Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - Candace Owens vs Andrew Wilson Debate Breakdown: Who Really Won?

Episode Date: August 17, 2026

Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson went head to head in one of the most talked about debates in recent memory, and nearly four hours later, people are still arguing over who actually won.Tonight, we break down the biggest moments from the Candace Owens vs Andrew Wilson debate, including their strongest arguments, the exchanges that got heated, the questions that went unanswered, and the moments that may have changed the entire debate. We’ll look at where Andrew Wilson successfully challenged Candace, where Candace turned the tables on him, and whether either side actually proved what they set out to prove.After breaking down the best moments from both sides, we give our final verdict: who won the debate, and why?New Merch!

Welcome back to Investigator's Podcast. I'm your host Chad, alongside my beautiful wife, Sherry, and Bishop Bullwinkle tonight. Tonight we're breaking down what has become one of the most talked about debates we have seen a very long time. Candace Owens versus Andrew Wilson. And for nearly four hours, the two went back and forth over the Charlie Kurt case, the evidence, the unanswered questions, and whether some of the claims being made can actually be proven. We watched the whole thing. And tonight we're pulling out the best and most important moments.

from both sides. We'll break down where Candace landed their strongest points, where Andrew pushed back effectively, if at all, and where things got heated and where the argument started to fall apart. And we're going to tell you who actually won this debate. Guys, welcome to the show.

This is a Bishop Bullwinkle with Hail Noh, and he is the pastor for the Church of Nothing But the Truth, as he says. And it's hell no, no, no, no. Yeah. Yeah, I swear, though, you know, I was for some reason, this was the first, song that came to my mind when I knew that we were going to be breaking down the Candace Owens

Andrew Wilson debate. And I was thinking, I was like, you know, look, some people 100% believe that Candice Owens is the bishop for the first church of nothing but the truth. And then you obviously have the others that believe Candace Owens is a grifter. She's a psycho. She's crazy. Yeah. And of course, we also have Smokeboy Andrew Wilson as someone has dimed that or I guess term

the name. I think it was actually Baron Coleman is the one. that started saying that. Yeah, because he couldn't smoke in the studio. Well, go figure she's pregnant. Yeah. I mean, she doesn't want to be around secondhand smoke. I didn't even know she's pregnant, actually, to be honest with you.

But yeah, so we're going to break down all of the best parts of this debate. And what we're going to do tonight is we're going to tell you who won, who landed the best, I guess you can say punches. Did Andrew Wilson do anything in this debate? And we're going to give a little background of who Andrew Wilson was. And where did he come from? Because this guy being the one that is, to debate Candace Owens and even raising enough money, $300,000,

Andrew Wilson raised. Now, first, he actually offered over $100,000 to Candace Owens for her to debate. And she's like, no, look, if I want to do a debate with you, of all people, a nobody, basically, you're going to have to pay me like 500 grand. So this came after Andrew Wilson went on to the Joe Rogan podcast. He had gave all of his opinions on his belief of what happened to, Charlie Kirk, he thought that pretty much the state had got it right, that it was Tyler Robinson. There's really not much to argue about and we need to just move on.

And obviously, he called out Candace Owens. He trashed her. He has done that many times. And it was something that was very strange because even Joe Rogan literally like the day or two, or it wasn't a day or two, but the two or three episodes later on Protect Our Parks, where him and Shane Gillis and all of them get drunk. and they talked for about four hours, you know,

somewhere around the two hour mark and keep in mind, this was two shows after Andrew Wilson, you know, Joe was like, look, I actually kind of believe that Candace Owens is on the shit.

Like this, you know, people trasher. I know I had Andrew on. And he was saying, look, just believe the state, don't worry about it.

Let's move on. And Joe Rogan's like, but it's just not that easy because there is so much shit. There's too many lies and there's been lies that have been proven and why are there lies? Like,

why do you have to lie about something if it's the true? truth. If it is Tyler Robinson and it is a case closed, we don't have to look any further. Why lie about it? And especially from the organization Turning Point USA, which is what Charlie Kirk built for his entire career in politics. I mean, that was like his baby. And by the way, for those that do not understand and realize this, Candace Owens was a massive, massive influence on building Turning Point USA and a strategic part of that because Candace was big when Charlie Kirk was not. And so it was something that Candace and Charlie became very close. It wasn't really until

Candace started questioning Israel and questioning the events after October 7th and question how Israel responded in Gaza that basically all of Turning Point USA and all of Charlie Kirk's handlers at that time was doing any and everything they could to separate the two. And they wanted to trash Candace. They wanted to make the relationship between Charlie and Candace completely sever and it's funny because a lot of people on the turning point USA side say that it's actually um canis owens that's trying to rewrite who charlie kirk was which is ridiculous and the reality of it is is this turning point USA that's trying to rewrite who charley was and i think that was the biggest you know that's been the biggest fight since charlie kirk's death uh besides the fact

that many people don't believe tyler robinson was the only person involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Yeah, I kind of think like Candace does that he was at Patsy. I think that he had an involvement and he knew kind of what he was getting into. Yeah. I think the CIA or whoever told him, look, you're going to be a hero in this and we're going to do this and this is going to be how it works and you're not going to get in trouble, but you're going to be our fall guy and this is all you got to do. Yeah. These things.

But I'm not even necessarily sure if he even was on the roof. I'm not even necessarily sure if those guy, that guy in the guy in the. the video is him because they're very grainy. And wouldn't you think they would be like clearer than that with all the camera evidence that they have? Absolutely. But I just thought it was so funny during the whole debate, you know, Andrew was saying it was overwhelming evidence. And he comes back and just, we'll get into it later.

But just some of the things that he kept saying over and over. And it was like driving her crazy. But in my opinion, by far, she won. There was no. Harrison at all. Well, we have to remember that Andrew Wilson is the guy that's been on the Whatever podcast. I had told you guys about this a couple of episodes ago. But yeah, Andrew Wilson is a guy that goes on the whatever podcast is basically where they bring in a bunch of only fans models or porn stars or whatever, you name it. They bring these girls in and they'll

bring different guys in that supposedly are good debaters, which you don't really have to be good debaters in most cases to debate only fans models or porn stars. And so it makes Ani's Andrew look good because he talks about things to where he can easily debate or, you know, basically trash whoever he's up against. And unfortunately for him in this particular case, Candace Owens is not only fan star. She's not dumb. She's extremely smart. She handles herself very well.

And she's one of those debaters that she kind of lets the person do their own damage. And that's kind of the way I like to do. Like if I ever debate someone, I'll just be like, I'll let you talk your way into whatever. Right. And it was just very interesting that he's such a great debater that he's actually training people at Turning Point USA how to debate. Yeah. Like I really thought that was interesting that he is training these people now. And, you know, I think we'll probably get into it.

But Candace is like, you know, in the beginning, you were so against Erica Kirk. And now you're, you know, like totally on her side. And now you're going in. You're training these people how to debate. Like what happened? Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, there's some things that have come out, you know, even since this debate about the Charlie Kirk case that continues to just disprove the narrative that mainstream media wants you to believe. And so what are those things that I'm referring to?

Well, number one, there was new video that was recently just released from UVU University, Utah Valley University, which is where Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Now, I don't know if you guys remember the video, the, you know, security camera footage from UVU University. University where it shows Tyler Robinson coming up and then coming down the stairs. Supposedly him. Yeah, supposedly him. He has the hat on, the sunglasses. The same shoes. And there's a still image of him also walking up the stairs.

And as you see those stairs, it's interesting how you see that video because if you look at the video itself, the video is on the right. I mean, sorry, the stairwell coming up is on the right. The stairwell going up further on the second flight of stairs is on the left. And so these people went over to Utah Valley University and went to this exact staircase. Now, the interesting thing about this is that it comes to find out that the prosecution mirrored this video. So when they showed this in the preliminary trial and not only did they mirror the video, which means they switched the sides of what side the stairs are supposed to be on or wasn't on,

they also doctored the timestamps on this video. So they actually put in time stamps that was not natural and was not accurate. So this is yet again something else. I want to play this quick video before we actually get into the debate. These are people that actually did it. And you'll be able to hear them explain. It's not very long. It's just a couple of minutes.

Actually, it's not even a minute long. But this is what they say. Listen. Caught the feds in another lie. So this is level three, parking level three at UVU, where they had Tyler Robinson coming around the corner, coming down the stairwell, there's the camera right over here, but in the Fed version of their footage, this stairwell, which is actually on the left, which is actually on the left, on their version, it's on the right.

So they have completely reversed this image, and not only have they reversed the image, they have also doctored the timestamps, because if you reverse the image, the timestamps would be reversed as well. So something me adding up here, here's level two, proving at the stairwell is actually on the left. There you go. So that's how you know that they doctored the timestamps because they actually put the time stamps back in the place it would have been had they not flipped the camera. And so then they just put timestamps over the video where the original timestamps were supposed to go. So I'm going to ask a dumb question. So mirroring the video, does that mean he was coming down instead of up?

What does that exactly mean? No, no, regardless, up or down is the same. Right. But it's just where the stairs look. So why would they mirror it? Like what? There could be various reasons why they would do that. I mean, we're not 100% sure because it could just go down to the fact that maybe the video in its originality was doctored.

And for whatever reason when this video was released, they just forgot. Mired it. They just didn't do this one part right. Right. And then they released it. kind of steadfast and then they had to stick with it because they're like shit well we got to stick with it now yeah so if they would have doctored this footage maybe just to say for example that they had their patsy who they wanted to appear to be the shooter and this Tyler robinson guy that maybe

they took this gun from his house or got had access to the weapon however however that was could have been very easily could have convinced twigs to do it considering the fact that you know we got to remember Tyler robinson's DNA was the least substantial DNA on the rifle itself but just say that you are going to bring this guy in as a patsy maybe he doesn't have any clue what the hell he's actually there doing or any of that and yet you know maybe you a i or doctor some footage to make his face appear to be tyler robinson more so and it's actually maybe someone completely different so then how you're how the video's done maybe it was maybe it flipped it maybe you didn't realize it and that could be the the case that is kind of screwed up and you know i think that

Candice was more on the lines of that he might not even have known. And like it would have been easy for Lance to get into his phone. But, you know, I'm thinking it'd be easy for the CIA to get into his phone as well and probably easier for them than the boyfriend. Yeah. And talking about the dockering stuff, you're right because the C what is it, C.JI. Maybe they did. Maybe they did some of that. And then put the timestamp.

Well, you don't even got to do CGI anymore. I mean, you can do, you know, you could do AI stuff now. and pretty easily get away with it, especially if you're a government. And I always tell this to everybody that thinks that the government just now got AI or something. They've had AI way longer than they ever release it to the public. And I say they. And I say they because trust me, these companies or whoever that has made the public version or variation of AI, the government has had it long before we have ever had AI.

And that's what most people just don't understand. So their versions are a lot more complex, a lot more elaborate, I guess. yes you can say so i just found that very interesting you know you're you're starting to screw with now the uh the actual footage and this was just found out the only reason it was found out was because the fact that someone went to the exact place and was like hold on a minute this no one's caught this yet like how the hell did no one catch us now you might say well this is just stupid there's no you know that's that's that's crazy that like what does that matter it could mean a lot nothing and it could mean everything right and we just don't know and so that's that's just that's crazy that like what does that matter it could mean a lot of things and it could mean everything

and we just don't know. And so that's the interesting thing. Well, do you think that the defense is watching people on the internet? Of course they are. And is that going to come out in court during the real trial? Well, here's what I will say about the defense and all of that. You know, the way the defense is acting and the way they're handling this case so far, if I was Tyler Robinson, I would fire the hell out of that defense team because there's really nothing that they are doing that they could be doing,

at least from what we've seen so far, that tells me they're going to be a great defense for him. And we've got to remember that they are publicly appointed attorneys, correct? I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure they're public defense. Yeah, I think you're right. You're right. Yeah, I'm pretty sure they're court appointed. And because, I mean, you know, you got to remember with a case like this, it's going to cost a ton of money to run this case.

And I know at the very least they were. Let me check on that. So, yeah, it is a court appointed attorney, Catherine Nester. and she's a veteran criminal defense lawyer with more than 30 years of experience. She was appointed after the judge determined Robinson could not afford private counsel. And so Catherine Nestor, then you got Michael N. Burnt, California attorney, former longtime chief trial attorney with San Francisco Public Defender's Office, Richard G. Novak, California attorney with substantial capital case experience.

So this is his court-appointed team. You know, the thing to always think about, though, when you think about court-appointed is that oftentimes that's what they do. That is they're a part of the system very much similar to the way prosecuting attorneys are. And so if you've ever watched, you know, court cases where it's like when the prosecutors bring in the cops or the lawyer, I mean, sorry, the lawyers, but or the medical examiners or the detectives or whatever, you always feel like that the police and the detectives and the medical examiners are always on the side of the prosecutors because you're all a part of the state system. in reality, they are a lot. They would rather prove the prosecutor's case, obviously, than the defense's case because it's basically everybody against you.

But the strange thing about it is, especially for a case, this high profile, a court appointed attorney, you know, you can't necessarily always for sure say that they're really, really on your side because they are kind of still technically a part of the system. And so that's what worries me about that, right? instead of a high profile attorney, you know, like Alan Jackson or something, that it wants this case, he'll do anything to get his client off. I just don't think necessarily that's going to be the case with this attorney team. At least it doesn't seem like it's going to. They're not trying to offer up or bring in anything.

You know, it's just kind of like they're about to let him fry. And that's the way I see this case. I tend to disagree just a little bit because how would we even have a fair trial in America if, you know, I know, I get what you're saying that it's all in the same system. But if you don't have these attorneys that are for the defense and for the defense only, how are you going to have a fair trial? And secondly, I don't really feel like the defense needs to do any kind of fighting right now because during this hearing is just to have a probable cause, basically.

They don't have to have by a reasonable doubt or beyond a reasonable. Yes, hearsay. Hear say is good enough. Yes, all hearsay. And so they already know the prosecution's going to prove enough hearsay to make it go to trial. So they're not going to take everything out of their sleeve right now, the defense, if they are any good. Yeah, I guess my whole thing is, though, is like every part of evidence, it seems like that I have seen in this. And I think this is kind of what Candace Owens was doing to Andrew Wilson with this.

It's like, it's like we don't even technically see Tyler Robinson. I mean, we see like a weird figure that doesn't even look like him. And now we got this new picture that just came out, the Candace Owens released a few days ago, where this, Tyler Robinson guy supposedly is walking through this parking garage and it looks like a completely different dude. Yeah, nothing like him. But he has the exact same clothes of the guy that's in the stairwell. He is the dude whoever they captured in the stairwell, which leads back to my point that

if you try to make someone's face through AI look like someone else, you could do that. The problem is maybe they miss that part in when he's actually walking in the parking garage itself because that face is nowhere close to the face that it shows in the actual stairwell. And it's the same person. And he's heavier set. It's all of that. But you don't understand also, like even just compressing video and doing all these things can absolutely make someone look skinnier.

It can make someone to have a bigger face, a fatter face, a skinnier face. Well, listen, I use airbrush all the time and make my face look slender. Well, that's what I'm saying, though. It's like the guy that's in the actual parking garage, that's on the image that Candace released is not the guy that was walking up and down the stairs that they have released. That's all I'm saying. Well, and I thought it was interesting really quick that, you know, during the prosecution's

testimony, they said it was Tyler Robinson because of the converse shoes. And I think Candace makes an excellent point. How many other college students had those exact same converse shoes on? There could be in tons of them. Yeah. I mean, you can't just say it's him because of the shoes because he had the same shoes with the different outfits, you can't reasonably say that's even him. Yeah, I mean, well, you know, if you could just walk around convicting people of crimes

because they wear the same shoes as someone else or, you know what I mean? Or whoever was in that place that day or whatever, then there would be tons of people that would be, you know, obviously unrightfully convicted or even charged with crimes. And I think that's the whole point. But let's get into the first clip of Candace Owens. This is, these are what we believe, anyway, to be the best parts of. the debate and so we'll play those here for you now obviously patrick bet david was the moderator of this and this is this section of this clip is the best the best thing that kansas says because it's

funny um she had a lot of good funny things to say yeah but just listen here you go this actually links in to robinson being a patsy okay i just described that for you so i'm not i can explain it to you but i can't understand it for you so i'm going to move on from that i want to address what you think is evidence so we can keep this on par with what your claim is. Well, I think that that's a piece of evidence. It's in dispute. And that's why I'm because if we're not establishing the timeline. Whether there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did this.

Yeah. If you want to use the first part of that for the internal critique for you, that's going to go over the actual evidence that we feel. The first reason that I think, and I think it's compelling evidence is that Tyler Robinson's rifle was found near the crime scene. So I would consider that to be very good evidence. And also the fact of the matter is is that I dispute this claim that a 30-od six could not have made this wound. I think that that's absurd.

150 grain Remington core locked absolutely could shatter when it hits the neck of any human being. When you say that there's some steel neck and it's a smaller caliber, you have to make a counter-explanation. Why wouldn't a smaller caliber also go through bone? It could. I didn't say it can't. Right. Exactly. So if that's the case, then ammunition is going to be the critical key here.

And if we have frangible ammunition, which we do in this case, a flex tip round. Well, I'm sorry, not a flex tip, a soft point round from 150 grain Remington Corlock. That's just a small jacket that goes around the actual lead piece. This thing could have split apart in air for all we know. But definitely upon impact. And we have the medical examiner who confirms this in a summary. And my team can bring that up the summarization, which means he would have to be a part of some kind of conspiracy as well. Okay. So just to start with your point about saying that the gun was

found near him, I mean near Losey Center or I guess off in the woods, that gun, did you watch the testimony? Did you, I did you watch your preliminary hearing? Yeah, we covered it live. Okay. So forgetting what the summary of the medical report was, did you watch the testimony that was given by the Caitlin Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha Carner, any of those people who went into the science of... Yes, I recall. You're talking about... The bullet analysis. Yeah, when they went into the DNA.

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

I agree. It's not convincing evidence to me. I concur with the fact that that's a possibility. So you are, you, I think, have said in a platform that you were gunsmith. Mm-hmm. Okay. And for how many years? Many, many years.

For many years. You also said that you were an army sniper? I wasn't a sniper in the army. Okay. And I never said that. Sorry, your wife tweeted that you were an army sniper. Yeah, I don't know. Like 15 years ago, she said something.

Does it change 15 years later? She said that it was colloquial. So Army sniper is a colloquial term? Yeah. I'm not an, I was never an army. Army sniper. Okay. What did you do in the Army?

Did you teach the sheet? Then I corrected it and said you taught rifles in the Army? Not. No, I didn't teach rifle. No, I taught rifles as a private citizen. Okay. And I was an NRA instructor for many, many, many years alongside. And I also want to bring up this point real quick because Baron Coleman had went back very

easily. And because remember, on one podcast episode, Andrew Wilson said that he was in the Army for a very short period of time. Now his wife did actually at one point in time tweet out that her husband was a army sniper and you know was basically a badass is what she was tweeting out. And then on one episode, you know, Andrew would always talk about the army here and there. And then when he actually got on a podcast where there were a lot of military guys on there and he's, oh, I was in a very, very short amount of time like less than a year. And he's like, how the hell are you in the army less than a year, number one? And then about eight months later,

he's on another podcast and they say hey have you ever have you served and he's like no I haven't so so he says three different I mean his wife's free he goes from a sniper to a very short time in the army to know I haven't served yeah so this guy's a liar to begin with yeah but he has been an instructor for RNA whatever yeah no no you're yeah you're taught he's talking about I don't even know what he just said but he's talking about the um the rifle association the NRA yeah yeah so he's been a rifle and for the NRA. But what he's about to say about the gun barrel when she asked him this question,

we're going to break that down because he lies about that as well. My gunshot. With your expertise, when she gave testimony on the stand, Samantha Carner, that there was dust and there was debris that was found in the gun barrel. Did you inspect the interior of this barrel? I did, yes. And did you notice whether it had any debris or dust in it? I believe my notes state that debris and dust was observed in the inside of the barrel, yes.

And then when we had the person who, and this was, I believe, Caitlin Oliver, who explained painfully about the DNA, the prints. Well, let's start with a point at the time. I'm not done. You said something, so I'm going to finish my thought, right? You don't want to do a point in time? No, well, sure. If you want to respond to, but I want you to respond to two points. I want you to start with two points. Okay.

Dust and debris in the gun barrel. Yeah. Secondly, the fact that there were five sets of prints, five plus actually by the end of the testimony, five sets of prints for which we already had the woman who worked for the FBI forensics testify that above two prints, if you're taking a sample, it's no longer a science, right? She testified that when they took the sample of what was on the trigger, they saw five plus prints. and among those five-plus prints, Tyler Robinson's, was the most degraded. From the 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. And you can't tell us anything about. when the DNA was deposited on the trigger guard or the trigger, correct? Correct. You can tell us anything about whether, when you say it's at least four, it could be five, six or seven people with DNA on that trigger or trigger guard, correct?

Correct, which is why we have the major contributor that is suitable for comparison, and the minor contributor is not suitable for comparison due to that complexity. The 1.3 sample is described as swabs of trigger and trigger guard, right? Correct. You didn't do the swabs, but am I correct that you have no way of knowing which part was from the trigger and which part was from the trigger guard? Correct. So they were swabbed together, so I wouldn't be able to say where the DNA came from.

And that's one of the samples that was degraded, correct? There were signs of degradation present in that sample, yes. And you said with regard to that sample that that was a sample consistent with at least four contributors. Correct? Correct. And did what you termed the major profile have the largest amount of degradation? in that sample? There was, yes.

So I would like you to explain how Tyler Robinson's prints could be the most degraded when she said, actually, you could have DNA on something that you've touched. You could have DNA on something that you've never touched. And to get DNA degradation, they've looked at pieces, items 20, 40 years on that don't have degradation. Yet Tyler Robinson's prints, amongst five plus other prints, were the most degraded on that weapon. Yeah. So let's get into all three of the claims. First, with debris. When it comes to debris, firing rifle doesn't always blow the debris out of the barrel.

Okay. That I, I, you think there could be debris, I'm sorry, debris and dust. He just fired the weapon. Sure. Okay. Not only that, he left it in a forest. Now, I don't know if, if you agree with me, but if you leave a rifle in a wooded area, it's also possible that debris could get in that way. But I'm not even sure that that's what the case is. I think it's, far more likely that. All right. I want to pause here for just one second because this is very important in what he's saying here.

Number one, if you just ask AI like what is out of all the ATF investigations and velocity of the bullet and how does an actual rifle work, especially at 30 out six, as fast as that round moves. But the number one question is, and as Andrew Wilson says here, oh, absolutely there could be dust still left in the barrel. Just because you fire a gun one time. doesn't mean it's going to remove the dust. So I asked AI, said, when a gun is fired, does that typically remove dust in the gun barrel?

If it had only been fired one time and had otherwise, I mean, one time recently and otherwise been sitting around. And it says, yes, when a firearm is fired, the pressure and hot gases behind the projectile will blow out or push loose dust, lint and light debris out of the bore. So that says, after one shot from a cold rifle that, and I said, you know, how heat, how does it expand? How does it heat? After one shot, the chamber throat area heats sharply for an instant from combustion gases that can reach thousands of degrees.

So if a rifle had been sitting unused, right, to where it had gathered loose dust or lent to accumulate inside of the barrel or the bore, firing it would generally disturb or remove most all of that material. So when a 30-0-6 is fired, several things happen almost instantaneously. The primer ignites the powder, rapidly expanding high-pressure gas drives the bullet down the bore. and then the bullet closely engages the rifling as it travels through the barrel. The bullet's passage followed by the high velocity gases, exiting behind it would tend to sweep, displace, burn, and blow out loose material that had settled in the bore. So that's one thing, right? So then I said, well, okay, so if someone threw the gun in the woods and they wanted to escape, this is after their one shot and then say the ATF then later examined this weapon, what would that?

look like what would the barrel look like would it would it still have dust and debris in it would it be down the barrel and then i also ask the other question okay how does an at f actually examine a rifle what is their protocol because it's one thing if if this woman on the stand that was talking about this oh yes there is dust and debris now i don't i don't remember who actually asked her the question whether there was prosecution or defense but either but either way here's what i here's what i would have fast if I was the defense. I would have said, okay, well, what is your methodology and how do you actually perform the examination of the rifle barrel?

How deep do you go in the rifle barrel? Is it just on the surface? Are you looking with a light? Are you using the cotton swab? All of those things. And there's a reason for that because I know the ATS protocol. They actually have a long, they have a long, it's called I see something boring swab. Right.

So it's like a long cotton swab. Yeah. So it's a long. cotton swab and typically even they'll take the barrel apart so they'll take the barrel off the actual gun and they will drive one end with this device and the other end with this device and as they go through each side of the barrel they see what the difference of uh you know dust is right on on the front or the back because that tells you number one has this weapon been fired how long ago has it been fired all these things and so each side of the barrel is different because if you do throw your weapon in the

woods, for example, yes, you could potentially get dust or debris in the front or, you know, the front section of the barrel. But wait a minute. But for dust and debris to be present throughout the barrel would be rare, especially after a high velocity round goes through and burns that chamber up. And so this is what AI said. Firen would tend to clear much of the pre-existing loose material. Then if the gun were thrown into the woods and recovered about an hour later, new material

may appear on the very, sorry, appear on the intermediate. entry point of the bore where the muzzle actually contacted soil if it did contact soil, how it landed moisture, vegetation, and wind. But simply lying outdoors for a few hours does not

mean that visible dust would be accumulated throughout the barrel especially. And isn't there a difference between dust and debris and dirt? I mean, would they not be able to see under a microscope? Because there is a difference between dust in your house and dirt in the woods. Well, and also, when you fire around as well.

When you fire around, there can be debris from the actual round. It depends on kind of how it comes out in the barrel, the gunpowder residue, all of that stuff. You can still have all of that residue in the barrel. That's fine. But I'm just saying, can't you tell the difference between dirt and dust? Absolutely. Yes.

And wouldn't they be able to tell that? But it said dust and debris was still there, meaning it was not fired. Yeah. Well, you know, maybe. Yeah, you're right. It may not have been fired. But, you know, the point is, though, is that you would. think if you're the ATF on the stand and you're explaining this that you would say, yeah,

we found gunpowder residue in the barrel. We found debris from the firing of the rifle. You know, we found all these things. They did not say that. They had to answer accurately, which said dust. Primarily they said dust. And I think they said in some debris, whatever that may be. So that's a very interesting point.

Yeah, but wouldn't they have just said sand? And I know what you're saying too, Sherry, is that you're asking, you know, would they specifically say dust versus gunpowder versus whatever happened from the fire and under rifle. That's essentially what you're asking. And I believe, I mean, unless the ATF is not giving away too much information right now to say, yeah, there was dust. We don't want to give the defense too much information. But you also have to remember, the prosecution has to release all the evidence they have to the defense. I mean, that's-

But they have not done that yet, I don't believe. Yeah, I don't think so. And that's what they've been kind of fighting for, even though that's a huge one because that could cause a mistrial. it could cause all kinds of shit if they do not get it to the defense in a timely matter. And I don't know if that means pretrial or not, but I'm pretty sure that the defense also has to have the available evidence at the very least what they're going to present, you know, before the pretrial to the defense, I don't know if the defense has to have all evidence. You guys can let us know that out there in the, you know, in the law world.

Yeah, and whatever. I'm not sure about that. But let's continue listen to this. That's what the case is. I think it's far more likely that you fired the shot. it just didn't blow all the debris out and it often doesn't. You'll find this if you if you take Grand Pappy's, you know, dirty rifle and it's all dusty inside the bore and you go fire it. You'll often look down the bore and there's still dust.

Okay. Happens all the time. Okay. And the prince? Yeah. But that's a lie. I mean, he's literally just lying out of his ass. Like first of all, who the hell goes and fires their granddad's rifle and then goes and looks down the bore and just notices, oh, they're dust in there.

That shit happens all the time. He's just lying. He's literally just being a liar. right now because his number one job, which it sounds like he was sent by Turning Point USA to represent Turning Point USA. And I'm sure there's where a lot of that money came from, that $300,000 to go and defend their honor to try to, you know, save face.

And we're going to talk about the money in just a second because the way they made it out like that, oh, it was all of his fans that donated this money, which is, no fans. Yeah, which is ridiculous. But anyways, Vince, we don't know all of the details on just yet. We do. It was excruciatingly long.

testimony on the prints. We don't because they haven't gone to trial, so we don't know on the print front. But Tyler Robinson's DNA was on there. You made the claim that Lance Twiggs DNA was on there and it was not. Well, when she gave the testimony, no, first, let's go to your first point because that's wrong. We can get a fact check on that. What do you mean we don't know until it goes to trial about the degraded prints? She testified.

And this is the person who took the prints. Yes, but the problem is, is that inside of this particular testimony, you agree with me that there's going to be much more of the DNA analysis in your trial, right? But you also would agree that her fact is not going to change that among the prince. His was the most degraded. So I'm asking you to address that. How could that be possible? Let's give it, let's just grant this for a second as a possibility that his fingerprints were degraded.

It's not a possibility. It's a fact. The person who took it took it. I'm just granting it for the sake of argument. You should grant it because it's a fact that she presented. So now it's granted. So what? What do you mean?

So what? Yeah. So what? What does that prove? It proves that if his prints were the most degraded among, five of them, you're going to have to explain how that's possible if he's the one that recently fired the weapon. Yeah.

So, wait a second. You're saying that it's an impossibility that if his fingerprints are the most degraded, if that's the case. You're the gunsmith. Well, wait a second. How would a gunsmith give an analysis on fingerprints or DNA? Do you think that I work in a DNA laboratory with finger prints? So your answer is, I don't know.

You can just say you don't know. But I did. But I did. No, you said, so what? Yes. I don't know. I actually don't have an explanation for that, Candid. No, it's my question.

Well, I think that what it would prove is that it is a more viable theory that people who had stronger prints on the gun may have used it more recently. Did they tell, did they say who else had fingerprints on the gun? They named Matt Robinson explicitly. And then, and this was a part of the testimony where she was speaking about how they got samples of elimination samples from the home of Amber Robinson, Matt Robinson, and Lance Twig. So those were the three names they named.

So are you saying that? Twigs finger prints? Would you like me to finish my statement? I just want to make sure I'm clarified. I'm trying to finish the answer, but it can't be clarified until the answer comes out of my mouth. Okay. So this was a portion of her testimony where she was explaining how they got elimination samples from the home. And she named Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson, and Lance Twigs as the elimination samples that she was using. And so she explicitly said, she said some of them, some, so we can assume two out of the three, were their prints were found on the gun. She's explicitly.

named Matt Robinson as someone who had prints on the gun and then said there were five people that they had taken that sample from. And again, what's also relevant here is the earlier testimony, which came from the FBI forensics analyst, I believe it was on day two, where she said that when you're using those mixtures and those samples and you get up to five plus, it's really hard to make any sort of a determination. So both of those things are relevant. If you can't explain, why his prints are the most degraded and you're saying he is the shooter. It's not really a so what. It's an open-ended question that people have a right to pursue. It's not a conspiracy. It's actually proof of my claim that there is evidence that he was set up as a Patsy. That wouldn't prove anything

about him being a Patsy. It said it's evidence to support the claim that he could have been set up as a Patsy. So this is why I said earlier, so what? Because even if it's the case, this doesn't have an explanation for it yet. That doesn't actually give you any evidence in your corner. for Tyler Robinson being a Patsy. Okay. Hang on, hang on. I didn't cut you off. Right.

You would need to actually explain how this would demonstrate Tyler Robinson. This is tied into Robinson being a Patsy. Are you claiming that these fingerprints were Lance Twigs or that he had any DNA there? I'm saying that it could be Matt Robinson. It could be Amber Robinson. That sort of information is going to come out during the trial. How would that tie into the idea that he's a Patsy? Yes, because if his is the most degraded prints and the information that I shared on my platform is true,

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

you could see that could be. How do we get to the patchy part? If you don't let me ever get to the end of the sentence. So how could we get to the patsy part? Okay. I'll wait patiently until we get to the patsy part. So that could be a reasonable explanation as to why there was dust in the barrel because he doesn't often shoot this weapon and he is indeed a fisher. And it could also be a reasonable explanation for why we have Matt Robinson's prints on this. Obviously, Lance Twigs, even if he has prints on things, they live together, that doesn't really mean anything. but that could demonstrate that somebody took his weapon and put it somewhere. His prints are the most degraded.

Somebody else's prints, there's more presence of somebody else's prints, and that could demonstrate that somebody is taking items from his house and putting it into very places. But it also could demonstrate nothing. So the problem that you have here is that this is pure conjecture. This is, hang on, this is not evidence that Tyler Robinson is a patsy. It's only evidence that you have conjectured up that, well, if it's the case, that these are the more degradated prints, then therefore that means must be Patsy because parents, dad's fingerprints on gun.

I didn't say must be Patsy. Describe how this actually links in to Robinson being a Patsy. Okay. I just described that for you. So I'm not, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. So I'm going to move on from that. All right. So there you go.

That was a pretty important part of this debate. It was one of the most important because as you can see, you know, Andrew Wilson is basically saying, look, who cares about the fact that the prints were degradated? But yet at the same time, he wants you to believe that because his prints were on there, he definitely did it. Or because of the grainy ass footage is definitely Tyler Robinson. All of the things that the state has said, according to Andrew Wilson, is beyond a reasonable doubt in his mind that it was 100% Tyler Robinson.

Same thing for Turning Point USA. Same thing for Erica Kirk. Erica Kirk immediately was like, no, we know it's Tyler Robinson without a doubt, and I'm ready to forgive now. then a week, or I don't even know if it's a week later, she goes out in front of fireworks on stage and is like, you know, it looks like it looks like WWE. It looks like WWE in there. She has her little cloth and she's batting her little eyes.

And then, you know, of course, we've saw the Zoom call right where this was like, what, a week after or something. And she's like, all right, guys, you know, and she was like laughing it up before she thought, I guess, that it was being recorded and all this stuff. And then it gets on to the recording. And she's talking about T-shirt sales. And, you know, hey, how much T-shirts are. we're going to get from this?

You know, it's very, very weird. But I want to make a couple of points is number one, what he's trying to say is like, even with the print thing, Andrew's like, well, yeah, I mean, that's supposedly that's what it is. And Candid's like, no, that is what it is. It's like she testified under oath. And it's not going to change. And it's a fact.

It's not going to change because it can't change because then she'll be held for perjury. If she's like, oh, well, no, that's not what I meant. Or no, that's not what I said because we know that's what you said. And so you see how he's trying to obfuscate like what actually happened and try to make his own like make you believe that oh, that's not actually what happened in court. But it is actually what happened in court. So what Candace was fighting him on was 100% facts. And he was having a very hard time defending against facts. Right. To the contrary.

And he did not do a good job whatsoever with getting Candice on any of the facts from the state. There's nothing that he came out with that if you were a normal listener, unbiased, didn't give a shit, you know, if it was Tyler Robinson, if it was Israel, if it was the French Foreign Legion, if it was whoever, and you were watching this debate and you knew all the facts of the case, you would say, number one, Andrew Wilson has done nothing at all to further prove anything that the state has tried to prove that they haven't yet. And Candace, at the very least, has the stronger points from what we've heard so far. Right. And in the beginning of this debate, it was kind of like his evidence they were going through. And he kept saying it was overwhelming evidence. And they got in a huge debate about what overwhelming evidence was to believe it was Tyler Robinson. And then she pretty much got him to admit that he doesn't mean overwhelming evidence. He means it's convincing. It's convincing to me. And I liked the part where she put in when she had spoke with the families that Tyler Robinson was not much of a show.

shooter because that is a very important fact right there. If you're shooting from a building 150 yards away and you don't ever shoot a gun and it's your grandfather's gun that you don't ever shoot and it's not, you don't have it targeted right or whatever. You know, a lot of people go to practice to target to know exactly because your weapon might be off, you know, to like a little cinnamon or to the left or the right and you know exactly where it is if you do those target practices because especially older weapons, they're going to get off the little, you know what I'm saying?

Off the zero, yeah. Off the zero mark. And if he never shot that weapon before and he just goes on a building and he's 150 yards away and he does a perfect shot into his neck, it does not make sense to me because I have shotguns and I'm not a professional at it. But I'm going to tell you, it was even like, I don't remember how close we were when we were targeted shooting. We've been a few times, but I didn't even hit the target.

Yeah. No, you're not the greatest shooter. for sure. So that's why Chad has the big gun for me. So I don't have to worry about aiming. Yeah. So talking about the DNA, though, so the rifle itself, ATF DNA section chief, Caitlin, Oliver testified that Tyler Robinson's DNA was detected on numerous areas at a rifle, including

the stock and grips, butt plate and trigger. But he, his DNA was the most degraded. It also, I don't, I don't think that Lance Twiggs DNA was on the, rifle that they know of, but Lance Twigs DNA was on the towel that was wrapped around the rifle, uh, along with Robinson's. So I think the majority was Twigs on the towel. Yeah, I, I don't know. I'm not sure about that.

I think it was actually the opposite of that, but I could be wrong. Uh, the screwdriver on the rooftop also contained both men's DNA approximately 89% Robinson, it says, and 11% twigs. So, you know, but they did say Twigs DNA was found on weapons or evidence associated with the gun, which is, there. There's just weird ways of how they're saying certain things. But at the very least, it is strange that if you are the guy that is holding the weapon and you're going to go and commit a murder and you're doing all these things,

going on a roof and jumping down and placing it, putting it on whatever, it's just strange that you're the most degraded DNA on the actual rifle versus four other people because there was five total, I believe, on the rifle or five or maybe it was six total. And you were the most degraded out of six. I don't know. But either way, it's none of that stuff really makes sense. I mean, could there be a plausible explanation? Absolutely.

I guess the, obviously the prosecution is going to come up with something. And he's going to say, look, he don't really ever fire it. You know, he used a towel to wrap it around. But you also got to remember that this rifle and people have done many examples of this, even when they try to show you Lance Twigs limping around, supposedly with him carrying this rifle. I mean, Tyler. Yeah, supposedly when he's carrying the rifle in his pants.

as he's walking. Well, you also have to think about now he could have had the towel in his backpack, I guess, but people have done that exact rifle and tried to put it in their pants. And I'm talking about tall dudes, 6, 2, 6, 3, 6, 4 guys. They probably couldn't even lift that leg.

He's like, you can't even reach it. It comes all the way up to here where the butt is sticking out. I mean, obviously, you got to remember how long the rifle is. It's just not something that you're not going to see. And you couldn't even see a rifle in his pants. He was just limping. But then there's another video.

of Tyler Robinson limping on the opposite leg. So it's like he forgot which leg he was supposed to be limping with. Oh, it's probably because of the mirrored image that the mirro video. I don't know. I don't think it works like that. But I mean, who knows? Well, I just found it very interesting, too, that they granted Lance Twigs immunity from this whole thing right out the bat just to get Tyler. I mean, wouldn't you think that they would want to investigate Lance Twigs since his DNA was.

all over the place? Well, I guess they investigated enough. And they were like, well, I don't think he has necessarily anything to do with it. So we're going to grant you full immunity. And I mean, but why would you have to grant someone immunity? You know, I guess. Nothing to do with it. I mean, I don't know.

I mean, I guess if you're Lance Twigs and you've got attorneys and, you know, your attorneys will probably look, he'll talk, but you're going to grant him immunity. He's not going to say anything that's going to, you know, criminalize him for any reason. So you guys already done your investigation. You obviously see that he wasn't a part of this, if that's the case. and so then we want immunity. He was talking to them, I think, like day two, though. Did they already do that investigation in two days?

I don't know. Well, the investigation, it seems like, was pretty quick. They're like, this exactly how it happened. Look, we got the freaking text messages or the telegram messages, whatever it was to where he's admitting all this stuff. You have the lover messages between him and Lance. And of course, this was like, yeah, and it's like this guy hits the perfect shot, supposedly from a rooftop 160 yards away.

and yet he never shoots the weapon. He is not the best shot according to his family and Lance Twiggs family or whichever one it was. And supposedly they want you to believe that this guy was a furry lover, you know, because Lance Twigs was a furry trans person. But they never talked about it, never discussed it. They never talked about politics. They never really talked about any of that stuff. I mean, they never talked about politics. I don't even think they ever talked about Charlie Kirk.

No, they didn't. And that's what's weird. And then all of a sudden you have this confession, you know, from Tyler Robinson, he did all of this elaborate things. And then keep it also in mind that, you know, Candace, there's someone else that has found a receipt. There was people that were in a restaurant to where it shows potentially Tyler Robinson and a steakhouse.

Now, we don't know for sure if it is Tyler Robinson there, but one of the, one of the waiters or waitresses. The waitress and the owner. And the owner said almost positive 99% it was him. Supposedly someone got the receipt of this visit from what they're saying is that it was Tyler Robinson that actually, I think it was his card, and they talked about this in the debate. Now, Canis cannot 100% fully say that it is because she's not yet to fully see the redacted part of that. But if it is true, it matters because it would not have allowed him to be at UVU at the time of the shooting.

Right. So, and then also you got to think, too, that, you know, also during this time, he went to Chick-fil-A and he, you know, he was just doing all kinds of shit, normal day. Yeah, and she brought up, too, you know, how many furries are people like that are going to Chick-fil-A when this is like a Christian establishment? Well, Tyler Robinson wasn't technically a furry. You know, they want you to believe that he was in love with this guy that was a trans person. And then, but yet, supposedly, I don't know. Supposedly, he's just kind of a normal dude and he's not really, even though they, it's weird. The whole thing is extremely weird.

But let's listen to the next clip of the second best part of this debate. You listed on your own Twitter that what you found to be convincing was something that looked like his car pulled into the driveway, a blurry image. No, I didn't. The standard white guy coming up the steps that could literally be anyone. This never happened. You wrote the car pulling in, Robinson getting out of it, the fact that he has seen four other times on camera, the DNA on the roof, and on the screwdriver that he left behind. It's overwhelming, man. Yeah, but that's not an exhaustive.

Just so we're clear, you did tweet the entire basis for why you think that there's evidence for Tyler Robinson being the person that took the shot is based off of a hearing under Utah 1102 rules, meaning that they are doing the exact same thing that I am doing. This is the state. You said you're here to represent the state. Well, did you watch the preliminary hearing? No, I didn't say I was here to represent the state. The state's position you think is strong and convincing. No. What I'm here to do is represent my own opinion, which is that based on the evidence presented so far by the state. The state has presented evidence. under Utah's 1102 rule. But this doesn't demonstrate any patchy behavior. No, that's very important because that rule is hearsay. So you can't say at the same time,

Candace, you're not allowed to. And what that means under the Utah rule, which I'm sure you know, because I'm sure you watch the preliminary hearing and yourself understand what that means, is that the entire hearing was hearsay. It means none of that information that was presented is going to be allowed,

the majority of it, the overwhelming majority of it, is not going to be allowed at the trial. They're allowed to present when it's just a probative hearing. I don't think all the evidence that was, that was put in was hearsay. Okay, he didn't watch this case. But not only that, no, no, no, that's, this is a huge point. I want to, well, hey, we can call for a fact check.

If all the evidence was put in. This was every single day, Utah rule 11.02. They want to go there. So they said there's a medical examiner's explanation of the shooting that's in the back. Rob, if you want to pull it up and then Candace, if anybody from your team wants to pull something up, no problem as well, but they're requesting it. If you guys got it, pull it up so we can show it. And in the interim, can't, is that it?

Yeah. So I'll read this. Just what are we looking at just so we know? Yeah. So the, this says the bullet, or at least part of it, sequentially perforated the interior left of Mr. Kirk's neck, strap muscles of the left side of the neck. This is a summary, by the way.

Left common cartoid on the left internal external jugular veins. The bullet also obliterated the left side, C27 vertebrae, transacted the cervical spinal cord. Medical examiner, a significant portion of Kirk's cervical spinal cord was traumatically absent. Mr. Kirk suffered from other severe injuries, including bilateral, apical, and posterior intercosal hemorrhages, pulmonary, apical hemorrhages, multiple disruptions to the thyroid, et cetera, et cetera. So the summary of the examinations that he was shot, that was what they were

pulling that up for. Okay. And I don't, I'm not disputing that he could have been hit with a projectile. We're not disputing that. So I don't know why this is brought up as a fact check. could you bring up 1102 Utah rule? Because this is an unbelievable point that you're making by saying that I am not allowed to infer off of evidence. You can infer. I'm trying to follow the inference. But your entire reason, like you asserted that you believe there's overwhelming

evidence on the basis of what we saw on the preliminary hearing. The entire preliminary hearing was hearsay. Yeah, I'm fine with your inferences. But no, no, you just literally said I couldn't do that. Yes, I can't. No, I didn't. I'm just saying from your inference, how do we get to Patsy? This is how you got to shoot her.

Tyler Robinson did it. No, no, no, no, no, I didn't get to just shoot her from that. Yes, you did. You, again, this is something important. So we should pull up a fact check about what the 1102 Utah and under their constitution for the sake of a preliminary hearing. Yeah. They do not have to have hard evidence. They don't have to put people on the trials where they have to.

But no, no, that's why the entire hearing was basically hearsay. Officer Bagley was saying, but not all of it, like I said. The overwhelming majority. And again, no dispute. outside of the one that you don't want to give. Please don't come me off. Outside of, no, that is what's in dispute. It means that your entire brand of saying you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence, falls apart when the entire preliminary hearing is based off of hearsay. In fact, Lance's testimony before they had about an hour debate, actually, maybe it was more than an hour debate before he sat.

And they said, this is not going to be allowed. You wouldn't even be allowed to do this. We'd be able to cross-examine him. The questions that they're asking, Lance, are all leading. And what did he say? well, I'm the magistrate under Utah Constitution. You know, 11.02, it is my job to allow all of this so we can see if the state has enough here that we can then move to a trial, which will then, they would not allow this stuff.

They would say we get to cross-examine lands. But you're willing-nilly say... No, but the entire substance of your argument is that people can't infer off of evidence. That's what you're saying to me. When you say Candace, you can't talk about the degraded prints, which is a fact. Yeah, I'm not saying that.

And then infer off of that, that Tyler could have been a pass. And I want to point out something real quick is what she is saying is 1102 of Utah state legislation says that preliminary hearings don't have to have beyond a reasonable doubt. It just has to be enough that the judge believes there's enough evidence to move forward with a trial. So it doesn't have to be 100% factual evidence. It could be hearsay. It could be Lance Twiggs saying something or someone else saying something about Tyler Robinson. And that could be enough to move the trial forward.

And that's the point because there was a lot of testimony. with the witnesses saying these things, but the witnesses were not actually there. It was somebody else saying what somebody else said. Yeah. And that's hearsay. Yeah, exactly. And like she said, most of this preliminary hearing was hearsay. It was not factual evidence.

And that's literally what Andrew Wilson is trying to hold Candace accountable for saying, oh, this is all hearsay what you're saying. Even though, you know, there's a lot of factual things that Candace has said. They've called her liar. And then she came out about it. That doesn't necessarily mean, like, the text messages. from Charlie Kirk about Israel cause and all that stuff is a factual thing of who did it. But it's just saying that it's almost nearly the same kind of evidence pointing towards

at least motive for however he died, which is what they're accusing her of being a grifter and liar for. But that's kind of what they basically used because look, we know. For and against and you can't do both. Yeah, we know the DNA was not technically, that wouldn't be technically enough to move the trial forward because you can't prove that he shot Charlie Kirk because he had the most degraded evidence on his rifle that he owns. Now, the rifle being there would probably be a pretty substantial piece of evidence to move the case forward. Obviously, Lance Twiggs testimony, the text messages, whatever.

Those things are all important things. But almost everything else is pretty much hearsay. Yeah, but like with the text messages, how do we know that Tyler Robinson sent those text messages? Because it wasn't proven in court. It was just they came in and said, hey, here's the message. is this is what Tyler said to this person. Cool. Awesome. Let's move on. You know, that's it. Nothing to see here.

Yeah. So, and that's going to be the question in trial is like, how good is the defense going to be able to do to defend this stuff? Are they actually going to be smart about this or are they going to be dumb? And I'm not saying, by the way, if it is Tyler Robinson that did this, he deserves to be in prison and on death, really, death row. But, but the point is, is like, you have to prove him to be guilty because. By a reasonable, beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the thing is, is like, if it isn't Tyler and you put someone in jail that is not him or even if it was him or he was a part of something much bigger.

We have to know the whole story. It's not good enough to just know if he was involved or whatever. And then you try to put everything on him because maybe you found out that, hey, there is a government involved. I want to point out something too and we're going to play the rest of this. You know, one thing they did not bring up in this entire debate, which I would have definitely done if I was Candice was Joe Kent. And the reason why is because for those that remember who Joe Kent was, he's the guy that resigned.

He was over the counterterrorism or the counterterrorism office. And so he's basically the sister agency of the D&I, Department of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard's office. But he was the director of counterintelligence or counterterrorism. And so he was heavily involved. He was actually in some ways more involved with our national security and all that stuff. and even Tulsi Gabbard in some ways. And so they had went after the Charlie Kirk thing along with Tulsi Gabbard. And he said this on Tucker Carlson's podcast.

He said this on others. We went to various agencies. We went to Utah. We went to the FBI. We went to Cash Patel. We went to Dan Bonjino. We went to all these people and said, let me have the files because there is evidence pointing that there is outside evidence or outside influence.

Yeah. No, but international either agencies or whatever that were involved. involved in this murder and all of the agencies, when they tried to get all this shit, basically told them to go, F off. Right. And they say, you ain't getting shit. You don't even speak about that. Quit talking about it.

We're done. Move on. And they were never, ever allowed to investigate. So that was the first thing Joe Kent was like, okay, something screwed up. Something major is messed up with this. And then, of course, then it was Joe Kent and Trump and the whole team's disagreement about the Iran war. But I think specifically, it's like Joe Kent said, is like, he really ruffled feathers when he was It wasn't just him.

I mean, there were other people in his agency and D&I that wanted to investigate the leads on the international plot, maybe against Charlie Kirk. And they were shot down in every single avenue. And one of those was obviously Cash Patel that shot that down. Other agency heads, including the executive office. So that, you know, just that alone makes you wonder, why would they not want anything investigated when it comes to the possible involvement of whether, whether it's the French, Foreign Legion or Israel or whoever. Like that should have been 100% yes. And the same thing, I don't know if they talk about in this clip.

But the same thing goes with there was people that said there was 11 members of the French Foreign Legion on the ground that day. And it was a very credible witness that Candace submitted all of this to Cash Patel, Dan Bonjino, including the executive office. They did nothing to investigate it. And even, you know, Patrick Bedev was like, that's crazy that they did not. nothing to investigate it. And Patrick Beck, David is 100% not on necessarily Candace's side because they sent for Israel all the time. So they've always kind of been critical of Candice. But even he was like,

so you send all this shit in and they didn't even investigate it. Andrew Wilson was like, well, how do you know they didn't investigate it? Maybe they didn't. You just don't know. She's like, well, no, because I'm the one that has the evidence and I have the source and they never came to me to ask me who my source was or to investigate it. So I know they didn't investigate it. And the reason why we're saying this, by the way, is because I'm, I'm thinking that they don't talk about it in the rest of this clip. But let's continue this. I'm not making stuff up. I'm not making stuff up.

I'm saying that I'm saying that I'm doing. Let's pull that out. Let's pull that up. I'm doing exactly what the state did. I'm looking at a piece of evidence. And I am saying, I'm not showing me how you get there from the influence. To the audience would be 11 o two means. Just so this, just so everybody who's watching us at home understands what I am saying, even if he doesn't.

What Andrew is arguing is that I don't have the. right to extrapolate from a fact like um just making it up just purely making it up i'm asking based on you based on your influence you just showed yours reliable hearsay you'll get a chance reliable hearsay in criminal preliminary examinations the entire preliminary hearing that you just saw was on the basis of reliable hearsay and what that means essentially is the people who are making the statements can just say patrick told me that he did this on monday patrick is not here. And that is, they, they can allow that into the hearing.

That's just, because it's just meant to be probative. And so it's the state saying, here's what we have inferred. So you are allowed to take a piece of evidence and then you are allowed to infer off of that evidence. Okay. Case in point, that's a demonstration of, to give you, that's a demonstration of what I just did. I said, the prints were the most degraded off of Tyler Robinson.

And from that, what I am inferring is that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson was set up. That doesn't, that's the point in contention. That's not a point in contention. That's the point in contention. It's not a point in contention. If you're saying it's a point in contention, it's not the point in contention. I'm telling you that was what the entire hearing allowed for. So the evidence that he is describing that he is using to argue his case is all based on inference, not fact.

Great. Inference, not facts. So, again, we're inferring off of the facts. So again, we're going to take this and I'm just going to even grant it because it's irrelevant. I'm asking how you get it. to the inference that even if you dispute that piece of evidence, that means Patsy. I'm looking for the logical chain for how you get to that inference. What I am telling you is it's the exact same way that when you tweeted, I think that this

evidence is overwhelming. When they say that looks like Tyler Robinson's car, he drives a similar car. Okay. They are inferring that that's Tyler Robinson. Can you walk me through the inference so that I understand? It's not a fact. It's not a fact. When you show a blurry image, which you kept citing that we have images.

No, no, I'm talking about your inference that the fingerprints, even if they're degraded, equals Patsy. How do you get that inference? I didn't say it equals Patsy. I think it is enough evidence that it should be explored, which is exactly what this preliminary was in the inverse. That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is when you said, I'm using this as evidence that he could have been a

patsy. I'm asking, how do you get the inference to Patsy from that? Because what I am saying is that it shows that somebody else had more. DNA presence on that gun, then Tyler Robinson did. So it is plausible, which is all they're doing, they're presenting plausibility based off of the facts, okay? It is plausible that somebody just took his gun and put it there. That's how it works. And is there equally a hundred other plausible explanations? I think that's the reason why most people are exploring when things don't make sense. So yes, at the beginning of that this is how this is how the court process works.

So if there's a hundred other possible explanations in Candace, why is it that we should go with this idea that it was a patsy i i'm not saying that we should go with the idea that it was a patsy i am saying that there is oh i thought that was the whole defense the your whole claim today my whole claim was that there is more evidence that he is set up that he set up as a patsy how does that equal evidence of patsy i don't know how many times i can say this like i i am saying that i am using the exact same mechanism that you are accepting for some reason in the utah courtroom yeah right to say i'm going to look at the evidence and i'm going to infer an alternative theory so you just solve the states and you're accepting it and they are they have not presented any concrete facts you listed on

your own twitter that what you found to be convincing was something that looked like his car pulled into the driveway a blurry image no i didn't the standard white guy coming up the steps that could literally be anyone this never happened you can we get a fact check on that can me pull up his tweet where he goes over the floor i didn't say that's what convinced me when you you actually didn't say it's what convinced me but you said this is the evidence that you found to be overwhelming and you you named i believe actually five things i think you said it was his car You said it was... Well, there's multitudes of things that I find to be compelling evidence.

We're going to get a fact check on that. You did. Go ahead. You said the blurry images coming up the steps. Quite literally, when Officer Bagley testified, they talk about what I'm talking about making inference, this is the most, I thought was the most absurd testimony I've ever heard. And part of me, it was actually Hull, David Hull. They asked him a question, how did you know the guy in the maroon shirt was the same as the guy

that came up the stairs later that was wearing the American flag black shirt? And he said, they're wearing the. same shoes. Why is that absurd? That's how you decided these two are the same people. Oh, wow, what a scientific. They're both wearing converses. Okay, that's an absurd thing to say.

That is not evidence that these are the same people if we're both wearing converses. That was what he said. That's what flew on the stand. But I still don't understand how that would be absurd. It's an absurd thing. For instance, if somebody were to change their clothes but keep the same shoes on, wouldn't you utilize the shoes to try to track that person if they were changing their clothes? The idea that on a college campus, two people wearing.

this totally different outfits, but both wearing converse, just can't happen. It's such an absurdity that I don't even need to, like, argue that. I'm just going to let people deal. Why isn't it? Just concede that point. Obviously, it's absurd thing to say. I know these are the same people because they're both wearing converse. Yeah, I'm not sure if in context, that's what happened.

But even if it is, you can get a fact check on it. But even if it is, again, if we're utilizing inferences, whenever we're dealing with logic and we're dealing with making a logical inference, we're going to take the entire collaboration of evidence and then we're going to make inferences from that. You would do that with any type of logical proposition. Otherwise, you could never have a true or false claim. You just told me I couldn't do that. So when we're never, that never happened.

You're just making stuff up. So anyway, when we're talking about logical inferences, what I'm looking for is the logical inferences that you have that Tyler Robinson's and Patsy based on a totality of evidence that you have. We can keep going through your other evidence. We should find his tweet where he lists the reasons that he was convinced. So let's start with the 30 out six. that that's fine your team's looking for do you know do you remember how long ago that was uh the tweets of

the uh five did you delete it or no no i don't delete tweets okay cool i just look for he said the unless it was his car it was his uh it was the car and i want to point out something here real quick too because there's been a lot of talk online about well number one we know for sure andrew wilson had an earpiece 100% i saw it for sure i did not see one in can definitely see that one in Candace's ear, but I don't know. Well, someone had pointed out that maybe she had one, I don't know. But right here, you hear PBD said, hey, by the way, Candice, your team is looking for this. Do you know when it was?

Right. Obviously, she didn't hear this because PBD does have an earpiece because he's listening to the people in the back, both Andrew's team and Candace's. And he's like, Candice, your team's looking for the damn video. Right. And then they played a clip, another clip during this debate. And Andrew's listening in his little earpiece. And then she's like, I can't hear it, but tell me what it is. Because, you know, so PBD is like telling her what the clip's saying.

So she wasn't getting fed information. And she didn't need to be because she knows this shit. She knows it. But Andrew was being fed everything. That's why, like, everyone, they probably played at least six or seven clips or eight clips. It was three of Erica. Yeah, three or four. It was three.

And then he's like, oh, by the way, Andrew's like, we got another clip. And then because I think it was Candace is like, oh, well, it seems like that you're playing all the clips for. Erica. Like, why don't Erica just come here and debate me herself or whatever? He's, I'm not playing Erica Kirk clips. And she's like, well, you played four. And then PBD looks at it. He's like, hey, he played three.

So then like two minutes later, he's like, well, I'll have another clip. And then PBD is like, it might be the fourth Erica Kirk clip. He's going to get there to the four. Well, I think part of his contract probably with turning point is he had to play certain clips during this debate to clear her name. Yeah. And keep in mind. don't think they're going to say this in this clip either, but, you know, she called him out and said,

well, obviously, you've been getting information of it from Turning Point USA. He's like, about that tweet. Well, no, just about everything. Yeah, too. No, he said, he said, yeah, I went to Turnin Point USA to see if there's anything they wanted me to talk about and say or whatever. And, you know, and so obviously this was a, this was a, this was the guy that they selected to to debate Candace Owens about whatever because, and I honestly think.

And he's training their people to debate. Yeah. It's either they somehow got him on Gerrogan, turning point USA, or it was after Gerrogan, turning point USA saw him and said, let's get him to debate Candace and we'll put up the money if we can to do this, even though,

you know, what a joke. Like you should have sent somebody else. And the reality is every single poll that has been out there has showed Candace winning by, you know, 70, 80 percent to whatever, 30, 40, 20 percent. Oh, and I just want to mention, too, what I'm talking about the text is in his intro, he remember he had to read his intro. He could not just say his intro because he has to read it.

But part of it is he got a text from Turning Point saying that Charlie was fearing from his life from the left, not Israel, but from the left. It was unreleased text message. Yes. And then during the debate, Candace is like, well, let's play the text. Let's see the text. Where is it? He's like, no, I'm not going to show it here. I'm going to do it on my own platform.

She's like, so you're not going to show the text message, which is previously unreleased that says, that has Charlie Kirk saying that I'm afraid that the left is about to kill me. And he says, no, I'm not going to show you, but I'm just telling you they gave me the text. So I'm not going to show you. I'm going to release it on my show. Well, he's still since not released this text message. A lot of people are like, is this text message even true? Is it bullshit? We don't know.

But we've never seen this text message before. And why would turn to point USA have not released this long ago? why it just doesn't make sense and look it could definitely be possible it could be true because you think of course he thinks that but yeah well you think about for example you know trump's attempted assassination and supposedly it was from somebody from the left but i also think that crooks was a patsy as well yeah there's all kinds of weird shit about trump's assassination i don't even want to get into but either way let's listen to the rest of this is about over It was definitely the staircase photos, and it was when the trial was going on.

Okay, she has it. She has it. If you got, Skyler has it. If you want to pull it up so we can see it. Somebody said, so give me the clear evidence right here. I want you to provide it right here. All I heard from the investigator was, we believe this to be Tyler Robinson, is belief something you go as a fact?

You wrote the car pulling in. That's a totally blurry image. Robinson getting out of it. You have no idea if that's Tyler Robinson. The fact that he is seen four other times on camera, the fact being just the a standard white boy with brown hair was seen getting walking up staircase the DNA on the roof we should discuss that and on the screwdriver that he left behind it's overwhelming man yeah but that's not an exhaustive list just so we're clear you did tweet it but it's not an exhaustive well you said

you said i only said this one thing and said that that was overwhelming actually that's not what i said it is you can you can you fact check if that was said or not i did not hear her so the things you named, I believe, actually five. I think it's funny here is like we still aren't getting to any of these inferences. So why are you pivoting? So just say you were wrong. I'm not. I'm going to just say I was wrong. I was.

I'm not wrong. So back to the tweet, the tweet aspect here. It was really funny. That's not an exhaustive list of why I find it. I didn't say it was exhaustive. I just said you said it. And on top of the, well, no, you didn't. You said that I only said this one thing.

You named, I believe, actually five things. And then said based on that it's over. Why didn't? You didn't mention that I mentioned the screwdriver, DNA, all the, other things. You never mentioned any of that. He wrote the car pulling in, Robinson getting out of it, the fact that he has seen four other times on camera, the DNA on the roof, and on the screwdriver that he left behind. It's overwhelming, man. So no, you're actually incorrect there. But on top of that, moving over to the actual evidence itself. Are you? Uh, yes, I'm okay. Anyway, back to the evidence

itself. Yes, I'm fine. Actually, I'm glad you're asserting that you're okay. I wasn't worried about your health. I'm just saying that. I just said you tweeted this. You said, no, I didn't. We got a fact check and now you're like just going to gaslight me and pretend that I said no gaslight it wasn't exhaustive I never said that I just said you did say this zero gaslight I didn't say you couldn't have said more but I would like to address the what you said in that time if this is how you want to spend it interrogating my position you can do it that way I'm just addressing what you asserted on your Twitter was like the hard evidence that convinced you was overwhelming that's literally that's not what you said that's not actually in fact what happened in that exchange you listed on your own Twitter

that what you found to be convincing was something that looked like you his car pulled into the driveway, a blurry image. No, I didn't. The standard white guy coming up the steps that could literally be anyone. This never happened. You named, I believe, actually five things. I was here for it. So what's your position here?

Yeah, so my position is that based on all of the evidence, which has been demonstrated, at least all the evidence to my knowledge, that I am actually not seeing anything that's compelling as an alternative theory. I'm not seeing anything which is convincing me of something otherwise than what. what the state is presenting is evidence. That's my position. That's what you're asking me. So just going back to what you did actually tweet, is it fair to like to for me to ask questions about that? Is that the only tweet you're going to ask me about? Well, we're addressing your claim that the evidence is overwhelming. And this is a tweet where you listed what you felt was overwhelming.

I think that's fair. I feel like that's fair. Sure, but not exhaustive. Just so you know. And I never said it was exhaustive. Go ahead. You said I did. Sure. Whatever you want. But yeah. So going back to that, all of that, as you say to me, well, Candace, why are you addressing and making inferences off of the testimony. No, I never, never asked you why you're making inferences. I asked you how with the inference you made you got to the conclusion. Okay. So I would like to know how you got to the conclusion.

And I'm just going to throw it right back at you because for some reason you permit yourself to do it. And that's what I'm demonstrating is that you permit yourself to do it. And then you say when I do it, it's a conspiracy. So there you go. That is pretty much how the debate went. And, you know, the problem with Andrew is that he was not prepared. at all.

I don't even understand how you don't prepare any more than that. And as I told you yesterday, Sherry, like, I don't believe the state's case, but I could have done a better job defending the state's case than he did for damn sure. Well, and towards the end of this debate, it was so funny because she asked him, can you even tell me what the charges are? And so basically, Andrew Wilson did not believe her? So he's like, did somebody just text you that? Because I saw you on your phone looking at text earlier.

She's like, no. No one's texted me anything about that. I have not asked for help during this debate. Do you want to look at my phone? So then she hands her phone to PBD and lets him go through her text and he's reading them. He's like, are you right with me reading it? She's like, yes, go ahead. He's like, well, here's a compliment.

They give you a compliment. She's like, well, I didn't even see it. So anyways, to prove the point that she knew. Yeah, he just went to 1130, which is when they started. And then he didn't look any further because he didn't have to. But he was trying to accuse her of getting these answers and all this shit, which, the way, I also think that if she would have actually had an ear into her team, he would have accused her of that, or if maybe he didn't want to do that because he had an earpiece

for damn sure, right? So, you know, and that's the thing. And the whole interview, he just kept pushing it in. He kept messing with it and all this stuff because he was probably just trying like, shit, I cannot hear the greatest. I need to have all the answers. Look, this guy was a patsy for Turning Point USA is what he was. And they're not even trying to hide it. And the interesting thing about it is, is that this is the best that turning point USA could possibly present to Candace Owens to debate. This is the best. And the reason why he sucked and did not do very good and the reason why every single poll

shows that Candace Owens won and not him is because most good debaters, like smart people that actually know how to talk about shit that are smart intellectual people. A lot of these people are not, they're never going to go and argue the state's case in this when they see all the discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. I mean, that's the problem. Or I guess I should even say lack of evidence the prosecution has. So it's very interesting. I, you know, Andrew Wilson kind of came out of nowhere.

He really wasn't anybody. And really until he went on Jerry Rogan, yes, he was on a couple random podcasts and, you know, the whatever podcast is pretty decent size. But it's not like anyone really took him seriously there because, like I said, he debates only fans, girls, and porn stars. And so no one really took him that serious, which is freaking interesting that turning point USA is literally having him teach debate classes at turning point USA. And I just wonder what Erica Kirk thought when Candace brought up the tweet or text

that he said that Erica Kirk was too much of a retard to even plan this. Yeah. Yeah. I was cracking up. But she was like, oh, you called her a retard. So, I mean, you know, and it was not, you know, and then all of a sudden he has to defend her now because, you know, because he's getting paid now. And that's how this shit works, man. They'll just throw money at someone and be like, hey, we'll give you money.

Good debate. And it's going to make you big and all this shit. He's kind of like a patsy. Yeah, which we're not claiming that they gave him money. We don't know, but it just seems like that. Yeah, we don't know for sure. But I don't know. I mean, I don't know if there's evidence out there that they did pay or not.

I know that there was a lot of money raised and they raised it to 300,000. And so that's what Candace got. Now, a lot of people are like, well, you know, why would Candice even want money to do a debate on this? Well, because if you're going to present someone like they did with Andrew Wilson and you're going to, especially what it appears to be is at least this is turning point USA's guy. And you're going to present this guy. Then, yeah, pay my ass because I don't want to waste my time with this moron.

I mean, he's not even worth my freaking time. He literally can't even open pickle jars, which was. There's a clip from the whatever podcast where this girl, she's one of the porn stars, and she's like, can't open the pickle jar? And then she's like, he's like, can you open it? Or that's what the girl said. And so she hands it to him. And he's literally sitting there for like five minutes can't open this shit. And so there's a bit, there's been a lot of like influencers like heavy duty and all them on YouTube.

It's like, oh my God. And they were watching it like this whole time when he's trying to open it. He's like, well, you got grease on her or something. And so then he's trying to use his shirt and he can't, still can't fucking open. I'm sorry, it was hilarious. But either way, that's basically how the debate went. And those are some of the best points, but there are tons of other points. If we did all of them, we'd be here all day.

We're not going to do that to you. If you have not watched it, go check it out on PBD or Candice. Definitely not his channel. I would go to Candice if you want to watch it. It is good. It is worth watching in its entirety. You can really get a grasp on the fact that, like I said, he was not at all prepared. he was literally there just to do damage control and to try and and kind of hang on a hope and

prayer that there will be enough people believe his BS than they believed Candices. But unfortunately for him, I think he realized very quickly that, oh, shit, this is not a porn star only offense model. And she knows her shit and especially debating her about the case of Charlie Kirk, which was one of her very long best friends for a very long time up until they found out that she was saying shit about Israel. and they tried to divide them, even though they continued to talk. It was like Charlie Kirk had to cheat on Turnin Point USA to talk to Candace, literally,

because if he got found out, they would be pissed, you know, and they would make a huge deal out of it. And so he would still text Candace Owens, even up until his death when he was going to bring on Candace and Tucker and all these people, because he said, I think we have to have these conversations. And so there was so much stuff going on up until his death that he was changing. He was changing his viewpoint. point. He was, he did want to leave the A-PAC Israel lobby because of their pressure, because of

the shit that they were putting him through, trying to make him out to be anti-Semitic, almost threatening, harassing all the way up until the point where they literally send him up to the Hamptons, have this big meeting with him. There's been a lot of obfuscification. I think that's the word about what happened at that meeting. But there have been people that have said, no, that's pretty much kind of what Candace said, even though, you know, that's not the official turning point USA, but basically they set him down and had the conversation, meaning the conversation is if you don't get on board with this shit, then we're going to have problems is basically what they set him down and said.

Yeah, because we used to disagree about that on our podcast. I was like, well, show me and prove it to me. Show me the receipts where this happened. And then when she came out with the text messages between her and him, I was like, holy crap. And then came up with the text messages about the meeting. The meeting, yeah. I was like, wow, this is proof right here. Yeah, there's so much, guys.

And, you know, I don't want to say that everything is a conspiracy. We never have. We've always presented whatever. We've always even presented a Charlie Kirk case just based on everything they're by saying. We obviously know the story about Tyler Robinson and the prosecution in the state's case. And we presented what the other theories are also. And there have been things I don't necessarily believe are conspiracies. Like the JFK thing, I 100% believe was absolutely a conspiracy.

see i think there's enough witnesses i think there there are there were witnesses they're dead now that were actually there in the building you know when the shot was fired multiple shots the planning leading up to it all of this stuff you know there there are things that when you start to realize us and even our guy that we had on last episode you know john bray richard great no which i'm talking about i'm talking about richard gauge the architect and engineer for nine 11 truth where you got 3 600 architects and engineers uh since 2006 that have basically proved that the buildings in the World Trade Center on 9-11 were taken down by explosives and also building seven and you know and that's why I ask him the question towards the end of that show I said what is

your mind thought like after that and he's like well I just realized that basically everything's a lie and he lost his marriage at that time due to all of this and and it's tough when you start to dig into things and start to realize what actually happened it is tough mentally on a lot of people and I think that's why actually there are a lot of people that will they would rather go with the official narrative than to believe the potential opposite side of this because it's easier on their mind. It is so much easier to believe that the world and the government and systems are not that corrupt.

They're not that screwed up. And I think for a lot of people, they would just rather not even investigate. They don't want to, they don't want to know it. They don't want to investigate it. They just want to move on. Whatever you tell me happen, happen. They'll bitch and gripe about it. But, you know, what are we going to do, I guess?

is their opinion. And that's just the way it is. But what I will say is that when this case happens and hopefully to God, the cameras will be there because very interesting how this judge did even the preliminary hearing. When they show the HD footage, the quote unquote HD footage where they brought in all these influencers, Benny Johnson and all of the same people that are also paid influencers. And they bring in all these influencers where they had had cameras in the preliminary hearing the whole time. And then all of a sudden this day, they didn't allow cameras in there. and then all these influencers came out day two yeah and then the influencers came out and said this was the clearest video footage and evidence of tyler robinson we have seen it is without a doubt

in my mind that it was tyler robinson all these people said this you know what it reminds me of is the epstein files when they brought all the influencers up there and they were all holding the binders up in the air is like it's it's real guys we have the files and these are the influencers they were trying to convince you of a bunch of bullshit to take your your mind away from it to make you feel like okay at least they got the files were good now that's the exact same shit they did in the preliminary hearing with these influence why would they bring influencers and then take cameras out on the day they supposedly showed the best footage why would they do that it doesn't make sense right the HD footage well we're only going to allow the HD footage to be shown to quote unquote

respected influencers right it's just weird the whole damn thing is weird And what I can tell you is the reason why we started this podcast years ago is because of our, I guess our situation in a court case where we found out very fast. And it's not even just, it wasn't the fact that we think the court was just more against us than the other person. I'm saying our court case was the other side of this case was paying the court. And they screwed us because of that. And they were a very influential high elite group of people we were against. and they were paying the court system. And so we know how very easily the court system is corrupt and can be influenced.

So, you know, when I see all these cases, it's not no damn. It's not a surprise to me. We went through it for like three years. Our life was completely upended because of the fact that how bad the corruption was. And this was, by the way, a major city. I mean, I'm talking about a major city, not even going to go into the city, but it was a major city where we went through this. and yeah, I mean, and by the way, also in a Republican state.

So just because you're in a Republican state don't mean shit. If there is elite power and influence, I promise you, they have control of the court systems. So by the way, these people were not even like on Mossad's level or, you know, CIA. Right. So imagine the power and influence they have. Imagine we weren't against Mossad and CIA. We were against a very elite group of people, but it wasn't. that elite type of people.

Right. So we understood from that day, from those years forward, and our lawyers knew it, like everybody knew it. I mean, we had all the evidence. They had none and they screwed us. And it was so obvious. Like, it was literally obvious. And so when I hear stuff like this is no surprise at all to me.

Like what's so. I mean, look what they tried to do to. Well, look what they did do to Alex Jones. You know, he was speaking too much. They wanted to ruin him. They gave him a billion dollar law. He's lost a lot. Now Trump's kind of used it against them, which is why it was allowed, because when

Alex started questioning the Epstein thing with Trump, guess what? Trump then allowed all this shit to happen, Alex, where he lost his whole studio. He lost everything. Now he's sitting some other freaking place. Yeah, this is like the third time he's lost his studio. No, this is the first time. No, because. No, he never lost it last time.

They threatened it. I thought the onion was took all of his equipment or something. No, that was this past time. That's the only time because Trump was protecting him for a while to keep. him out of that shit until he pissed Trump off and then Trump was like, unleashed the wolves. Because that's what happens. And, you know, it's not just him.

I mean, there's been so many other examples of, you know, look at Nick Fuentes, whether you agree or disagree with him. You know, they debanked him. They did everything to ruin him. And they've done it to a lot of people, right? And I even go back, dude. I just go back and it's like, I do think Trump was banned. I mean, I know he was banned on social media.

I know all that stuff. But I think all of the things that happened to Trump, leading into the 2024 election. Everything to happen to him. He was about to go to prison for felonies for the rest of his life. He was banned. He was almost killed. All of these things.

All of these things were warning messages, warning messages, and warning messages. And then when Trump got into office, they came into that room, whatever room it was, whether it was the Oval Office or wherever it was. And they said, hey, you know all that shit that you've been through? That was all us controlling that. shit. And if you don't fucking do what we want you to do here, you're going to be the next JFK. And you will be that tomorrow. We have shit planted on your car, which we found out, the motorcade. Remember the devices they found on the motorcades, all this stuff?

I literally think it was just messaging, messaging, messaging, messaging, and to the point where, well, we have him now. We have him now. And they know that we can get to him. And, you know, that's why literally two weeks ago, you see Trump playing off at Bedminster with a freaking Humvee with anti-aircraft fire missiles literally sitting next to the freaking T-box they have they have wired cages all around the golf course like looks like a prison I mean and because I think that

as much as Trump is completely screwed this this presidency I think it does go back to at the very least I think that he is I think he's in the know of like all the shit to happen to him and what he can and cannot do. Well, exactly.

And also, I don't appreciate that he's making all the money off of everything, like the AI and the data centers and all that stuff. You know, his first term, he didn't even collect a paycheck. I don't know. I don't think he is this term either, but he's making a shit ton of money right now. Tons of money. And I just don't think that's right. That's his dog biscuit, right?

As long as he does what he's supposed to do, here's your money. Here's your money. And I think at this point, that's what he's doing. And he's like, well, fuck it. I can't really do what I really wanted to do. So I might as well take the money and I'll build a live happily ever after when I'm done with this. Yeah. And if you don't do what you were supposed to do, then guess what?

Next time we're not going to miss, asshole. We will make sure it happens. And we'll do it however we need to. But, you know, we've already done it once. We've done it. We've almost done it a couple other times. And I think those are just messages. Even like even the Southern District of New York and all the media, all the media that was against him.

Now all of a sudden you see, media is cool with Trump. media don't say shit about Trump. Media don't say anything about anything he used to do. They're all cool with him now because the overlords have told their media dogs, hey, hold off. He's doing what we want him to right now. Don't got to talk shit about him. I mean, you can talk shit about him once in a while because it looks weird if we never talk shit about him. And it does look weird.

It is because no one talks shit about him no more at all, zero percent. And they all used to hate him. Yeah. It's wild. It is absolutely 100% wild. But I think that's going to do it. Go check out the podcast or the debate podcast with Andrew Wilson, Candace Owens. And I would watch it on her channel if you watch it anywhere.

That's going to do it for those that do not know this song. We're going to play. Should we play out the same song? We might as well. Here is hell now by Bishop Bullwinkle. And, you know, because we all know what Andrew Wilson was saying. was a bunch of boo. A bunch of boo shit.

And we're going to say, hell no. To the no, no, no. Until next time, guys, we love you. Peace out. Peace out. Yeah. My name, Bishop, Boo. I got the fur of the church, nothing but the truth.

Watch you shake. Diggin, a cow, dig, and gling. I got a time.