGBTQ issues to commit your first

crime ever and to murder someone, I probably wouldn't pick the Chick-fil-A restaurant. Right. Right. That's already weird. And not to mention all the cameras inside. Right. We have images from inside the Sorensen Center looking at the Chick-Fleigh counter. There's two cameras looking right at the counter. And then, like you said, now he's going to drop off his backpack, which he could have done much simpler.

Could have dropped it off on the way? But also, we don't know what happens to this backpack. Okay. So Agent Hull testifies and he says he then goes back onto campus and he's not wearing the backpack. But nowhere else in his testimony does he say, and then we saw him head back toward the backpack. There's a missing backpack here that we have completely lost the threat on in the federal narrative. And again, then going past the computer science building and going nanah-naboo in front of the police, in front of the UVU police station, which is in the Gunther building, feels very very. very odd to me to only then go to Losi and do this scope.

So he's on campus, we're told, that's at an approximate hour, we're told he leaves campus just before 11 a.m. after having done all of that. And this is when we know that he's going to now change into some different clothes. Now, he leaves campus at 11, just before 11 a.m., at 11.28 a.m., he submits his wordal score. Yes, yes. A long day of assassinating ahead of you, you need to submit your Wardle score. To your friends.

You don't know what's going to happen afterwards. You don't know what's going to happen after. You don't want to miss a day of Whartle. You don't want to miss a streak. Very strange thing to do right before you're about to commit your first murder. But I do want to point that out that we know at 1128, that's what happened. And then we know that at around 11, and this is TMZ footage, 1149, now he's wearing a different outfit. He's wearing the black long-sleeved shirt with the American flag,

and he is going to walk with a limp now. And we were initially told that the reason he's walking with that limp was because we were meant to assume that he's got a 30-0-6 in there, disassembled. Perhaps. Yes, the official narrative is that the gun was disassembled. somehow down his clothes. And they never explained whether they thought the barrel

was down the front of the back, the stock was down the front of the back. There was never an explanation of how the gun was disassembled and how it was packed inside of him. But that's the official narrative, that he's disassembled the gun and is moseying around campus.

Again, just like we had on that previous map, it would have been very easy for him if he wanted to scout out Losi to avoid every camera, not take nearly as many steps, not see nearly as many people and just walk around the back of the computer science building onto the low seat building.

Same thing here. If he is having trouble walking, there are shorter routes to get where he was going. My sources, the faculty sources that I have at UVU, said that he clearly wanted to be caught on camera to take those routes. And I do want to say, we all made the assumption that the gun

or the disassembled gun, or whatever it is, had to have been, he's dragging his leg. So there were some people who said, well, maybe he had it up here. Well, then why is you dragging his leg? Like if it's in his belt, there's no reason for him to be dragging his leg. So we have a problem there with that narrative.

If you're going to say it's at the bottom, the footage that we have does not show that it's in his ankle. If you're going to say it's at the top, then you've got the problem with why is he dragging his leg? So is it performative? Is he pretending? We don't know. We obviously all know what happens next. At 12.15, he is going to reach the top of the stairs near the lozy rooftop. He walks to a short concrete wall that separates the common area from the rooftop.

That's when he's just sort of looking over the wall. stands there for about 70 seconds, and then he hops over and he ducks down. And this is where, again, assumptions were made that he reassembled the rifle. There is no evidence of that that has ever been presented. This is, they're just going, use your imagination. What do you think he does when he gets down low? Now, the hunters are going to tell you, how are we zeroing that scope? Yeah. How are we resigning? You can't just put together a rifle and not fire a couple of rounds to zero the scope.

Not typically. And the problem with it is this is a shot you have to make. You're going to take a life. You have to make this shot. This isn't like you're going deer hunting. And if you miss, well, the deer gets away. It's not like you're going to target practice shooting. And if you miss, you're like, oh, I need to move it a little bit.

No, this is a once-in-a-lifetime shot. And you're going to, you know, in fact, in the pleading from the government, one of the points they made was that he was reckless and could have put other people in jeopardy because he reassembled the rifle. And he had jostled the scope in his pants the entire way there for a mile or whatever, however far he walked. It's a gap in the narrative that they've really not explained satisfactorily. Yeah. And I would also say they have not explained that once we are supposed to assume, or some people have

explicitly said that, like Blake Neff said that, he got down under there and he reaestead. assembled a rifle. He didn't zero the scope. I just, when we presented the footage of the lateral crawl, I don't see a gun. I don't see how you do a lateral crawl with that size gun. And then we obviously

see him lurched forward into a position and we see him run off of the rooftop and jump off. I mean, he's quite athletic, is what I would say. Whoever this individual is, he is quite athletic. He was very healthy. Obviously, had no

injuries, couldn't have had any kind of injury to his body because that's a heck of a fall. It has to be pretty athletic. You know, is it an impossible jump? No. But if you're not very athletic, it might become a substantially more difficult jump. So I would think whoever made that jump was very athletic and very healthy. Okay. Charlie gets hit by what?

We do not know. The federal narrative is that it's a 30-0.6. He got very lucky on not needing to zero the scope. One shot. Didn't even think, let me take two just in case. don't get them. And then what happens is, according to the feds, he jumps down, he runs away. And then I guess really a federal narrow just kind of gets into him really wanting to express himself to his lover about everything that he had just done. I mean, every single key detail.

Yes. Every detail needed to convict Tyler Robinson was mentioned in those text messages. Right. You would need nothing else except those text messages. Right. Like everything of what he was thinking, the motive, the who, the what, the when, the where, the hide, the why, the do you remember? Didn't you see me when I was carving the bullets, my dear, my love? You sort of definitely written like a Jane Austen novel.

It's very expressive. And, oh, I thought I would get away with it. And I don't want you to get in trouble. I mean, it's a lot for a person who's supposed to be pretty smart to put all of this in writing. while simultaneously saying that you wanted to get away with it. So there was one key discrepancy in there that I thought was strange. He mentioned at first he didn't know if it had a serial number. He said, I don't know if it has a serial number.

I don't know if it will get traced back to me. If it does, it won't get traced back to me. And later, he says the serial number will trace back to someone else. At one point he's saying, I don't know if it has one. The other time he's saying, yes, it does and it'll go to someone else. I think that's been unexplained that discrepancy. But yeah, every single text message is so tied to a single element of the crime, even the enhancement factors. Some hate can't be negotiated out.

Like he's even premeditating the aggravated charge. The aggravating factor that's going to be need to secure aggravated murder. Yes. It's incredible. Yes. I mean, I've never seen anything like it. I mean, even if you're talking about a person that sells pot and it's a gram a pot, they won't, they'll be paranoid about texting about something that's small. But he's like full, full confession.

everything went to Lance, and that is why Lance's testimony has proven so controversial and crucial, definitely crucial to the state, controversial, I think, to the public. The Fed messages, I think, were one of the first signs, I think, and we can go over all of them, where the public sort of said something's not right, okay? What was the biggest thing for you? The wound. The wound. I could not get past the wound. I still can't get past the wound. I've been haunting. I've shot lots of rifles. I've shot 30 out sixes. I cannot get past. that wound. It does not look like an entry wound and they're not being an exit wound in, in, you know, three, four inches of neck tissue. It's an unbelievable narrative to me. It's an

absolutely unbelievable narrative to include that wound in the neck and tell me it's a 30 out six. And they can't present any other example in history. You see that they'll be like, well, if you shoot a deer in the abdomen, we're not talking about a deer. We're not talking about an abdomen. We're talking about a human neck being shot at close disres. Relating. We're not relatively close distance from a 30-a-6, and we are told that it did not go through, and not only did not go through, you're talking about 1,500 pounds of force coming at you. Charlie didn't even fly backward. No, he just kind of slumped back a little bit.

And you hear these stories of someone getting shot in the rib or someone getting shot in here. I mean, your abdomen has a huge amount of tissue to absorb that blow, to absorb all that. Your neck does not. It's nothing enough. I mean, that much pressure coming into your neck, your neck is. not going to expand to four times the size and come back down and not be picked down. It's just the wound doesn't make sense. That was the very first indication that, to me, something went terribly wrong. And do you know what? I would agree. I would answer the question the same way.

And I would add to it, obviously, that I was not at all suspicious of Turning Point USA. So when people were going, who's this guy taking down the cameras, which I think the public saw that and was going, whoa, this is very strange. And I recognized him. And I was like, well, that's Terrell. I know terror, I worked with terror for years. And I called him thinking I was going to help him clear his name. And my immediate thing was, oh, I'm sure a police officer told him to do that immediately. And he was all nervous. And when he said that, no, he didn't do that because a police officer told him to do that.

And he couldn't tell me why he did it. And then when I finally got him to show me the footage, like from behind, and excuses weren't making sense. And I realized there was no wound. I thought, is this the reason why you took? the footage down quickly. Like specifically that camera of all of the cameras when he said, you know, I told me he spoke to Erica

and he wanted to make sure that she didn't see what was done to Charlie. And then I look at the footage and I'm like, this is the cleanest angle you've got. A couple blood splatters here and there. That's it. So why was this footage so crucial? And then to hear them try to explain away

why didn't go through. And the Superman neck narrative, he was a man of steel. and it was a modern-day Christian miracle, that's when things got, I felt, were very weird. Andrew Colvette has never retracted that tweet. He's never retracted it. That Superman neck tweet is still on his timeline,

and I don't believe he's admitted that that didn't happen. That the miracle didn't happen? Well, no, that the conversation with the doctor didn't happen. I don't think he's admitted that yet. You know, because the conversation with the doctor did technically happen. He's just quoting not the doctor. doctor. And I think they were very panicked. I know they were panicked. I know for a fact that the feds were on the phone with them and trying to discern whether or not I had recorded the conversation with

Terrell on FaceTime, which I had gratefully. And then I think one of the things that's very strange is them sort of stepping on the day of Charlie's actual funeral being concerned about the fact that I had told the public that the bullet didn't go through. And that was the common sense. factor. Like, I did not believe Erica at all when she said to me that Andrew went rogue and spoke to the surgeon alone and the surgeon also went rogue, violated HIPAA and spoke to a PR agent. It was a little too steep of a hill. Well, and before Terrell Farnsworth grabs the camera footage, don't forget, he runs at breakneck speed. I mean, Carl Lewis Speed to jump up on a wall and film a selfie of himself declaring Charlie Dead. The first person to pronounce Charlie Dead was

Terrell Farnsworth. Yeah. And it was within a minute or so of Charlie even going down. He declares him dead. He has this very awkward selfie moment. He keeps flipping the camera around back and forth so you can see them dragging Charlie off. It was gruesome. And it was so awkward.

I still to this day do not understand why he showed that to you. And it was funny. I didn't ask him. I didn't know he had filmed himself. I didn't know any of that. I think he sort of sent that. He was nervous when he spoke to me on the phone. And I think he was nervous because I was just cutting through the BS.

He, like, forgot that I worked with him. And what he was saying, I don't know how to send a file. And I'm nervous that Google's going to hack me. I mean, my team was all there. Literally all witnesses. And I was the first time I looked up at them, the team. And I said, something's not right. That was weird.

So that was the first moment that you thought something was weird? Because I wasn't expecting it, right? So I was very team turning point USA. say and then Terrell's phone call to me and the excuses he was making up because I said, you can just show it to me if your concern is as I was thinking, maybe it was really bloody in the background. He didn't want to show Erica. I didn't want anybody to see it.

I said, I can fly to you. You can come here. I don't need. People will trust me. I've earned the trust, I think, enough of people that if I say, look, I saw the footage and it's horrific and he did want to just get it down or the cops told him, but he just was all over. I mean, saying you don't know how to send a file and you run. and audio visual company isn't, it's just, it's insane.

It's hard for me to go back and remember, but I think pretty much everybody took it as an article of faith that the bullet went through. We just assumed. Because it had to. It had to. It had to. It had to.

It had to go through. In fact, it was such a common narrative that most people believed it was an exit wound and that there was an entrance wound from behind. And people were trying to figure out what angle, who could have been where. Because it did look more like an exit wound. It was, I think, substantially larger than a typical entrance wound,

which is usually no larger than the diameter of the bullet, usually. But it looked more like an exit wound, the way the blood came out. And so people just assumed, and because he didn't go backwards. I think people assumed the bullet had come in from the back, and then you broke that news that, no, in fact, it did not come in from there. There was no entrance wound. There was no exit wound from the back. There was no other wound on the back.

I think it did throw the investigation kind of into a tailspin for the official narrative. And I think this is probably why I became public enemy number one to them, because I did it so innocently. And that's what's so funny is I go back now and I reflect on how many times I had sort of stumbled upon a really big story without realizing how big it was because I was just trying to like,

let me help you clear your name. And then I was going, whoa, that was really weird, what's going on? And now suddenly people inside of Turning Point are telling me the feds are involved and they're worried about this tape. And I went, something's not right here. Do you remember the date of that?

I do. I do remember that. I had the phone call with Terrell. I think it's, it was on the... September 19? I was going to say it was the 17th. Okay. I could definitely look into that.

But it was, it was early. Do you remember when you reported it? Oh, 19th was when I had the phone call with him. 19th was the FaceTime actually says, yeah. And do you remember when you reported it? The very next day. Okay. You know, I should have known that, of course, because it was the day of Charlie's actual funeral,

not the funeral event that was open to the public, but the actual funeral. And that's the day the Fed Slot narrative started unwinding. Yeah. And that was the day that he tweeted, he tweeted because they were kind of panicking. And Justin Strife was calling my husband. My husband has no idea what was going on. My husband hasn't watched show. He's like, what?

He's like, did you record some video? I've got Justin Strife calling me. And I'm like, why is he calling you asking this question? Why does he care? Why does he care? And I didn't put two and two together because I was still, remember, I was totally aggrieved in the state. And my brain wasn't processing information the right way. And then I went, oh, this is a very big deal.

It's a very big deal. I think there, the, the, The knock against Candace Owens is, well, she's never brought anything. She just has dreams. No, we would all still think that bullet went through. Yeah. And that was the point, I think. We would all still think it went through. And frankly, even people like me, as skeptical as I am, would have accepted perhaps the gunshot narrative at that point. Yeah, me, certainly me. So I want to kind of get into some of the holes that have emerged because the feds have changed the story so many times. It's kind of incredible to reflect on the things that they just dropped or completely changed. And there's no excuse for these changes. Like initially when they came out and they said, okay, we've got our guide. And they did this big press conference. I think it was on September 14th. And then you had Cash Patel and you had Governor Cox. So they've now reviewed the footage and they're presenting to the public. And Governor Cox tells us that. that he changed his clothes on the rooftop. So that was a narrative that they just dropped and let go of. That's a very big thing for him to have made a mistake about.

And no one interjected and said, no, that's not correct. We were also told that Tyler Robinson was suicidal and that his parents were concerned that he was going to commit suicide and they were effectively, you know, talking him off of the ledge. We were, this was a major one told that his father turned him in because his father thought he was guilty. and Bill Ackman publicly offered $1 million to Matt Robinson, because you're the person that saw this. What a brave, what a brave father you are. Here's a million dollars.

That's just been dropped. And I want to add here, I spoke to Bill Ackman at this time. And I asked him specifically, I was totally upfront trying to get, and he was kind of lecturing me a little bit about being careful with my platform because it's a very big platform and people can, you know, draw, conclusions and making sure that I have the facts. It was very nice in the phone. Did you view that as a threat at the time? No. He was very nice in the phone. He had like his PR person or something. It was a social media

type person on the phone with him. I was totally just wanting information. Like I really didn't have this. But looking back now, do you think it was a threat? No, I think he genuinely was concerned that people were roping him into things that were not true. I think he cares deeply about public perception of him. So I never felt the conversation was perfectly friendly. And I said to him, like, I'm not trying. I just want to know what happened. And I wanted to ask him, obviously, about the Hampton Summit.

And he was honest about the fact that he had funded the influencers to come out there. And regarding the father turning man, I said, so who did you get the money to Matt Robinson? And he said that he was giving the money to the feds. Okay. Is that public? That's not public. This is the first time I'm telling people this. I don't remember hearing that.

Yeah. No, because, like, you know, I was not. trying to, I don't have any personal ill will towards Bill Ackman. I have ill will towards people that are lying about what Charlie was going through throughout those days and haven't been forthcoming. And so he was forthcoming about the summit basically said how we got involved. And I then switched and I said, well, what if it's, we don't really know anything about the case. I said, you're giving a million dollars to Matt Robinson's dad. I mean, to Tyler Robinson's dad, like, what if it turns out that like he's somehow involved? Because I didn't know anything. These are early days.

And he's like, well, once I get the money to the feds, it's up to them. So I would like, I'd like to know if Bill Ackman... When did he tell you that? You know what? I got to go... Months ago? My phone... It was right in September.

Oh, so it was over a year ago? Yeah. So over a year ago... I was just talking to everybody. I was just genuinely, I did not have this, like, this person did it or this person did it or this person did it or... Like, I just was sort of like, now I see his motives. Like, now he's like sharing, like, feds, not even fedslapped, like, targeting me and my family.

DoD talking. Something I would have never, ever done to him. And now we understand that. he's like promoting these threads of Genica Pounds, but he was not on my bad list. He was not on my bad list when I just called you out of the blue? No, I reached out to him. Okay. And I, because I was just investigating things.

And we talked about the Hampton Summit. And like I said, he was forthcoming. He was nice. I did not at any way feel threatened. I just wanted information. I spoke to everybody. Anybody who was willing to talk, I was willing to talk to. But I do think it's relevant that he did say that the money was going to the FBI.

And the FBI could then give the money to who. whoever they wanted. And I immediately sensed a problem with that because I said, okay, well, like, if someone comes forward to catch it, because he offered a reward more information, and then he said it was going to Matt Robinson. And then I had a source who told me that Matt Robinson never even

had a conversation to that effect. So I was like, what's going on with that Bill Ackman story? Somebody should follow up with that. That is so bizarre. To hand over a million dollars to the feds over a year ago. Ask, can you try to find that tweet?

And I know that's a long time ago. That'll at least let us like date it and figure out when he made that. Because it was pretty fast. And then he said something about how brave Matt Robinson was and like the money. He put up basically a reward money and then said it was going to Matt because Matt turned in Tyler. So it was instant before Tyler Robinson had been arrested. So do you think it was to try to set the narrative in the public consciousness that Matt Robinson turned in the son? Yes.

I think that now. Yeah. I do. And I think that I underestimated. how invested Bill Ackman was in this until time went on and I started seeing like his, you know, personal vindictiveness toward me. And if you just hosted a summit in the Hamptons, why are you angry about the fact that we exposed it? I mean, Seth Dylan lied. You got it? You want to pull it up? I'm going to pull up that a tweet here. Oh, oh, that says,

oh, okay, here we go. He's replying to a tweet, breaking Alex Bruce Witts and Robbie Starbuck add $25,000 each to the FBI's $100,000 award for information leading to the capture of Charlie Kirk's assassin. It's now at $150,000. And then Bill Ackman says, I am in for a million dollars. So this was like, whoa, you know, that's a lot of money. And he seemed sincere in that. Like, if he had just seen Charlie at his house a couple of months, I'm like, okay, he's got money. That's, to him, that's us giving 5K, right?

Like so he's like, I got five, yeah, like 50 bucks or whatever. So, yeah, like some of the comments is like, million dollar baby, that's been a bit of great thumbnail title. Million dollar baby, I'd like to chase that down, that that to me is a loose end. But yeah, they dropped that entirely. The Bill Ackman money story got completely, completely dropped, as did the father turning him in.

It never happened, as I have said from the very beginning. The father does not believe that his son is guilty and that they just kept lying about that. It seems like now they're not really lying about that, but more will come out if they are. They first reported that the screwdriver was found near the gun. Then they radically changed that and said, actually, it was found on the rooftop.

CNN was the first to report it. And then they came out and said, oh, there was all this confusion in the early days. And so that changed. And then the Discord narrative changed. Do you remember what happened with Discord? No, can we go back to the screwdriver for just a second? Yeah, you say that there was a key fact that came in between the screwdriver

being dropped. Originally, the screwdriver was said to be in the woods. Correct. That was Fox News citing inside or CNN maybe citing legal, inside legal sources. And then five or six days later, Cash Patel comes out and says, no, no, no, no, the screwdriver was on the roof. In between those two dates, in between the date, CNN reported it and Cash Patel relocated it to the roof, the results came back from the DNA and the fingerprint.

And nothing put Tyler Robinson on the roof. The DNA didn't put him on the roof because it was indeterminate. fingerprint. They couldn't determine who that was. And then all of a sudden the screwdriver teletransports to the top of the roof. And I always found that a little magical because right now that's the only thing putting Tyler Robinson on the roof. Right. That's the only thing. And you can say, well, anybody could put a screwdriver on the roof. Yeah, I mean, maybe a slenderman jumps and throws it off. But something had to have his DNA on the roof. You had to put something up there. There's no photographs of him. There's no, you know, they say it's a footprint. And you can't tell

a conference footprint in a bunch of gravel. I mean, there's just nothing up. they're putting him on a roof. Right. Except that screwdriver. Yeah, and I do want to go over the evidence. I want people to understand what actually happened during the preliminary hearing and how to weigh that evidence, how relevant that evidence is. That was actually something I desperately wanted to do what I was debating Andrew Wilson, but obviously he had no idea what was going on. So I'm glad we had the opportunity to do that today. I want to, we can do that right after this too. The discord message narrative that was dropped. I do want to point to the fact that a lot of these narratives were set

by the probable cause, what is this? the write-out that they gave the affidavit, right? And in this affidavit, I'm going to read to you what it says, happened. So they then gaslit us and were like, no, there was never any messages on Discord because Discord themselves came out and said these conversations did not take place on Discord. And what people don't realize about this, like probable cause affidavit, this is a cop typing up a bunch of things or whatever. It's just like the hearing where nothing needs to be super concrete. Like it's just he's putting together things hearsay is allowed into this. So you have no idea who it's coming from, if it says his mom recognized him. It doesn't mean that the mother,

they have a statement from the mother that says that I recognize my son. It means they spoke to someone who said the mom recognized him. And she's allowed to infer it. This is the thing a lot of people get missed on. Nothing in the statement of facts or the probable cause affidavit will ever see the lie today in front of a jury. They'll put the charges up in front of the jury. The jury's going to look at that, but they will never see this set of facts. All this is is going to the judge and saying we have a basis to hold this guy. Right. This is a basis to hold this guy.

You know, and we think it's right. We think it's right. And we're going to now investigate and we're going to figure out how right we are, but we have a basis to hold him. And the discord messages, this is coming directly from an affidavit. He said, whoever wrote it, wrote,

investigators asked if he, and we're referring to Lance Twigs, which actually let me go up here. Investigators identified an individual as the roommate of Tyler Robinson. Investigators interviewed the roommate who stated that his roommate were referring to Robinson,

had made a joke on Discord. Investigators asked if he would show them the messages on Discord. He opened it and showed several messages to investigators and allowed the investigators to take photos of the screen as each message was shown by Robinson's roommate. So the Discord narrative came from this, okay? The context is very clear. This is not a sound like a mistake.

We then were like, okay, so he's communicating on Discord. And then when Discord very quickly came out and said, there was no conversations, no plotting, nothing on Discord. Then they sort of said, no, no, no, no, no, okay, no, that we meant actually that it was all via text message. And so this could be some sloppy police writing. Maybe his English grammar is not correct, but that was the basis of that. And then that narrative also got dropped. We absolutely should talk about the evidence at the trial. I want to get there because it's so important for you guys to understand they have literally nothing at the moment.

In my view, there is nothing. If you watch the preliminary hearing what you walked away and said is a concrete piece of evidence. And I'm talking about DNA, physical connecting the dots here, this gun fired this bullet. None of that exists. They don't even have text messages. I'm sorry, people fight on that all the time. They don't have text messages. They don't have discord messages, not based on what they introduced at the preliminary hearing. And I could explain that further. But, you know, nothing they showed at the preliminary hearing is going to be put in front of a jury. Correct. Nothing. Yeah. Because you're not going to be able to just drop these text messages in front of to somebody. Lance Twiggs is going to have to come in and authenticate them.

That's correct. And then the defense is going to have an opportunity to look at the cell phone extraction. I mean, there's, there's so many steps between what we saw on the preliminary hearing and what's going to be introduced at trial that there's no guarantee we'll see any of it. Here's my thing about looking at the what actually happened at the trial, which I'm so happy that it was all aired and everybody could watch it because if we had to rely on influencers in court being overwhelmed. Like, the performance was unbelievable. And it was because if people were actually listening and following to what was happening,

every day you were going, this is, I'm struggling to believe this. Trial day one was Officer Christopher Bagley. Who could forget Officer Christopher Bagley? Your opinion on Officer Bagley? I call him Officer Baggboy. I don't find him a credible individual. He kind of reminds me a guy who sort of fails upward in life. I'm not, you know, knocking the guy.

Maybe he's doing the best he can, but he got so many things wrong. He just got so many things wrong over and over and over that, you know, if someone gets something wrong multiple times, and sometimes it benefits them and sometimes it benefits the other side, you think, okay, well, they're just, you know, maybe not real sharp. But when they always get it wrong to benefit the other side, it looks like a motive. It looks like a reason they're doing it. And that's kind of how I look at Bagley. And just so you guys, if you've never followed this case, Officer Chris, for Bagley is the Utah Valley Police Department, a police officer who had, he was the first

person who said to the police, maybe the shot came from Lozzy Rooftop. And then he is the one that then runs to Losey Rooftop with another officer in hand from Utah State University named Alan Robertson. And they get up there. And the first thing that happens is Bagley says, oh, look, a screwdriver. And what was problematic about his testimony, the biggest things are problematic is he said that conveniently his body cam footage died in that moment where he discovered the screwdriver. Okay. Let's just take that as it is. The second thing that I found to be exceedingly problematic is that when you are getting ready to testify,

especially for a case this big, but for every case, your lawyer preps you. Your lawyer preps you extensively on the information you need to remember, the information that you need to reflect on. So when someone says, I don't know, and they've had a year to get the answer to something, almost a year, it strikes me as odd. And he says that he did not know and did not remember who was the plainclothes officer that accompanied him onto the rooftop at Losey. That, to me, registered as not the whole truth.

Yeah, hugely problematic. And the idea that you would just take a random guy in plain clothes with a gun at a shooting event that you don't know and say, here, come with me. to this isolated remote location, and we'll go up there together. How do I know you're not the killer? Yeah, and the whole idea that he just was meandering around. I was like, wait a minute, we should go to the Losey Center.

I find that problematic as well. You know, I'm not suggesting, I don't think, overtly, that I believe Bagley was in on it or whatever. But I think his testimony was just a disaster from the beginning. It was unconvincing. It was very unconvincing. And the axon body camera dying, I mean, every police officer across the United States messaged me and we're like Candace,

the axon body, it gives you a warning before it dies. It beeps loudly. It turns red. So did he not know? Did he not hear that? That also seems extraordinary. And he's on photo and video shortly before going up to the Lose Center and there's no red ring around his axon body camera. Yeah. So I am keen to hear more about that and hopefully we will. But I would say definitely unconvincing. Trial day one, then they bring in the second witness, which is Agent David Hull. Agent David Hall has been with the SBI, so the State Bureau of Investigations for 12 years, and he is the co-lead investigator on this case. He was initially put on the case with Brian Davis. We'll get to him in a bit. And he is, he's sizzle real guy. That's the best way to remember him is he is sizzle real guy. He is the person that is going to present the video, the now notorious video, 12.1 of who they are just calling Tyler Robinson in the video.

that is here he is coming on to campus and here's what he's doing and here's what the event and then he went here and he's speaking very quickly through the video and basically trying to just get you to think that this individual

that we're seeing is Tyler Robinson. How did you find Agent David Hull and his sizzorial? I found him entirely unconvincing for a couple of reasons, and not just his haircut, for a couple reasons.

One is the photos, I mean the videos he was showing were out of order. They skipped around. Some of them were mirrored. Some of them were mirrored. him jumped ahead a minute and a half and he didn't explain why. Sometimes there's a video up and he's talking about a different time period. You know, there's a guy standing in black at the

top of a stairwell. He's talking about a guy in Maroon walking around campus. It was so out of order, so out of sorts that you look at it, thought, what is he doing? Why is he testifying? Why can't they slow down? We've got five days. This is a very important part of the testimony. We're trying to put Tyler Robinson on campus. This is a key. You have to be on campus to take the shot. We're trying to put him on campus. Okay, a guy leaves and another guy comes back dressed completely differently, head to toe, with a different backpack. Why do you think it's Tyler Robinson? I don't know. Kind of looks like him. Oh, okay. Guilty is charged. Guilty. The best part was he did know. They were wearing the same similar sneakers, Converse sneakers. Yeah. Yeah, we should actually roll that

clip. I still think it's one of the most amazing things I've ever, the, this, the toughest police work I've ever seen. Take a listen. Do you recognize the person in these images? I wouldn't say it with 100% certainty just because of camera quality, but that looks like him in terms of the shoes he's wearing the sunglasses. Yeah, sorry, I think that was the wrong clip. That was Lance. But similarly, Lance did also say, like, yeah, he's wearing jeans. I mean, this was how they figured out that person one was person two is that nobody's ever worn jeans on a college campus and a T-shirt and converse. But Agent Hull specifically says, this is how we, because that's a big thing.

How did you even know the maroon guy? was the guy that comes back in the black shirt, and that was their police agent, SBI, co-lead investigator saying because they were both wearing converse sneakers. He had a different hat, a different shirt, different pants. Everything on him was different, and he looks different. And he looks different. In the face, his hair looks different. Right, right. We have the clip, the correct clip now. Let's play that. You believe this is Mr. Robinson returning to campus?

I do, yes. Okay. And what do you believe is, Mr. Robinson? The shoes are the same. and the images that we have are from my viewing and seeing Mr. Robinson on the video, it's the same person. Yeah, that's it. Shoes are the same.

He walked through the same tunnel. I mean, they don't look like they're the same height to me. They're not walking the same. One's limping. Like, that is the craziest. You can't just say that. You can't just say stuff.

And that's what he does. So I'm going, they have not even connected these two people yet in a way that is sufficient, that people should publicly accept as concrete evidence. Maybe they will, but for me, this is a major hole in the story. How do we know Maroon Boy is not a completely different person than the person who reappears on to campus around 11 a.m.?

Well, and it's not lost on me that this is a criminal trial for the life of Tyler Robinson. You have to get it right. You have to get it right. If you believe it's him because there's a cell phone signal in his pocket and it comes in the same and it's the same cell phone signal, and we believe that's the same cell phone Tyler Robinson was carrying. then testify that way. Tell us that. Don't tell us he wore converse. And I'm going to also say he suffers from a level of amnesia. Again, you are in a lead

position at the FBI. You can get concrete answers before you hit the stand. He says when he's asked about an off-duty trooper named Noah Gonzalez, who was interviewed and recovered a holster on the scene, he says he doesn't remember that. Then he's asked about what time he went onto the Losey Center in the evening. He says he doesn't remember what time he went up to Lose Center in the evening. These are literally the things that you know. The lawyers sit down with you and they go over every single detail before you testify. It's been a year. Why don't you know what time you went on to the Lose Center in the evening? He also admits that he is not aware. He's the co-lead on the case. He is not aware of who ordered the dirt to be paved, the crime of the scene to be paid over, the dirt.

Didn't he say that he learned it the same way everyone else by the news or something? social media or something? He may have. But I know he officially, and these are just my notes, he says that he doesn't know who ordered it. So he, he's a lead investigator and it's not something in 10 months that he thought, hey, that is kind of weird. Yeah. That's my crime scene. Who's doing that? He's just like, no. No, tore up 10 inches of my crime scene and I'm okay with it. I'm okay with it. Never wanted to know anything. And by the way, that suggests that it's someone higher than him. Right? Because if you're the FBI and somebody did this and you don't know, you're the lead on this case. and the person who ordered it, and again, this is me using common sense, has to sit above you.

Right? We got someone who sits above the lead on the case and the FBI because you can't go messing around with somebody's crime scene a couple of days later. I wouldn't think you could dig ten edges of it up and then pave it over. I mean, and that's reality. But there's more than that to David Hull. There are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people following this very, very closely, investigating, looking things up. I challenge anyone. I mean, no one knows who he is. Right. He's a ghost. He's a ghost. He's a, an absolute ghost. And so this ghost gets brought in to lead the investigation. He says some pretty absurd things in the testimony and everybody's supposed to go, yeah, yeah, guy with the snazzy haircut. I mean, what can we do? Right. And we had, yeah, a lot of trouble learning anything about him. He has a trace accent that sounds almost like Australian, South African. It seems to change. It does seem to

change. And so I can't place him either. Maybe you know him personally. Please feel free to email us more tips at canis-oans.com. Maybe he did, maybe he was overseas. Maybe he's military. A lot of these people who I can't seem to find tend to be military. But we would definitely like some more information about Hull. Maybe you've worked with him and can tell us more. More tips at Candace Owens.com. Again, we're looking about, we're talking about David Hull, who is the co-lead. And if you know him, you know him. Look at that haircut. There's no way you don't remember that. That's a porcupine haircut. He's got a very definitive look there going on. Now, I want to now get to a very important person who was a witness. I actually very much liked her. Her name was

Amanda Baker. She was the forensic examiner from the FBI, Quantico, Virginia. She's been there for 10 years. She was requested by the state of Utah to do the testing on the towel and the screwdriver. Okay, so that's the background of who she is. She testifies that normally to turn around the DNA, it takes between 90 and 200 days. But this case, she was asked to speed up due to the high profile nature of it. And she said that means that they were instructed to basically work around the clock. there's a very important part of her testimony where she talks about September 13th. She takes meticulous notes and she talks about this date September 13th. And I'm going to tell you guys, this is the date where Cash Patel, I think it was Fox News.

Ashley, if you can find the clip, let me know. He comes out and he says we were able to connect Tyler Robinson's DNA. Okay. She testifies that not only is that not true. She spoke to the FBI Special Agent Fulger and the Utah FBI, David Hull, on the phone. They called her. They're like, hey, we want to rush this thing. And they just asked her whether or not they could, if it's plausible that Tyler Robinson's DNA, like basically his DNA could not be excluded from the sample. And they then tell her there's no need for you to do any additional comparisons at this time. Essentially, stop testing. This is the answer that we're looking for. And then they went out and said something that she never, ever said. She specifically says in her testimony that, she could have never told them that Tyler Robinson's DNA was on the towel or the screwdriver,

and yet Cash Patel lied publicly misrepresenting these facts. Ashley, again, tell me if you can find that. I didn't ask you to pull that before. But there are a couple more things that she went through. She said that just because DNA is on an item, it does not mean that an individual touched or used that item. So that's something that you should just know. Even if they found DNA on a towel, it does not mean that the individual touched that item or used that item because that's, how easy it is to transfer DNA. She said also that DNA can persist on any item indefinitely and also that it can degrade over time. They have worked on items in her experience that were 40 or 50 years old and they were still able to recover DNA from that item. Like that is like degraded. She said you'll see that there's some degrading signs, but like this could have been touched 50

years ago and we could still pull your DNA. That's incredible. could have used that gun when he was 12 years old. And he could have never touched it. Right. He could have touched his father's hand. Well, and the thing, I mean, Lance Twigs could have grabbed a toothbrush and rubbed it on everything. Yes.

He could have rubbed his bath towel and everything. And that's really important. She really gets into telling you what DNA degradation is. And then he has her walk through how degradation can happen, how long it can stay on. And then he kind of walks her into this broader point about the screwdriver. And she says, the samples on the screwdriver were tremendously degraded. So that signified to me immediately that she's saying, A, I don't know how the DNA got on there. There's no, you cannot make the statement that Tyler Robinson touched this screwdriver.

B, she testifies that Lance's DNA is also found on the screwdriver, but you also can't make the statement that Lance Twiggs touched the screwdriver. This could have just rolled in their house. I don't know. And that's it. That's how it got on there. And she impressed upon in her testimony the fact that the screwdriver, the DNA full stop, was degraded. So that's why I am of the opinion.

which I've expressed on the show this week that the screwdriver was just dropped there. It was never there to put the, that would be fresh DNA that's not going to be degraded. If you put together and you just crouch down like Blake Neff was trying to say and you put together this thing

and didn't need to zero it, you're going to have fresh DNA, not degraded DNA on that screwdriver. And then regarding the towel, I actually can't even follow what they're trying to say happen with the towel. Where was the towel? Where was the towel?

I think a lot of people assumed it was on the roof. Yeah, but they actually never said that. They never said that. And you pointed that out to me. They never said it was. Everybody assumed it was because when they showed the video of him jumping down or whoever jumping down, you see this object swing. Now they're telling us that's a gun. I don't know how a gun bends like that. So I always assumed, oh, that must have been the towel. You say they've never said that. Yeah. And because I just thought to myself, if you're planning out this assassination, why would you bring a towel to cover a gun? A towel is going to look objectively weird in a college campus.

Like, that's going to stand out. If I'm walking down a college campus and I've just got a towel, you're going to be like, did you just shower here? You have all of the ability to get a bag. You can get a, you could throw that gun into a large,

I don't know, tennis bag, a sports bag, you could get an actual shooting bag, you know, the nice shooting bags that you have. And none of that's going to stand out. If I see you in a college campus, you just have a bag of some description. But holding a towel is not the best way

to cover a 30-on-6. It looks weird. Yeah, you'd have to, I guess, roll it up in there, and now you're walking down with a rolled-up towel, Is there a beach around? What are we doing with the rolled up towel? Did you just come from the showers? So that didn't seem right to me. Then I realized they never said. They never said that. We just all in our

head assumed that the towel must have been on the roof. There's actually no evidence of that. We all put it in the roof in our mind. And I think it came from the swinging object in his hand when he jumped down. Yeah. But that could have been a backpack, could have been a jacket. It could have been anything. All we know is that when we do get the towel, he has it sitting on the gun. And I think That's why they constantly want us to start putting together a story that they're not actually saying. Maybe it's that backpack that was left behind. Maybe he then took it out because he was going to cover the gun and come back and try to retrieve it. And he was just going to cover it with the towel.

I don't know what the purpose of the towel is yet. It has not been made clear to me. I also thought maybe they were going to suggest that he tried to wipe away his DNA. Well, you don't wipe away your DNA with your DNA. That would be stupid. Yeah, if his DNA's all over the towel because he took a shower, you're not going to then take it to wipe it down. Yes, exactly. So that was really interesting about just her testimony in general. And again, regarding the towel, we again have a situation where both Lance Twigs and Tyler Robinson have some DNA on those items. So if you're going to make the statement that you think the evidence is overwhelming on the basis of DNA that we don't know how it got on there or if they ever touched it, you're now saying evenly you believe that it was Tyler Robinson and you believe that it could be Lance Twigs on the basis of those two items. Yeah.

You have the cash clip. Yeah, so knowing that Amanda Baker testifies and says that she never made the statement and she was asked to basically stop looking into and doing comparisons and she was under duress and it was rushed. Listen to how Cash Patel pretends this information. And I can report today that the DNA hits from the towel that was wrapped around the firearm and the DNA on the screwdriver are positively processed for the suspect in custody. Amanda Baker disputes that And she works for him

She works at Quantica I was listening to him But I was watching that guy Jump off the roof again There's no gun I'm sorry there's just no gun You can't find it Guns don't move that way

Yep So I just want to make sure That you guys just know that Cash Patel lied He literally lied Yeah And told her to stop testing Or someone from his office

told her to essentially stop testing And that was enough to At least for him to go to the press And say something That was not true What's that? What's that?

Oh yeah, we'll pause here and do an ad break before we get into day three of the preliminary hearing. All right, you guys, some conversations are not meant for an audience, an advertiser, or a technology company. They are meant for exactly two people. The messages that you send to your family, like personal thoughts, private photos, and vulnerable moments deserve more than a privacy setting that's buried inside a corporate platform. Sending messages and making calls using Keat is completely free. Files are end-to-end encrypted with no centralized company database that's holding the conversation. Keith does not collect your metadata and it doesn't ask for a phone number or email. That means the company running key is not positioned in the middle of your relationship

or building a profile around the way the two of you communicate. I even have my own private channel on Keat. It's where I'm going to start sharing behind the scenes moments, links to videos, show information, and much more. Straight from me to you with no algorithm and no corporate platform that's watching over our shoulders. So head to keet.io slash Candace Owens. That's K-E-E-E-T dot I-O-S slash Candice Owens. download it for free and invite the one person that you speak with the most. And while you're there, join my private group right now by clicking the link in the description. I also am very excited to tell

you guys about the Glacier app because I take my privacy very seriously and you should as well. Your phone obviously knows everything about you. It knows where you go, who you're talking to, and even what you shop for, between social media and the apps that we use every day. How much of your personal life are you actually keeping personal? Your privacy does matter, and that's why I use the Glacier app for privacy. Glacier's data blocking and secure DNS works to limit unwanted Data collection, it also blocks known trackers, ad networks, malicious sites, and helps to reduce a number of ads that you see. You just open the app, tap to connect, and you are done. Protecting your privacy should not be complicated, so take your privacy back.

You'll get 20% off your first three months of Glacier exclusively at the Glacier app.com slash Candace. Glacier does not track you through marketing funnels, so please do them a favor and let them know that you heard about them on this show. Again, that's the glacier app.com slash Candice. Privacy is not paranoia. It's just protection. Okay. So we then hear from the other half, the co-agent that was assigned to lead the case, Sergeant Brian Davis. And he kind of gets, he's kind of the guy that gets everything together for the probative cause here.

And he talks about this character, Mike Mitchell. I don't know how I feel about Mike Mitchell. I feel like Mike Mitchell is kind of a shady character who gave the police what they needed for the probable, you know, like the probable cause affidavit. And I don't know how I feel about him. This shady character in the background that is a family friend of the Robinson's. I think most of the information that they used was probably given to them by Mike Mitchell. We'll find out, obviously.

We don't need to read into that. But he does also talk about why they decided to give Lance use immunity. And I do not understand if Lance is telling the truth, you have a pre-recorded interview. Can't go wrong here. It's pre-recorded.

You have almost a year, nine, ten months here to go check his messages, see what's right, see what's accurate. Maybe I'm ignorant. You have a legal background. I don't. Why are they giving Lance use immunity for this pre-recorded testimony? I honestly don't know except if I have a client and he's going to testify and he lived with a guy and he touched a piece of evidence. I would probably say he's going to take the fifth unless you give me use of immunity. That's the only thing I can think.

So from the lawyer's side. From the lawyer's side. The lawyer's going to say, no, he touched the note. He's going to testify. He lived with him. A lot of the evidence was found in their shared room. You're giving him use immunity for anything he says. Okay.

I could see a lawyer doing that. I don't, I don't read a lot into the use of immunity. I know a lot of people do, but I, as a lawyer, don't. Okay. So you think it's just like, yeah, the lawyer argued for it, and that's what he did. Okay, they admit, he admits during the testimony that the text messages were not published in their entirety, just relevant portions for the state's probable cause. And I do want to talk about the tech messages because this became, this is the whole point of people

who believe they're like, but the text messages, but, the text messages. And as you had pointed out, this is going to be a major thing that they have to verify because their whole, it's all riding on these text messages. And if the text messages get bounced, the case is over, Tyler Robinson goes home. He doesn't get indicted. I mean, he doesn't get convicted of anything. I don't think. I don't think there's any way to convict him without the text messages. I don't think Lance's testimony the next morning is even enough. And people were acting like it's extraordinary for us to consider, and by this is just our common sense, that there was way too much information.

But this is a person that he's dating. This is his boyfriend. This is his roommate. Lance says he's home the whole day. He's home. Don't even prod that narrative. He was sleeping until 12 or 1 o'clock p.m. And then even when he found out that Charlie Kirk had been assassinated,

he wasn't that interested in the biggest assassination, just JFK. Is it possible that he logged into his boyfriend's Discord account? Is it possible since they play video games and they were on this whole, you know, a threads together that he logged in to his boyfriend's text messages on I message. Is it weird to anybody that when we see Lance's phone and he's giving his testimony that the phone is cracked

at the part where we can see the time? Ashley, do we have a photo of that? Wow, that's, how do you break your phone like that? There's a couple of things about this. One is that that dead cell that goes from the top to the bottom, then green? it crosses over and sometimes it doesn't cross over the text messages. And I find that weird. I've had one of those on my phone.

When I had it, it crossed over everything. I'm not a phone expert. I don't know what to make of that. Maybe there are phone experts out there can send you a tip and say, hey, yeah, no, that's not right. But I look at that green dead cell that goes from the top to the bottom. That doesn't look right to me. Yeah, I don't even know if that's supposed to be. What is it supposed to be?

So when your phone dies, you know, where the, whatever it was hit the clock area up there, the top, sometimes it will do enough damage that it'll kill that whole cell from top to bottom. So it can't produce any imagery. Well, if it can't produce any imagery, it should be, I think, a solid green line from the top all the way to the bottom. But there are some of the parts of the text message are actually over the top of that. And that looks wrong to me, but I'm not an expert and don't know. It's just something I noticed. And it's really interesting that, like, in the probable cause affidavit, like they mentioned the fact that they took photos of his phone.

And this is obviously the photos of his phone. the fact that right where we could see the time of that, which is where we could place Lance at the police station, that's where he's supposed to be, not able to be done. And that looks to me like he just stabbed, somebody just stabbed the corner. And when you go and watch his body language, he looks very uncomfortable when he's talking about these messages.

Even at one point, I think he says like the phone as opposed to my phone. I think I'm recalling that correctly. And they totally loosens up when he is telling the truth when they're like, well, how do you know Tyler? And then suddenly you suddenly know he's telling the truth. And he's like, oh, we played a video game, we met because of this, yada, yada, yada, all of his stuff. And I'm going, okay, there's a totally different demeanor here than when he starts speaking

about these tech messages and he's like, I don't know. And getting into Lance Twigs' pre-recorded interview, he also tells us rather explosively their entire narrative is that this is like an LGBT crime. The text messages also portray that that's the narrative. So he's telling, why did you do this? You know, some hate can't be negotiated. but then Lance gets up there and he says never really thought about it, never talked about it,

never came up. A couple of things on the text messages. One is there are a lot of people who suggest maybe the text messages arrived on Lances and Tyler's phone from some source originating outside of Tyler's phone. And a lot of people go, oh, well, maybe the government planted them. I don't think the government could have planted them. I think it's pretty complex. But I don't think it would have been hard.

If you read the search warrants, they pulled out all kinds of iOS devices. all kinds of Mac operating system devices, iPads, other iPhones, a computer tower that could have been logged in, a Raspberry Pi device that could have potentially generated these types of text messages. It's not out of the realm of possibility for me

to believe that someone might have logged into his account or just accessed an account that was already logged in and generated these text messages. They're so detailed, they're so out of the ordinary, that it doesn't strike me as weird. If you accept that they're real, that's fine, but I think you should want to know more. Like, let me look at the extraction. Let me look at the actual technical information.

And then I'll make a determination whether I think these text messages rise to the level of convicting Tyler Robinson. Because a lot of people are convicting Tyler Robinson in their minds based on these text messages, again, that have not been properly authenticated. That's right. That have not been properly technologically undergirded. We're just looking at pictures from a broken cell phone. Right. And people are like, yep, fry them. Yeah.

And like I said, the text messages are just, they're unbelievable. It's way too detailed. They said way too much. It's like you said, every single piece that they would need to convict them is in these messages. And that's just, it's too stupid for me to believe that any person would not just, especially if you're going to see them later that night. You can just drive home. Yeah.

Have a conversation face to face. You would expect them to say, can you meet? Can we do this? Whatever, whatever. I'll be home in four hours. I'm waiting. I'm waiting to retrieve my rifle. I'm doing this.

It just is. completely crazy to me. I do not accept the messages are are legitimate just on the basis of common sense. I am happy to be proven wrong. We have not yet been presented with anything. Obviously, it's a preliminary hearing, but I find it they're just a little bit too precise. He does open up about their relationship, how they got to know each other. They met in 2023. They became roommates. They began dating three months later in St. George. They have an apartment complex together. And like I said, you really see him start to like, loosen up when he starts talking about things that I believe he's being honest about.

I find it very strange that he says that he saw Tyler on the 11th on the morning when he woke up. And again, he tells us that Tyler gave him this confession. So he's got the confession letter, which we're never going to be able to test for DNA. Forget it. He finds a letter under his keyboard. It's from Tyler. He authored this letter and said, you know, text messages, look under your keyboard. And then, of course, there's this letter where he, once again, admits it.

everything that he did. But then the letter gets burned and tossed into the trash. We're never going to be able to test that letter. But not before someone takes a shot of it. I mean, it takes a picture of it. Lance. It is the strangest part of the Lance story is that you find this letter, you're horrified by this letter, and you text him and be like, all right, so when are you coming home? You know, what's next? When do I get your stuff out of here? Which I think a normal person, if someone confessed to killing someone, they would stop all community. Like, why are you going to sleep in the same house with him? Yeah. I would be at my mom's house, it's like your family lives around the corner.

Yeah. I would be totally somewhere else and being like, I am not getting caught up in this. This should be crazy. Instead, he says he sees him come in and comes in and he's all stressed out and he confesses to him and says that he regretted that he killed Tyler. Why is Lance still on the house at this point? Yeah, why is Lance still in the house and why is he taking a picture of the note? And then he testifies, I don't know what I did with the note after that.

I don't know if I ever saw it again. Yeah. Well, if you don't know if you saw it again, who burned the note? I think it's supposed to put the burden on Tyler Robinson for coming home. finding the note and birding it. They didn't say that. But the fact that he took a picture of it is, it's like Fonzie jumping the shark.

I mean, it's just at what point are we just saying, okay, this is ridiculous. This is too much. Yeah. And again, a confession, a confession. And so I'm very keen on when the defense is going to be able to question Lance about his sleeping spells, about how he knew that Tyler left around four or five o'clock that morning, why he was not interested at all in this, the big.

biggest assassination, a manhunt that's happening, and that even when he was told and knew fully that Tyler Robinson was involved, why he would be comfortable, staying in that house and staying in that environment? Something else on that, on his testimony. I'm very curious why his mother had her big birthday party at 9 a.m. or 8 a.m. or whatever on the 11th. It was a very weird. Who's birthday party? Maybe I'm getting it wrong.

But he was going over to his parents' house and he felt like he couldn't leave. You remember that? He was saying, I don't know if I can leave my parents' house. I need to make up a reason to leave my parents' house. Right. You're a grown man. You live somewhere else. I got to run an errand. I'll be back. Yeah.

Why are you so worried about where mom and dad think you're going? Yeah. I mean, it's a, it's a, the entire narrative around Lance Twiggs' testimony, particularly when he woke up the next morning. Did he wake up in his house? Did he wake up at his parents' house? When did he go to his parents' house? When did he see Tyler Robbs? It's very muddy, distinguishing between the text messages and his testimony, it's hard to reconcile both of them.

Right. They look very different to me on paper and in his, uh, his oral words. And I do want to say, having done conduct our own investigations, I had access to Twigs' family, and they are just amazed that the police basically only questioned him for a couple of hours and then let him go. And that seems crazy to me. Well, and the police didn't... That's crazy. The police didn't investigate him. He was the only one, I think, investigated, or questioned, excuse me, by the FBI. Right. Everybody else was

questioned by state police. He was questioned by the FBI. And I do feel he's a federal asset on the basis of what we've been told about his background. He, you know, flies into rages. This is all true. He had substance abuse issues. He's terminally on the internet. I always wonder whether or not he is a blackmailed federal asset. And sometimes he thinks he's a dog. Yeah, he's got, he's the one that fits a profile of someone that's going to do something crazy. And I do think that it's plausible that he is, was turned into a federal asset because he got into some trouble. Obviously, we can't assert that definitively. But I do want to say that I find him to be the most suspicious person, their lack of interest in investigating and just taking his word at face value and letting him go after a couple of hours.

It makes no sense. And then they put up all six pictures of Tyler of Tyler Robinson on campus. He's like, yeah, I don't really reckon. I can't defend it. And then he's like, oh, I guess in those last two I can definitively state it. Well, you just saw all six of them. You couldn't definitively state it 20 seconds ago when you saw these same pictures. What changed?

Right. And we're not in a courtroom. We're in a Zoom call across the, across the desk from each other. How do we know somebody behind you didn't go, oh? Right, exactly. Yeah. So it's going to be really interesting when they finally allow that cross-examination of Lance Twigs. I think a lot is going to come out, and I think it's going to be very problematic for the feds.

Then we had Sergeant Jennifer Faulmina from the SBI, and she testified, and I do want to just point out some things that she testified about. First and foremost, she makes it clear that Tyler Robinson was excluded as the person who the fingerprints belonged to. So they had told us that they found fingerprints where he climbed down on the window. They had gathered these fingerprints. And Lisa Farmer had gathered them. They had tested them. And then they said these fingerprints do not belong to Tyler Robinson. So that was something that he was removed from.

She also testified that when they found the gun, they found that there was one fired round and three unfired rounds with engravings that were still on them. she's the one that testifies about the note that was found burned. So I guess it wasn't a note. I mean, how hard is it to burn a piece of paper, right? In the trash can located in the kitchen inside of their house. That they collected that and sent it to the FBI. So I guess Tyler was too dumb to fully burn it.

I don't know who allegedly burned the note. That is not clear. But she does speak a little bit about the burned note, which we just mentioned. And I found her to be. unconvincing. The biggest part of her testimony that I want to talk about that was that backpack that she found.

This is crazy. Let me back up to the bullet for a second. I just thought of something for the first time since you've said it. If you're hunting, if you're doing anything, and you take a single shot and you have three more in the chamber

or in the magazine, you have three more ready to go. And you take a single shot. You can't, I mean, a lot of times you don't stay on the target with your scope. It moves, particularly 30 out six. It's going to move.

And so you are naturally probably out of habit if you shoot often, but you're going to open the action and cycle the next round through unless you only intend to take one shot. Right. But if you only intend to take one shot, why do you have three more rounds?

Yeah, that's really interesting. Because they said they found it, I don't know why this has never clicked with me, but they said they found it with three unspent rounds and then the spent casing in the chamber. Why didn't he open the action and cycle another round if he took multiple rounds with him? I always say it's that Chick-fil-A confidence,

He had he just was flying high that day. He was like one shot got it. Don't even need the scope zero jumping off of a building. Nobody knows. It's the waffle fries and those fancy ketchup packs. Yeah, that's I think, yeah, he was just feeling extra on it that day. Again, I do not even believe that a shot was fired from that rooftop. And I think that it was all meant to be a distraction. And they just had a guy run and jump off of that rooftop who had nothing to do with what happened. And Charlie was killed a different way. But we'll get to that later. I do want to say that it was massive to me. that they found unattended items, an unattended backpack, just outside of the Fulton Library, there's a bus stop. And there's a backpack, it's got a jacket, it's got gloves, and they take it to the lab. It's an abandoned backpack that was found on the route that the alleged shooter took, the alleged shooter took after he jumped off of the building. And then she testifies that they just stopped testing it because they got a phone call that the backpack belonged to someone on Charlie's detail.

Yeah. That is insane. Seems like it's a better reason to go test it. That is insane. First off, who on Charlie's detail was up by the Fulton Library bus stop abandoning a backpack and why? Yeah. Who is it?

And when? And when? And why? And when you say detail, that makes it, is it security? Yeah, because four of them left in the car. We have most of the rest of them still on camera. Christopher, I think it was Christopher was on the roof, I believe, and came back down. Who?

Who did it and when? And why can't we get an answer to that question instead of, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, we're good. That's crazy to me. Something collected as evidence belongs to them. Yeah, I mean, I think she said it had a mask in there. I'm like, okay, how did you just let this go? Yeah. Why would someone on Charlie's detail?

And where's it now? Which means someone that showed up with Charlie. This means this is not like they would have said, oh, it was like a UVU student. Okay, maybe that could make sense. Somebody on Charlie's detail, abandoned a backpack at the Fulton Library bus stop. Why, when, and how was this returned? And where is it now?

You didn't know who the killer was. Why would you just go, I rule out everybody? It can be a conspiracy. Right. And that gets to the heart of it. Every time they stop, it's because they're convinced, they've so zeroed in on one person. And even if it's not like they're all in on it,

sometimes this happens. You just get biased. And you bias. you say, well, we know we've got the guy. So we're going to, oh, this might go down another trail. We don't need to go down another trail because we've already got the guy. So it might just be sloppy police work because of an implied bias or an implicit bias. But regardless, it is a something that shocked me when they talked about it at the hearing.

Why did the person have gloves? In September when it was 91 out. That right away stands out. Yeah. Why did the security detail have gloves? Okay, I mean, that's right. They didn't say security. They said someone on Charlie's detail.

I thought security, because they're the only people that I could justify for having gloves maybe for some reason. I'm not going to go with a TPP USA employee having gloves. Yeah. This is a very problematic thing. It is. And again, something that Turning Point USA in your old capacity could get ahead of and not look shady and say, oh, yeah, it was so-and-so. It was, you know, Blake's backpack. Blake gets lost.

Yeah, spells of amnesia. Or somebody on the detail. And when everybody ran, they ran that way. And somebody, they stopped at the bus stop. They were going to get on the bus stop. They recognized somebody that came by. They jumped in and they forgot their bag. And this has been one of the biggest problems with Turning Point USA is that even when they could provide clarity for things and not be shady, they always opts not to.

And they kind of hide behind this idea, well, there's a trial going on. Okay, if anything that you tell the public somehow gets in the way of Tyler Robinson being convicted, then we can't convict Tyler Robinson on the basis of unreasonable doubt. Yeah, we can't meet the thing. Yes. Exactly. So the more information is better. nothing can mess up the trial. And so especially if you're just saying it was a backpack that was abandoned, you'd just say,

this person suddenly decided to run all the way up and for some obscure reason said, and now I've got to offload my backpack. Like that, something's very not right with that. So pay attention to that. Okay. The most significant testimony that nobody could really get throughout the time because it got so scientific, but then when I rewatched it a couple of times, I was absolutely blown away by what the defense walked Samantha Carner into.

So Samantha Carner is the person who was tasked. She's a firearm and toolmark examiner. And she's really snotty and she's really proud of herself and her whole. She's very arrogant. Like she's kind of like, I'm Samantha Carner. So she is the person that is responsible for connecting the, quote, unquote, bullet fragments. I would almost call it a metal fragment at this point from Charlie's body to the gun. So this is the big thing.

Tada, we can connect the gun to the fragment that was found inside of Charlie's body. And why am I saying fragment and not fragments? because first of foremost, we learn, and we don't get an answer for this. It's another one of these threads that we need to keep pulling on. There were, she learned a total of seven fragments that were removed from Charlie's body, and yet they only sent her four, okay? Kind of like why? They sent her four in a small manila envelope.

Three of them, she couldn't even use because they were too small. So she's basically going to try to connect the gun to Charlie's body using one bullet jacket fragment, which she has, it's 6A. They keep talking about 6A, and this is the only one that's going to be usable. So what is her job? Her job is that she looks for subclass characteristics on guns and subclass characteristics are effectively like a birthmark,

something that could be like uniquely developed during the manufacturing process. And somehow what that means is like over time, if you have like, I don't know, let's think of it this way, like a groove inside of your gun and you fire it. every time your gun fires, it's going to have this little mark on it, okay? So they're kind of walking through that. If you're not familiar with guns, you're like, okay, I've got to learn about subclass characteristics, like what's happening next. So looking for it effectively, the easiest way to think about is it's a birthmark.

It's a birth mark, and she should be able to find this birth mark on the basis of her skill set and her science of being able to connect guns to bullets that have been fired, okay? then we learned that actually she's not that qualified to do this, okay? We learned that Samantha Karner has only ever taken one bullet proficiency test in her life, and that was in 2003. And it was a year where everyone kind of failed the test. And he questions her about this.

He's like, so you've only taken one bullet proficiency test? She's like, yeah. And he's like, and that was a pretty traumatic year, right? Because everybody kind of failed. And the test is just one question. They give them a bullet and they give them a gun. and they're supposed to observe these striations, like the little marks on the bullet, and they're supposed to tell them if it's a match.

And Samantha's like all pompous up there, and she's like, I actually didn't fail because I said, I don't know. She's like, I was like one of the few people that didn't fail. And he's like, but you didn't pass, did you? Do we have that clip? Let's run it. It's actually exceptional. In the years that you've been doing this testing,

Is it true that you've only taken one proficiency test that involves bullet comparisons? Yes, I've only had the opportunity to take one bullet proficiency test so far. And is it true that that was in 2023? I don't remember the exact year, but that sounds correct, yes. Right. And is it true that that proficiency tests, involved a test where you had question bullets and then you had two sets of bullets, one that was fired from one gun, not the suspect gun, and then a second gun that was fired from another gun. I don't remember the exact final ground truth answers that were there. No, I'm sorry, I don't remember.

I think when you and I talked about this, you said you're aware of a controversy about that particular test, correct? I was aware, yes, of the results of the proficiency test, yes. That there was a very high error rate in that particular proficiency test, right? There was a higher error rate, yes. However, my answers were satisfactory, along with the five other examiners at my specific laboratory that took it as well. Your conclusion in that case was, as in this case, that it was inconclusive, correct? Correct. Even though the correct answer was that the bullets did not come from the question. The two did not match.

The known in the question should have been an elimination. The ground truth answer was yes, they were excluded. However, an inconclusive result in this comparison was extremely appropriate. The lack of quality and quantity of those individual characteristics never reached sufficient agreement, nor did it ever reach sufficient disagreement. So saying anything but inconclusive was not appropriate. She got, she's just wrong. Like if the answer was, these don't match and she put inconclusive and it's relevant and he goes through, it's a lot of pain to watch him go through this and I was like having to pay attention. I'm like, why is he harping on this? It's relevant

because it's the exact same thing. She's the Samantha Carter that then broke the news and they say, oh, it's inconclusive, but like it could be or it's not. And so he's like, wait a second, but you only took one bullet for proficiency test. And you did that. You just said basically IDK. And the answer was no. Right. Okay, the answer was no, this is not a match.

Then he makes her do a test live. Okay. This is a very long testimony, guys, I'm telling you, you can watch it at 1.5 and you have to get through it. And he's going to have to work on this. This lawyer is going to have to work on how to quickly arrive at his conclusions and to be quicker at combating what she's saying. His presentation is not good, but the information is fantastic. So then he goes, let's do it live.

He's like, I'm going to show you some bullet striations, and you're telling me you're an expert. You can look on one column and tell me if you think that this is a birthmark for the match for this gun. And she does it. She does this live, and you just got to watch the end of this. She's so pompous. It's amazing.

It is so painful. Check this out. Does this comparison show individual characteristics indicating that it was fired from the same weapon? There are individual characteristics present, but without examining it in person, I don't feel comfortable making a conclusion. Okay. How about the next page? How about that one? Again, I see individual characteristics. On a very first glance, I can see maybe one striation that is an agreement, but without seeing it physically in person and having an action. representation of the entirety. I can't conclude in any answer. And the last one, the third photo, page 28.

28, page 28. Inhibit 19, page 28. Same question. I do see individual characteristics. I do see some areas of agreement without looking at it further. I wouldn't make a conclusion. It's a holistic approach when you're examining items. Would it surprise you if I told you? that all three of those were fired from different weapons? Again, I don't know any context to these photos other than what you showed, so I don't feel comfortable saying one way or another. Her answer to everything is, I don't know. I don't know.

Her answer is just, I don't know. And this is the woman that she is the person. He made her do it live. And they do show pictures at different points. And by my eyes, I would have been like, yeah, it looks like a match. Looks like a match. Looks like a birthmark match. I don't know.

And the time he gets through it, it's a totally made up science. that's based on your eyes. And she does say that, that it was, it's her opinion. But her opinion always just happens to be wrong. And every time the answer is no, which is what she demonstrates, whether it's in her test for characteristics, subclass characteristics, her exam, or whether it's in the real life example that he makes her do three times. Each time the answer is no, she votes inconclusive. And guess what she voted for the Charlie Kirk one? Inconclusive. Inconclusive. It's this way with DNA. It's this way with fingerprint analysis. And it's this way with this bullet classifications. They're all just dependent on someone eyeballing it. And we get the idea that,

oh, it came back from the FBI. We got a test result. No, you don't. You have some guy that was, who may have had a bad night's sleep, who might have been fighting with his wife, who might be unqualified, I don't know. And looks at it and goes, yeah, okay, that's close enough. Next. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I really think before they bring these people in, fingerprint DNA and these bullet analysis people, they should make them wear like a big purple suit with stars all over it, a conical hat, and have a wizard wand. Yeah. And as they make their pronouncements,

they should have to do that because that's the value of this eyeball testimony to me. You should not be putting people in prison like this. It's clown show. It's a clown show. This testimony is a very big deal. And that's why I said he's going to have to get that and get to the points a lot quicker because it takes a very long time to go through testimony. And we pull it out and made it easy for you.

This one has no idea what she's talking about. Yeah. She literally has no idea what she's talking about. And this was the basis of trying to connect Charlie's bullet to his body, which she determined as inoclusive. but based on her history, I'd say that's a no. Because every time she's inclusive, the real answer is no, as he demonstrates very quickly.

She also testifies, which is crucial, that they observed debris and dust in the barrel, and she doesn't know why there was debris and dust in the barrel. My husband was like, that's just crazy. You're telling me a recently fired weapon had a bunch of debris and dust in the barrel barrel, so that's going to be another hump that they're going to have to get over.

And, yeah, so she is just wholly unqualified, one bullet proficiency test, you've never passed it. You never passed it. I didn't get it wrong. I said, I don't know. I said, maybe, maybe not. So I absolutely loved that testimony.

And I do want to also show you Caitlin Oliver the next day is, this is trial day five. She was the ATF forensic biologist. And she's testifying just regarding the prints that are on the gun. This is the crucial clip. She just basically tells us that the media flat out lied when they said that Tyler Robinson's DNA was found on the gun. We're going to run that for you. because everyone's lying about it. And it's right here in the preliminary hearing.

Take a listen. From a scientific standpoint, you couldn't read the paragraph that sets out the likelihood ratio in your report, whatever the number, and then blast a headline in the media, Mr. Robinson's DNA is found on this item.

That's a source attribution, is it not? Correct, yes. And that would not be scientifically defensible, would it? Correct. So as a scientifically indefensible statement to say that Tyler Robinson's DNA was found on the gun. You can find that in the trial day five, go through it, watch it, and she's like, yeah, I don't really know why the media said that.

And then she also notes crucially that the DNA that was found on the gun, going back to why it's important to understand the science of degradation, was extremely the most degraded prints that were found on the gun were Tyler Robinson's. They can't get over that scientific hump. There's no reason why Tyler Robinson would have, if he carried this gun and he had it, And then he put it together like Blake Neff said, and he's not, that he would have degraded prints on, the most degraded prints on the gun,

meaning that Matt Robinson's prints were stronger on the gun. They said they found four or five sets of prints on the gun. They didn't name all the people, but they did name Matt Robinson. How are you explaining that? We've got a real problem on our hands. And so you have DNA issues, you have bullet striation issues, you've got fingerprint issues, all three of those in a, in a trial, the defense is going to jump up and down during the closing and say,

you want reasonable doubt, go ahead and drive a truck through this. This is the definition of reasonable doubt right here, what we've seen this week, which explains why they rolled out the influencer campaign on day five. Yeah, because that was crucial for her to basically, because they were all going in there, like, the evidence is overwhelming, DNA, no. Like, she literally testified the opposite and said, I don't know how it got there. And it's, his in particular are very degraded. And as I said, degraded could mean that he touched it 20 years ago.

20 years ago, and he didn't even touch it, by the way. And that's why it's going to get down to the chemistry. And I think one of the flaws of Tyler Robinson's defense attorneys, I think that that guy's actually the strongest lawyer in terms of what he knows. He is the worst lawyer in terms of communication, his communication skill set. So it's like the super science math people who can't communicate it quickly and tell you what they're getting at. He's going to have to work on that because they can just say, get to the point or we're not going to use it. You don't have all day to be able to lay out everything. And so they're going to have to work on that.

But the science is not on the side. Well, the time you got through this testimony, took notes, looked up what bullet striations were, refreshed your memory on chemistry. You realize they do not have, the science is simply not on the prosecution's side. It's not. And the influencers can come out and say,

it's overwhelming. There's DNA. There's fingerprints. The bullet match. No, no, and no. Not beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, yeah, because some guys, guy who's in a lab holds something up, you know, in front of his face, says, yeah, they

kind of look alike, but not even in this case. They're not even say, yeah, they kind of look alike. They're testifying, no, I was stopped in the middle and told to stop going. Right. No, I don't know whether it matches or not. I failed my test, the only test I've ever taken, or I didn't pass my test, the only test I've ever taken. And then the lady talking about the fingerprints being degraded and you're going to have, you can't win a case in trial with with influencers. I don't want to name them, but four or five influencers walking out and saying, oh, it's overwhelming. Juries aren't swayed by influencers saying it's overwhelming. I think it's the opposite in this case. I think it's one of the strangest things in the entire world that they thought

to bring influencers to court like that. And I also want to say that that's traditionally something that conservatives mock when you think about BLM, when they have like Ben Crump, like doing the most outside of a hearing and you go, at least he's a lawyer. I mean, but the point is it's like when people start influencing in a courthouse, why did you feel the need to be? to invite influencers. And they say, oh, it's because, you know, what's the logic of that? Why would they all come out there and say, Erica in particular asks me to be here? Are we supposed to believe that Charlie was best friends with, you know, Benny Johnson? I know you just said you're working on names or whatever. What's the purpose of this? It feels like it's a psychological operation. And they're

going to have to answer that. It's part of the reason why there has been so much distrust with Turning Point USA because they're not behaving like they had. nothing to hide. No, and I'm telling you, you watched that preliminary hearing. If it wasn't Charlie Kirk and you hadn't been subjected to this year-long psychological operation, influence operation, this juke and jive operation that's been going on for a year, if you just watched it, if it was Bill Smith that had died and, you know, Roger Davidson that was allegedly shot him, and you watched this preliminary hearing, most people would walk out and say, man, the prosecution's case is not very solid. It looks really weak to me. But because we

been told for a solid year every time. And it's propaganda. You repeated enough. People start to believe it. What would you say, and I want to now start talking about Turning Point USA, they've made a ton of mistakes. And they continue to make a ton of mistakes every single day. I mean, we could have even spoken about this morning, this like weird, like, lie that they dropped and now they deleted from the internet. I don't want to put it on Turning Point USA, but one of their newer influencers claiming that, like, Erica offered for me to see the, um, um, um, I'm, the autopsy report. The autopsy report. I was going to say the death shift. Or the photo. I don't even know if it was the reporter of the photos. I think you just said the autopsy report. And now they've deleted from the internet. Like, what, what do you think? Well, can we state on the record? Did, were you offered the autopsy to review? The craziest law. I mean, I knew it was going to be deleted fast. I was like, this is like just weird. Like, were you offered the finance? It'd be weird if she had it. It'd be weird if she, you know what? She had said something about the guy who made the videos regarding the finances. She was talking about how wolf in finance, wolves in finance had made all these videos.

and was talking about the filings and stuff. And I said to her, even if you gave me all of the account, that's not my focus in this investigation. I was like, because I'm not a math accounting person. And there's nothing I can do. So we talked about the finances and how that was a problem. And I said, genuinely, I'm not the right person for this. And it's not where I can add my expertise.

And I've maintained that throughout this entire process. I'm the person I broke the story that Charlie wanted this doge. And he suspected that money was missing out of turning point action in particular. But I'm not the person that's going up on their filings and talking about who's giving money. So we did discuss the finances. But did she say, I have them with me. Would you like to look at them? I don't think she did. No, because what would she give me? That spreadsheet. I don't know. That's what I'm saying. It's like, what could she give me? And maybe she offered, like, I could get you something or whatever. And I was like, genuinely,

it's just not my skill set. Like, I'm not the person that you're going to hand a finance and accounting spreadsheet to. I'm better at putting together a timeline. I want to answer questions about why people are acting weird. I want to know what's going on with the surgeon. That's what I came here to do. I don't want to get to segue it on something that I'm not contributing or asking a question about. The Office of Report we didn't even discuss. Like, that was never even a topic of discussion. So I thought it was so weird that he comes out and he says this and now it's since been deleted. Why would you do that?

Like, actually, why would you do that? I can only think of one of, I do everything in a decision tree. If you watch my show, you see me do this a lot. But I can really only think of two reasons. Option A, Erica said that to him. And in a bizarre moment of untruthfulness, maybe rare and bizarre and bizarre for Erica, I'm not. not sure. She offhandedly said that, that she had offered to let you see the autopsy and you declined, and this influencer went, or influencer, this guy went and reported that. And then she calls and says,

what are you doing? I told you that off the record. You shouldn't have put that out. Oh, okay, well, I'll delete it. In which case, she lied to him is what you're telling me. She, in your opinion, she lied to him off the record and then asked him to delete it. The other alternative is even more bizarre that she did not say it at all. And he went and said that. And then someone called him was like, she didn't say that. Why are you reporting that? Take it down. It's weird. It's totally weird. It like didn't even kind of happen. That's why I was like, this is wacky. Like, I mean, I can, just totally wacky. I always try to come up with them. First off, I would never not look at that. I'm like the noziest person in the world. That I can comprehend. I was kind of irritated

you didn't when I saw that initially. I was like, what are you talking about? She turned down the opportunity to look at it. Does everybody know who I am? Like, I'm like, look, if you're going to invite me to read text messages doing like that, I'm 100% going to read. What she did offer me was a transcript of, and this was weird because I had never thought anything of it at that time. And that's what actually made me question Charlie handing over the company to her because she offered me sort of in a way like an excuse for something that I wasn't questioning on my show. And I said that to her. She was like, you know, we have a transcript of Charlie saying that he wanted me to take over the company. And she's the one who told me because remember the public at that point thought that that happened in the Hamptons or something like that.

And it was she was one to me it was the Aspen event. And I said to her, I was like, I've never covered that on my show. I've never talked about that. I just assumed it was like a board decision because that's the way it was handed down. This is what Charlie would have wanted, whatever. But the fact that she had the transcript actually made me suspicious about it. So then I was like, where did this? Yeah.

She made me suspicious of it because I was like, I'm not talking about this on my show. This is not an area that I'm looking into. And she offered me a transcript of an alleged video of Charlie saying that he wanted her to take over from Aspen. And I was like, I mean, I don't know what to do with the, you're typing up a script. Like, you want to show me the video? That'd be great. But, like, it's a word document. It's just a word document typed up.

So she did have that on hands. And I thought that was very strange. But, yeah, there were no conversations about the autopsy report at all. Because why would there need to be? There wasn't anything. And I would have definitely looked. I think there was a question of the time whether an autopsy had been performed. And I actually was one who came out and said there was.

Yeah. I knew that there was an autopsy performed. I knew that for a fact. And I came out and said that. So I wasn't on, I wasn't on the, the train, so to speak, that there wasn't an autopsisand. I said several times in my show, guys, they're definitively, I know it's very quick, but they're definitively, I can report was an autops done. So you can go back and watch that. So that's why I found that to be a bizarre

angle that this kid took. I don't know who to blame for that. But what do you think beyond even yesterday, because it keeps happening? I mean, I've never seen so many PR blunders in my life. They have ruined the Turning Point USA organization. They're now having to deal with some interesting critters, so to speak. I call it, you know, legitimate critters that you don't expect. Like, Charlie had such a very clean brand. And now it's getting like, ooh. Yeah, they're pulling really nasty characters out of the woods to go. And I think that's an indication that good people, the types of good people that Charlie tended to surround himself with are not willing to cooperate. Right. They're running out of options from the good people.

And now they're like digging through the gutter trash and saying, well, will you help us? You know, can you come talk to us in character? water for us? Can we leak stuff out through you? Yeah. I find a very unusual, you know, if I offered for $25 million to go turn TPSA around, and I'm still willing to do that, by the way. It's easy. It's easy. It's a three-step process. I'll give it to you for free right here. Save you $25 million. Start being radically transparent. Be honest at every step of the way, to the point where you embarrass yourself with transparency. Number two, you issue things only through official channels. You don't issue things through gutter trash.

You don't issue things through failed podcasters. You don't issue things through podcasters no one's ever heard of trying to make, build their credit and their name on your back. Just issue things through Andrew Colvette, your spokesperson, through Erica Kirk, your CEO, or through something with TPSA letterhead. And number three, you do it without attacking. You do it without attacking. And if you can do those three things, I do think it's possible that TPSA can ride through some of these issues. You won't have Druski coming out. you won't have a Saturday night live

making fun of the guy's haircut saying it's a TPSA representative haircut. I think you will begin to reform and rehab your image. It's not going to be immediate, it's not going to be overnight. But if you did that for me, as hard as I've been on TPSA, if they came out and were radically transparent,

they started issuing things only through official channels and they stopped attacking people. Even someone like me, I'm going to go, maybe I've got these people wrong. Maybe I've seen this all wrong. Maybe I've, Maybe I need to rethink my analysis on all this.

But the way they're going, I'm more convinced than I've ever been that I'm on to something. That's exactly right. And I think the thing that stands out to me the most is that the lack of humility from the organization, even when they're caught, like red-handed, completely wrong, you've gaslit the whole public about something. They never say sorry. And that's like signs of abuse. And I think of so many moments where they could have exercised public humility or just been a leader in terms. general, even if they genuinely got it wrong by accident, like if Erica really had no idea that Charlie had threats tonight before and she gets on to Glenn Beck and she's like, I have his phone

and it didn't happen. And then when she realizes that she's wrong, if this genuinely was a mistake and she said and she admitted to my face, okay, yes, Dan and Flot, whatever, you publicly go out and you correct the record. And that demonstrates that, okay, you're not a bad person. You just really didn't know and there was a lot going on. I would be like, hey, guys. I do it on my show the whole time, the whole time, where I'm like, we reported this yesterday. I spoke to someone, this is actually incorrect. Like, why aren't they doing that? They seem to get angry whenever they get caught in a lie.

And then they want to go abuse, like me. Yeah. Like they were like, go beat Candace because then this wouldn't have been a problem. Like, you should have said so much throughout this process that you guys have been wrong with. And your refusal to do it makes everyone feel like it's because you're trying to hide something. Well, and the other thing, too, is when someone points out that they didn't do their best. They didn't have a good performance. She wore a gold Elvis sparkly suit and came out to fireworks. Not your finest hour. I mean, being honest, not your finest hour. On demand, you guys

are good. Boy, this is going to be a fun few months. You guys are great. But when you wear the gold sparkly Elvis suit and people, people, don't come out and be like, oh, I have to shame those people. It's the only thing that fit. Just say, hey, a bad judgment call, you're right. You have a bad interview. You look, you look, you look, whatever. Just come out and say, you know what? It wasn't my finest hour. I screwed up with Barry Weiss. I screwed up with so-and-so. I apologize. You know, I am still in a, you know, new to this. I'm new to this. I've only been doing it a year now. A little grace. Think about how crazy that would have been if she said that. Yes. Like I'm really sorry. This was really dumb. I'm listening to too many people. They told me to wear this because I

should be like to celebrate, like whatever. That would have gone so far. It's the constant gaslighting that comes out from this organization. And when someone points out, hey, that wasn't your finest hour. Don't attack that person. No. Because I promise you, they're not the only person that thought that. Right. And when you attack them, all the other people that thought that think, okay, so not only was it not her finest hour, she's nasty. And that's the thing that's coming across now.

It's like they are so desperate to so insane. I mean, the narratives that they're trying to sow against people who are legitimately trying to get to the truth about something that they should be on our side about. Yes. Right? Yes. And instead, they're out there. And Blake is saying that I'm jealous of her. because she's white. Like, you are lost. You guys are

a lot. You are running out of ideas. Like, you're literally, what do you, my children are half white. Like, what are you even saying? Could you pull, my husband is a white blonde. What are we talking about? Could you pull Blake back up for a second? I want to look at something. It's just, it's crazy that they're. What a specimen. And so, and Erica can't detach herself from that because she's the CEO of the company, right? So he's on a podcast, and it is called the Charlie Kirk Show. You are not just, the widow. You are the CEO. You are the chairman. And when he makes these sort of ridiculous

accusations, when you now have them trying to like tweet pornographic rumors about me now. I mean, like, truly disgusting stuff while you're simultaneously not answering for why they're platforming sexual deviance, Matt Turdeo, how crazy was that? When that story broke, did you see that? I mean, like, he literally, it's like old school rape story, chased a girl down an alley. Dragging someone down the road. And the ice cameras caught it. And your partner, with these sorts of people and we can go and we can look at the, you know, the background story of Andrew Wilson and Rachel Wilson and how they speak to women while you're simultaneously pretending to be this faithful heaven-focused, you know, never know anything wrong. I don't even

think about it. I don't even think about politics because I'm so heaven-focused. You are registering to the public as a fraud, also kind of as clinically insane. Like that, like you go, something's not right here. Why do you keep pretending that you're godly? We can see what you're doing. doing. And the other thing, too, when they have an issue with something you said, they don't just come and say, hey, she said this. Here's really what happened. It's she's evil.

She's awful. She's biased. She's terrible. Anyone who watches her, you know, we're done with her. What? I mean, this is not a Christian response. This is not a godly organization any longer. This is not the way you behave in polite society.

If you have an issue with something, if you think someone didn't have their finest moment, maybe they think you didn't have your finest moment. Well, just point it out. Right. Just say, hey, Candace was off yesterday. Here's what she said. Instead, they come out and they say these ludicrous things totally mischaracterized. You'll do an hour, hour and a half show. They'll mischaracterize the whole thing. Blake will or somebody else will. And then all their minions will jump on it and be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They didn't watch. They're just, they're just lying. And it's not the organization Charlie left. Why are people still talking about this 13, 14 months later? The man led an organization and millions of people deeply cared for the man. They deeply respected them or they deeply cared for him or they even deeply loved him a lot of them and you can't just treat those people this way you cannot just treat those people this way who have spent so much time even the day you know he

goes and does an event people will travel hours to go see him they'll spend gas money that that you know gas is expensive right now they'll spend gas money they'll go get a hotel they're eating food along the way it cost them money it cost them time they take a day off of work why are they doing this because they love his message they love him as a presenter they love the organization he built treat them with respect when they ask who killed him. Yeah. Treat him with respect. Mm-hmm.

Yeah. What do you think was there, and there's been a lot, but what do you think was their biggest PR blender? Oh, gosh. I know. It's actually a hard question. I don't know that you can get it to the biggest. Think about that. We're actually going to, we'll cut to ads and then think about what you think was their biggest PR blender.

We'll be right back. All right, you guys, I have to tell you about TPR Talk because I personally use them and I absolutely love them. You already know that. Right now, they're bringing back their best promotion in company history, which was unlimited data for life. That's unlimited talk, text and data plus a 30 gig hotspot for just 29, 95 a month forever. I mean, this deal was locked in the vault since last year when it was available only for a few weeks. Now for a very limited time, it is back. This is their top tier unlimited plan that was $65 a month and now you can save over 50% every single month for the rest of

your life. Plus you get it on Pure Talk's crazy fast nationwide 5G network. So to make the switch today, head to PeartTalk.com slash Owens and you'll get Peer Talk's best. unlimited plan for just $29.95 a month for life. But hurry because this offer is extremely short-lived and it may never come back. That's puretalk.com slash owens and switch to my wireless company today. I also want to remind you guys about American financing because every time you go to the grocery store to buy the same items that you always buy, it's somehow costing more. And putting daily essentials on a credit card can feel unavoidable right now, but those double-digit interest rates are not helping you. It's adding up fast. Do not sacrifice your low mortgage rate to fix it. American

Financing offers a smarter way out. Their smart equity loan lets you eliminate high interest debt and lower your monthly overhead without touching your low primary mortgage rate. You get the stability of a fixed rate loan with payments that you can actually budget for. There's no fluctuating helock rates, just one predictable fixed monthly payment. So take control of your cash flow today and speak with a salary-based mortgage consultant that's dedicated to saving you money with zero upfront fees to find out what you could be saving. With thousands of five-star reviews, American financing has spent decades helping families protect their financial future. So call 800-795-1210 or visit Americanfinancing.net slash owens.

Okay, so we've changed our mind. Now you're asking me a question. I am. I'm changing my mind because you can't pick a single PR one. There's too many. I mean, it's like which is your favorite drop of water in the ocean? I mean, it's impossible. So I would ask the question this way, and I'd put it on you,

if you woke up tomorrow and you're Erica Kirk, and you know you have to fix this, You need to take specific concrete steps in the next 30, 60, 90 days. What specific steps do you take to fix the PR problem that TPSA clearly has? They can act like they don't. They do. It is bad. You do not spend the money they're spending to support this woman, to promote this woman,

to support the organization, to promote the organization. If you don't recognize you have a real problem. But what specific steps would you take? If I'm running that organization, the first thing I'm doing is I'm shutting down the Charlie Kirk Show. I'm going on the on the Charlie Kirk show, and I'm doing that because you have to stop the bleeding. And Blake Neff and Andrew Colbert are the, it's the bleeding, right? That's that you got to pack 36 feet of 36 foot of gauze into that wound, into that wound, right?

Okay, that's right away. I'm getting rid of the show and they have to stop talking and you have to delete Blake's Twitter and his affiliation because he's, he's very bad for the company. Do you keep Blake on in any capacity? No, you get rid of Blake. No, Andrew's a terrible, like, it's his, his, Andrew's worst, his, his, his worst, His biggest weakness is public relations, and yet he's the spokesperson for turning for him. Yeah, he wanted to be a screenwriter. How did he end up in PR? Those are very different disciplines. I just think that he sort of has always been connected. And he, you know, you get these kids that are like, I want to be this. And they just go, okay, you can be that, but he's not actually good at that. And with Andrew, it's, he's trying on different PR strategies. So first he sort of tried to play it nice. And then we met the real Andrew Colvette. And it was like such a radical, you know, like, oh, God, that's who you actually are.

And it was like, you know, now he's being, I don't know if Andrew Wilson took over his Twitter feed for a week, but he was getting like down in the dirt and being all crazy. And you can't have the, you can't restore those sorts of images. Like it's like, this is just not worth. You just get rid of them, you know. And by the way, if you want to say, okay, he went through a tough time and that's why he did that, maybe you keep Andrew Colbert in a back office job, but you get rid of Blake Neff. You keep it, you get Andrew out of public facing no matter what. Yes. You get him out of public facing and you get him off of the show. And because really he has. has proven, like, in the beginning that he could, I guess, kind of be likable. Blake Neff has kind of been unlikable from the very beginning, and he's serving you no purpose.

He seems, even in little things, like, when he, like, turns on Tucker Carlson, who helps him get the job. Like, he feels like the Judas at the table. Like, you just go, something's not right about Blake Neff, and he's getting pettier and petter and you just got to get rid of Blake Neff. I would say that. That would be the first thing I would do. The show itself is a wound. And people are tired of you running it with Charlie Kirk's name on it. That feels dishonest.

It feels wrong. And you stop tweeting from Charlie's accounts. The second thing she does is she does a long-form five-hour interview and she goes into some fire. Who's the host? She can pick that person, right? If it's me. Who would be a good host for her? Joe Rogan.

Really? Yeah. Wow. And because he's been very critical of her. Right? And the reason why I'm saying Joe Rogan is because that's, let me re-answer the question. If I'm her, I'm doing the Candace Owen show. Yeah.

Okay? Because, but that's my character. Like, so if someone's going to keep challenging me, I'm like, bring the challenge. Let's go. Let's do it. That's my character. That's not her character. Let's be realistic about what she's willing to do.

She's going to do a Joe Rogan or a Sean Ryan interview, and that's where she's going to land. She's not going to go into the fire. But at the very least, it would put enough pressure on the person doing the interview, like a Joe Rogan that if he didn't ask significant questions, it would hurt him more to host her. So he's got to prep. for it, right? I've thought about that if she ever did a long interview. I was thinking Lex Friedman. No. You don't think? I can't listen to his voice. Because he's so boring that she can now tone it down. Yeah, but you can't go with someone who the public accepts as like not, like he's got, he's got some

questionable background. Like she's got to do something a bit more like that people perceive as adversarial. Yeah, as adversarial. And that's what I mean is like me, I'm going to go extreme. So it's like, Andrew Wilson's throwing down 300k in the gauntlet. He's saying that I'm a, they're a, all saying I'm afraid to debate. I'm like, let's do it. Let's just do it. You know, I'm not afraid of you. I know the facts are on my side. And occasionally you have to do that. Erica's not going to start there, right? But she can't do a Barry Weiss. She can't do like a pro-Israel, pro-Ukrainian person. So you go with someone who's been making fun of you and you go sit across from them and you answer questions. That's it. And she's got to do that. She's got to do that. She's got to do that. She's got to do it. She's got to do it. She's got to do it. She's got to do it. She's got to do it. She's got to do it. That's

what I would do. Why do you think she would? Do you think she would? No. Why? Because Erica has always kept in a controlled environment. By whom? By the people around her, whether that, like with me, you know, Justin Strife was there and she would look up to him and ask if she could answer a question. It was very strange. And- You think she keeps herself in a controlled environment? But the other thing is, the Vanity Fair piece really revealed, I mean, I really just don't think she's that clever. And I'm not saying that to be mean, but some of the things she said, you're just like, why would you, why would you do this? Why are you doing a vanity fair? Why are you letting them come around for four months? So I don't think that she would ever do it, but that would be what I would do. And the softest landing for her is going to be like a Joe Rogan because he's not going to be mean to her. He is going to know that if he bombs the interview, people are going to be like, you're a fraud and you're this and you're that. So he's going to come with the correct questions. He can't look like he just let her do whatever she wanted. And it would demonstrate.

it would go some way of the public going, okay, at least she did this. It's not like a toss away interview where she's pretending and just speaking to a fan who's like, you're amazing and I love you. And she's got to do something adversarial. I was thinking someone boring. I like your idea, though. It's got to be adversarial. Yeah.

And I mean lightly, I mean, Joe Rogan has made a couple of comments. Maybe a Theo Bonn. No, no, no, no, no, no. She can't do Theo. Maybe a Theo Vaughan. No, I like Theo too much. He can't do Theo. Yeah.

He would be hilarious because he actually would ask all the questions. Yeah, he would. He would, and he'd be very funny about it, but he would ask the questions. He doesn't ask you a question, baby girl. Yeah. Let me ask you something. What's going on with your eyes in this video? Well, why do you wear that gold Elvis suit here today?

He does a perfectly safe place. Yeah, but that would be my advice. And she's got to answer all the questions. You can't hide behind the idea of this trial is going on. We just live in a different media. What she is coming across as right now, is I've got the power. I've got Cash Patel.

I've got the president. I've got the vice president lecturing you all when I don't show up for my event. It's gross. Do you think if the republic- It's the opposite of who Charlie was. Yeah, no, do you think if the Republicans lose the midterm, that's a threat to turning point?

Like in terms of political influence or investigations? I hope so. And I'm going to be really, I hope so. I hope that they're investigated because it's gotten to a point where they've told so many lies that, I don't care if it's the Democrats that demand the truth. I don't care. What are we winning in a Republican Party?

What do we like, just like the pro pedophilia party at this point? Like, what are we even doing? What is the Republican Party? It's a neocon party. I don't know. So we have a choice between neocons, Ben Shapiro's party or Democrats. Yeah, you know, going back to 2016, there was all this, I don't say, hope and change when Trump got elected, but to make America great again.

And now we're, what, 12 years past that or 10 years past that. And it's obvious. it's not what we were promised. And so, but I do think they're protecting their people. I do think the Republican Party, that's basically what's left of it is. They're out there protecting their people, whether it's the pedophiles or their political organizations or their billionaires. I mean, that's, that's all it's done.

It's kind of coalesced around there. They've got all their guns pointing out of the wagon circle. And she's, she, Erica has basically come out and been like, I'm a part of the billionaire class. I don't have to do anything. I can call crisis PR person. I can call cash. I can have the DOD attack you during Tyler Robinson.

week. That's what she did. Yeah. Okay, let's just call it a spade of spade. The DOD was attacking me during Tyler Robinson's preliminary hearing and my show was not even on air. Think about that with the Genica Pounds thing exposed. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Do you think she directs that or do you think she's just a beneficiary of that? She is a beneficiary of it because I don't think she's the brains of the operation, but the operation doesn't really have any brains. I will say that as well because it's falling apart. It's, I think it has never been so fragile of us seeing how this all really works. Like, we know these people are working for the DOD. That's crazy.

Then you ask yourself the big question. Why would the DOD? You're going to Tyler Robinson Week. You say it's open and shut. It's overwhelming evidence. He definitely did this. Who in the room is going? We've got to get people on payroll to start attacking Candace Owens that week.

And it was insane. I mean, I couldn't even know where to look. And I was like, what is happening right now? I think the colossal attacks against you, me, others, is a really good indication that the case is really weak and that they want people to be discredited or to stop looking into things. And that's who they go the hardest at.

It just is. As soon as I announced, she was taking over the show. Oh, I mean, the attacks against me kicked up literally overnight in a persisted sense. And it's obvious. It says, hey, we think that the case is not very strong. We don't want people looking into it. I mean, you know, it may not lead back to TPSA's door.

It may not lead back to the government store. It may not lead back to Utah government's door, the federal government store. We don't know where the investigation is going to go. But if you are 100 percent convinced Tyler Robinson did this and you think that's an open and shut case, why are you attacking anyone? Right. Sit back, you know, swipe your hands and say, that's the ultimate attack. You guys are going to look so stupid. We're going to let you look even stupider.

We're going to let you get all laddered up before you look stupid. Why would you attack people and try to slow them down? Why are you freaking out about Fort Wachuka? Why are you freaking out about penguins? It's like, we're going to sit back, and then you're going to see in the trial that everything this person said was wrong, and they're going to discredit themselves by going all in on this. That's my strategy. I'm always like, I want to be very careful because I know that my credibility matters. And so I'm not going to just accept somebody without me properly betting it, going through things.

I actually think one of their bigger PR blunders was attacking Joe Kent. That was weird. That's weird. He wants to conduct a foreign investigation. Now you all hate him. Right. That's very weird. Yeah.

And so, yeah, it's there. Accus him of treason. Yes. They're behaving the exact opposite way that we would expect them to behave. And I agree with you. I do want to also search people as I go off air. And it's one of things I talked to you about. I'm so grateful that I read that book, Chaos.

Yeah. Because you have to understand the government employs chaos agents. And it is so tempting for you to get pulled in to drama. the internet and what they're trying to do is, you know, Fedjacket someone. Oh, this person looks like they're into the, whatever. I don't know if we can trust this person, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, all of this stuff. You don't need to fundamentally trust people. Trust their work.

Just look at their work. Look at their work. Criticize their work. That's it. Criticize their work. And when you start seeing that happen and people are trying to like constantly sew and divide, it glows to me. I abstain from it.

I mean, the amount of times people have messaged me and wanted me to get involved in this or that. And I'm like, I'm actually good. I'm going to trust my gut. I'm going to trust my instinct. And if I'm proven wrong, I'm going to have to come out and do a mea culpa. It's gotten me this far in politics. My gut instinct about things has gotten me this far. And I've been in some heated rooms. I've been under pressure. I've been on the wrong side of a perspective, like when I was pro-Israel. And then I had to risk it all to basically say, and I lived through the chaos agents of being like, she used to work here. She used to work there. Yes, I changed my mind. This actually happens.

And that's actually usually when you come, you are the most under attack because they're like, wow, Kansas is a massive platform. And now she's not perisrael. Same with Charlie Kirk. He was changing his mind at the end. Well, and the whole idea, I've heard this about you. I've heard about me. She won't address the fight over here. Therefore, she approves of it. Stop it. That's just so. I have too many toddlers to care about that. Like I said with Erica, you're allowed to have an opinion. Hey, she didn't do well in that interview. She did not look good in that interview. That doesn't mean you hate everything Erica stands for. and wish ill things for her, no. And if she would just come out and say, you know what, I heard the criticism. I didn't do very well in that interview. Right. Then, okay, well, that just undercuts all this attack. It undercuts all of it.

You're right. It happens on the chaos agents. The book, chaos is really good. It's really good, and it shows you how the government did that following the JFK assassination. It talks about how they infiltrated the Black Panthers, how they were able to literally just make people all look at each other and go, I don't know who to trust. And so when you start feeling that coming on,

and you realize that there are these random people that are flip-flopping and they're pointing and you're going, wait a second, are you actually contributing to this investigation? How are you actually helping me? Shut it off. Be done with it. Move on from it. And it takes a lot of, like, patience.

But I have perfected it because I've just been under so many bizarre. I mean, I was a lesbian two weeks ago. I mean, I mean. So was on. Yes. You just have to go, I'm shutting this off because it's meant to drive you crazy. She's breaking up with her husband. They're separating.

She's a lesbian. He's gay. No, never mind. She's actually a ho. Wait, no, actually she likes. That is designed. That's just sewing chaos and trying to get people to look the other way. And I have just been like, nope. You made a good point. You go back and read the infiltration into the groups in the 1960s and 70s.

How did they know they'd been infiltrated? All of a sudden that you kept hearing a single phrase over and over and over, I don't know who to trust. Well, guess what? When you don't know who to trust, your group has been infiltrated. And there's an operation of chaos taking place around you. So stop judging the people, start judging their work and get back to order. Yes. Yeah. And I've said. that and I have kept, you know, the circle kind of, when I say the circle really small, but like I just, our relationship, I feel like took off so naturally because we were just throwing so much of ourself into the research and like, you know, meeting and sharing it, what do you have? What do we have? How can we put together this timeline? We're not talking drama.

And I don't have time. I don't really care about this person, that person or the other. I want to get this together. I've got timelines. You've got like, you know, all of these spreadsheets that were sharing with one another. And so I want to encourage you that have been contributing. And by the way, I also want to acknowledge. that what we're putting together is because, not because of KS agents, but people that are writing into more tips, people that are emailing us,

and I'm like, hey, Baron, someone double C-Ced us on this. Did you see this email? You guys have made this process. Like, I get to take the credit for really what people around the world. I mean, think about how fast the guy, the Latvian dweeb, and they told me like where he was living. They're like, here's the street he lived on in the high school he went to.

We had people in Latvia who stepped up to the plate. And so I want people to remember that, and I want to acknowledge that because, everything that I have been able to do in this process is because of you guys back at home who have been sending us tips. And that's where we want to always keep the focus. What do you know, feel emboldened. And I think more and more now people are coming out and they're taking bigger steps because they see that the narrative is falling apart. And I want to just like acknowledge that and encourage people to go forth on what are you actually getting out of this? How is this helping you?

Are we solving things? And I think by and large, we are the state's on the run. I mean, the Brian Cole case even. No, the Brian Cole case to me is over. It's been decided. I did a whole episode or most of an episode, just going through his interrogation transcript, and it was an emotional night. Wow.

I got done with that show, finished the processing, and lay down in bed and just thought, there is a young man wrongfully sitting in a jail cell by himself right now. Yeah. I feel the same way with Tyler a lot of times. But that one is particularly crushing.

A special needs young man, 30 years old, just heaped on. And Steve Baker deserves a massive shoutout. Steve Baker has done Yeoman's work on that case. God will reward Steve Baker one day for that work. Yes, I actually do want to say that Steve Baker. That is so amazing. I was even saying to you that even the process of how I feel inspired and not letting go of the story and realizing that even this sort of ADHD has helped the feds because we always just move on from stuff and we're like, oh, hey, that was weird. And so when C Baker's like, nope, I'm going to keep on this for years, and I'm going to focus. That is so inspiring.

Chaos, the book, being written by somebody who gave was 30 years of his life investigating one thing, the Charles Manson murders, and exposed the entire federal apparatus. I was encouraged by Xavier Pussart. I got to present his work. This man gave a decade of his life to just trying to figure out, what is that that is at the L.E.A. Palace. Why can't, why am I falling down in Dark Hole? He had to move his family. And each of these people are usually brought to like the brink of bankruptcy. Right.

Because they're so focused on this case. And had to leave the country. Xavier Plath had to move his family out. And there was no upside other than him wanting a truth to get out. I want that to be a part of my story. Like I'm so inspired by these types of journalists. And I want to be known as someone who never, ever, ever stopped looking for who, who, what actually happened on September 10th. I want to know every single character, what they look like.

I am yes, as people have pointed out, obsessed with this case because Charlie was a good person, he was a good friend, he was there for me during the darkest, what was the darkest year of my life since losing, before losing him, which was the 2023 when suddenly I lost everything for not being pro-Idril and knowing that he was going through that in Mian and that that is what he was struggling with and people publicly lied about it, including people that he was closest to from a colleague sense. I'm not letting this one go. No, it's because people love him. That's why there's so much support for the investigation, because people love him or loved him or cared about his work. I've readily admitted I was not a massive fan of Charlie Kirk because he was very pro-Zionist, and I was not. If I would have known, I think, frankly, if we would all known what was going on behind the scenes, if that would have all been playing out in public,

I think, A, he'd still be alive. But B, I think he would have had even more fans. I think more people would have had a deeper respect for him. There have been a lot of people since all that's come out. We're like, man, we were wrong on him. Yeah. We were really wrong on him. There was a lot going on behind the scenes.

And I wish it would have played out in public because he'd still be here. He would still be here. I do believe that. But I also, like I said, I have the sense that he's fighting with us. Like Charlie was like too big of an energy, you know, too big of a spirit. And I think that people thought they could sort of contain that and keep up the legacy and use his name. He was bigger than his name.

He was bigger than the Charlie Kirk show. He was bigger than a trademark. And I feel that the energy is on our side right now. And so I'm very optimistic about where we're at. I think the feds are the best thing that can happen is this core case to go through. I'm obviously concerned. I do think that Tyler Robinson's life is at risk. I do too.

That's one thing that makes me very nervous. Well, especially as we were going through this today. Yeah. I mean, they can't take this case to trial. I don't think. Not unless there's a lot more. more than this. You better have better DNA, better fingerprint, better cell phone technology, there better be location. You better have a lot more. Better influencers. You know, up the budget,

guys, up the budget. Okay, I'm going to read some of your comments that are coming in. Okay, we have manifest them. He writes, you couldn't have picked a better person than Baron to hold things down and keep it real, wishing you and your family health and happiness as you prepare to meet the newest and littlest member of your family. Thank you so much. I'm so excited just because I know how much Baron and I have put into this case and he's just the right person for the job. And I'm so excited to meet my fourth son. How crazy. I have my fourth son. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm excited for you guys to meet him as well. So we will announce when I give birth. And I will be popping in to make sure he's well behaved and staying away from Brigito.

Jenna Ped writes, two of my favorite podcasters and humans. Thank you for this collaboration. I am praying the Rosary Daily for you and your families and your platforms. That is, yeah, absolutely pray the Rosary Daily. It is something that I actually need to do. never prayed the rosary daily. And people tell me it is completely transformative. I've never prayed it daily. I mean, I've prayed it, but I've never prayed it on a daily basis for any period of time. He plays it daily. Barbara writes, blessings, hugs love to the principal, Queen Candyland, and Serby. I'm so blushed to dear in your circle, experiencing your brilliance. Jesus loves you. Christ is kidding. I don't think it was a typo there. Blessed, probably. Zammett writes,

describing cana's Owens in two words, pure authenticity in one word love. That's very sweet. I'm going to take all these compliments because I'm nine months pregnant and I just feel fat and disgusting, so I force the team every day to tell me I'm glowing. I'm like, tell me I'm glowing.

You're like, you're glowing, you're glowing. Trust me, you're glowing. You mean it. Tell me I'm glowing. Thank you, Ash. You're glowing, you're glowing. Trigger smart writes, prayers for a healthy delivery

and for Barron hosting both shows. He's got it. He's going to grind, grind, grind. And I'm going to organize all this. stuff. I'm really happy to have a break just to be able to organize, you know. P.K. Bloom writes, when Baron Coleman had to cancel an episode due to an emergency and then we heard Candace tell us that Brigitte got attacked, I thought it was Barron, who was yanking and banking to get Candace's to get to Canis's to help save Brigitte. We know that Baron would do what he could for

his fellow man, long live Jean-Michel. Honestly, it's contractual negotiations. I'm not going to talk about it. Like I said, things are very ugly regarding the Brigitte doll. It was a very long back and forth between the lawyers. Keep an eye on him. Please just keep an eye out. for Brigitte, there is some evidence that he may have attacked Brigitte actually. She's hidden. She's not allowed. Brigitte doll. He's not allowed to see her right now. Evie writes, Lord, please protect Barron and what he and his family will face ahead of this

platform. That is so great for you to say, Evie, because they already are. I'm just seeing it. I'm like, Baron, don't, don't, don't. Keep them safe, Lord. And I pray for his mother to make a full recovery. We are going to battle with him and you and he won't be fighting alone. Christ is king.

Amen. Yeah, I also want to express that too, because I mean, the onslaught is never ending. The tactics should never ending. But then you do somehow become immune to it. You recognize the patterns. And you just go, I see what you're doing. You want me distracted.

Well, the other day, someone said, hey, how are you holding up? And I was like, with what? And they were like, well, I saw a bunch of people going after you on X. I was like, what? I don't care about that. That's way to be. Irrelevant. Yeah, exactly.

Totally irrelevant. Don't care. Is it, can I add it to my timeline? No, okay, I don't care. My official timeline. Right. Don't care. Kyle is just who I am.

Writes utmost respect and many thanks to you both for helping to rewrite and clarify our history books, particularly for our children. I have so much hope now remains solidified in my stance to never let this go and to talk about events like this more often. Thank you guys. And by the way, while I'm off air, you can still send tips. If there's things that I'm coming across as I'm trying to go back and organize and rewatch things and see if we forgot any things to follow up on certain threads, I will be like telling Baron, hey, could you ask them to pull up, you know, send out a request for the more tips?

We have a strong lead, by the way, on the fire chief that was mentioned in the UVU independent review. That might have been the biggest PR disaster for Turning Point, by the way. Very strongly. The UVU independent review. Yeah. That was brutal. They should have participated. Yeah.

That was a big political. I mean, that was a big blunder. They should have participated. Ryan Harple, two pages of just like, he's a liar. Yeah. Yeah. So many ways, like. Yeah.

Yeah, you get a chance to establish your side of the story, do it. I mean, unless you have something to hide, but if you have nothing to hide, establish your side of the story. And then their excuse that people were saying were like, well, the court cases, why do they keep saying this ridiculous, why can't you participate in an independent review that has to do with everything leading up to the, it's about the event planning? Like, what is their excuse for, and again, Erica's at the helm of this company? Give me one logical excuse that they declined to participate in the UVU independent review

about the mistakes that day. I don't know. I mean, the only thing I can think of is if they plan to sue UVU, but, you know, maybe... Which she did announce her intent a little days. Well, yeah, she filed that notice. I think that... I don't want to comment on that. She did file a notice, or TPSA did file a notice, but... Or actually, the Kirk family is the one that filed a notice. But that's not a lawsuit. They've got a year now to decide if they want to actually pursue that. I don't know why they didn't participate. I mean, you have a right to remain silent. Maybe that's why they didn't participate. And the nastiness of blaming it all on Jeff Long, and he seemed to do... do the most, Chief Long did the most? Yeah, so many PR blenders.

That guy, man, he's the one that really has defamation lawsuit on his hands if he wanted to. Oh, I think Chief Long could annihilate people. You know, I'm not a fan of defamation suits. I think the antidote to bad speech is more speech. But if... I'm just permanently sued, but I never sue anybody. I know, I know. I can't imagine you're a fan of them.

But, no, I think, you have plenty. You could sue people on. But I think if anybody was going to do it, Jeff Long has a pretty good. case. Yeah. I mean, I can't imagine just the year of them saying publicly. He's the one who did this Brian Harpole coming out. Everyone's so invested in this case. And Brian Harpole does one of the biggest podcasts in the world and says, this is the, this guy is the reason Charlie Kirk's dead effectively. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, lastly, uh, Black Swan Revelations. I love you guys. We just come up with these handle names. That's why I don't read the handles. It's just amazing. He writes,

go max. Barron, do you intend to go Max? I do. I dub the, I don't really know how to do that stuff, but whatever. The Max goer? I'm, I dub the The Max goer while I'm gone, go into the fire. We obviously have even more footage and stuff, but fighting our time because I do think we need to wait for the hearing. Did I just see something that like they're trying to get the hearing to happen in 2027? Am I right? So, no, not 2027. Oh yeah, one of them said 27. one of them said 28 maybe or 28 28 and 29 I can't remember which one it was but neither one of them are close I think the prosecution wanted it maybe one year and the the defense I think wanted two years because they got they've got like how many how much information was dumped on them and like it's just well it's just a lot I mean it's it's a it's also a death penalty case we keep forgetting this it's not a typical criminal case you know you can try a criminal case in an afternoon most of them they're asking for

2029 defense yeah that's a defense and it's a defense and it's a defense and it's a defense and And I think the prosecution won in 28. Yeah. So no matter what, you're looking at another year plus. Absolutely. Before the trial. Can you do it in a year, year and a half? Yeah, probably.

I mean, if everything breaks your way and goes right and everybody transfers discovery from one side to the other, it probably could be done in 28. If they, you know, get cute and try to hide the ball, it's going to take longer. It says the Utah County Attorney's Office is anticipating that it will be a 17-week trial. And, yeah, the prosecutors want to go a year from now, and the defense is saying, no, we need more time. And I actually, once I see how much they dumped on them, which is the everything strategy. Yeah. They probably do need more time.

Selfishly, I want it to happen sooner. Yeah. But we'll see what happens. And, yeah, all right. Barron, where can they find you? Barron has a YouTube channel. Just go to YouTube and search Baron Coleman. You'll find it.

I think the handles Real Barron Podcast. There's a Clips channel as well. Baron Coleman Clips. You can subscribe there and get daily clips from the different shows. X is at Baron Coleman. But I want to thank you. I really appreciate you for this opportunity. It means a lot that you trust me for that.

I absolutely trust you. And like I said, it was like one of these things when I looked up and I stopped lamenting everything that was going wrong the past year. And I looked up and I was like, man, you sometimes forget to count your blessings. And just to be able to have the friendship to trust someone, which is so hard already. Like when you have the spotlight on you all the time and people are selling you out for Discord money to be able to have someone who like genuinely cares about the case, even they didn't know who Charlie was and has put so much research into it.

I do also want to shout out Daisy. She's been amazing. I've never met her. But she's done so much as well. And all of the smaller creators, the funny creators, the laugh breaks, Colin, Coach Colin. Yeah. Show is very, very funny. Nissie's channel has been a channel that has stayed on things.

She's very thorough. She's always on a random rabbit hole. Yes. And then I watch her and I'm like, how did she get like where? How did she get here and thank you? I needed this information. Yeah, she had a good piece she put up today on the member. I'm one of her members, but she had a good thing she put up today about the necklace, and it was phenomenal.

Yeah, she does a great job and it's always never where I'm looking. And so she's been excellent who other creators. I obviously love Lionel Nation. I just love that he's so British, even though he's not. His little bow tie, his extensive vocabulary that makes us all feel like he's posh. There's so many of them. You got on the ground reporters, Diligent Denison has been knocking on people's words. Yep.

Taking a lot of heat. and getting better too. Like I think before he used to kind of get distracted by a little stuff and now he's like, you know what, going into the fire on the ground and this is what actually matters. No, there's people, you mentioned Wills and Finance. There's people chasing finances. That's their thing.

Good. Do your thing. There are people chasing, you know, gunshots and they're testing all the guns. I mean, this case is so broad and has so much interest. No one person can possibly cover everything. Village crazy lady. I actually have had a very nice friendship with her too. And she's someone that I do trust. Mel, she's actually not the village crazy lady.

She does fantastic work looking into NAR's, the pastor angle that we've been noticing. So, yeah, I do want to also just, it's been such a collaborative process and to walk away and know who we can trust. And obviously, just luckily, that you and I live close to each other. That's real fortune. It really is. Because it really helped. It's easy. You call us it.

Can you come over for a little bit? I got to run something by you and I can only show you. Okay, fine. Me trying to understand a map. Yeah. He's like, it says north. I'm like, but I'm south. Like, I'm just a typical woman.

It's like, it makes me sick. Why are women like this? You're like, he's walking up on the map. Which way is that? I'm like, it says north right here. You're like, it's the exact opposite thing of what you think it is. I'm like, okay. Yeah.

It's like map dyslexia. You have map dyslexia. Yeah, and I think that's fine. Everybody, look, everybody has to have a weakness. Yeah. Achilles had the Achilles. Everybody has to have one weakness and uses maps. Mine is, honestly, if you knew how bad it was, guys, you would never.

I just make Ashley do everything because she's randomly good at maps for. some reason, which is weird. All right, you guys, well, that's everything. Again, we are, we're closing in on the fire chief that gave CPR that was mentioned. I think we have the correct person, but if you have it on direct authority, we'd love to hear from you. We're still looking into Tyler Clancy. We have heard some more updates on him as well. Governor Cox trying to figure out if he got together for a little bit of gulf that morning with Val Peterson. And yes, I will get everything up on the website the documents for you to be able to scroll through. I know I've promised that. I will take care of that in the next two weeks. Barron will be giving will begin on

November 1st. I think Theo Vaughn might pop in for a book club to cover for me and he's not going to read the book, which makes it even more fun. Theo Bonn pretends to read a book and just leads a book club. I'm going to be honest. I'm going to show up that day no matter what. No, it's going to be great. Actually fantastic. I don't even want to be on camera. I just want to meet him. Yeah. Oh, he's fantastic. Yeah, my November 2nd is when Star Day is, is November. second. All right, you guys, that is everything. Thank you so much. And he will see you on November 2nd and I will, I'm going to go have a baby. Hold music. Not what you want to hear when a pipe dispersed in your basement is flooding. That's why intact insurance answers two million claim

calls per year within 20 seconds. So instead of hearing this lovely track, you'll hear this in seconds. Hello, intact insurance.