EXCLUSIVE: Candace Owens Discusses The Charlie Kirk Investigation On TYT

Yeah, but can you name one?Because my general perspective is that you don't actually care about this case.

Credible to witness Andrew Wilson, who paid Candace Owens $300 ,000 to be charged with, because Robinson wasn't simply charged with murder.He's facing the death penalty if Robinson is convicted.And as you can imagine, the burden of proof.So when Wilson says that there's overwhelming evidence to show that Robinson is guilty, long debate, take a look.

Just out of curiosity, between 0 to 100, what is likely that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed him?Based on the evidence, right?

Amazing debate, okay, amazing debater.Now, Candace, on the other hand, demonstrated that minimum of what Wilson should have known.Take a look.

Now, name all seven.

He doesn't even, this is like - Name all seven.

And I - Can you name all seven?I can't.Then do it.There's nothing going on.The second charge is the felony discharge of a weapon.The next two charges are for obstruction of justice.

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

What's the specific charges though?

That is them, obstruction of justice.Would acquit Tyler Robinson.

Remember, he stands accused of killing Charlie Kirk by firing a single shot to the neck with a 30 -06 rifle.And he allegedly did so from a roof 142 yards away.So look, we're going to show you some of the material totally by myself, but there's just so much, and I know I'm gonna miss things.Talking about what you covered on your show yesterday, because for me, that was it.At that is very suspicious, and we need answers, and it does make sense.cast some doubt on the official narrative surrounding Tyler Robinson and how this assassination allegedly took place.

So you have mentioned on your show repeatedly that less than four minutes after Charlie Kirk was shot, Terrell Farnsworthwho runs audio of the cameras that was on the set where Charlie was, right?So there's three cameras in total, but the one camera behind him, which would capture the back of Charlie's head, and Charlie Kirk was shot.That's the camera that Terrell Farnsworth goes to immediately, takes it down, and then there's video of that moment.We'll go to the new footage that you presented yesterday.Everyone take a look.

So when all of the footage, and he did so because people were stealing and people are, wouldn't he be concerned with the camera?It was just the SD card that he took out.Contrary to what Andrew Colvett is saying, there was something special about that footage behind Charlie's head, which in particular, because he did not instantly grab all of the SD cards.He grabs that one and he did it, nervous, taking down camera altogether.If you're worried about theft, take the whole camera.It's pretty small.

It's in your hand.He doesn't do that.He takes it apart.And then looks down at it and he walks around.And we had wondered, what did Terrell do when he walked around?He hasn't addressed any other camera there, just that one.

So it's definitely strange that he didn't address, reached out to him.You knew who he was because of your time with Turning Point USA.You spoke to him on September 18th to ask about it.What did he tell you?

It was the first thing that made me uncomfortable in this case.basically was saying a bunch of excuses that didn't make any sense.The first thing he said was, he wanted to secure the footage, that's the whole thing.It was live stream, we all watched this already.It's over.over the Internet and it's from the front.

I don't know how to send a file that big.And I said, Terrell, you run an audio visual company, you know how to send big files.You can use WeTransfer, you could use Google.And then he said he was worried is for not showing me the footage, I would have happily gone to him.I would have jumped on a Zoom call.And I was like, hey, you're acting really strange.

I told him that.I said, this is all very weird.What would Google hack you for, for the purpose of then showing the footage that we've all seen?We're all gonna see Charlie die again?What kind of a conspiracy is this?And so you fast forward to this preliminal about Google.

Clearly, he knew how to share a link, as I know he did.So the natural question that I have is why did he lie to me?Why did he lie to me?

Well, not only that, and this is really important.So he took the SD card out of the camera.You just mentioned that he provided investigators with Google links of the footage.Did he provide them?

As well as a flash drive, which is what was testified to, which means officers, you just give them the SD cards.They know how to figure out an SD card.You don't have to do anything to help them figure out how to do an SD card.And so if that excuse of I just wanted to secure all the footage was correct, that's what you would have done.But clearly, his focus was that back footage because he even steps over, that was in the audience or below the center.I would have grabbed that camera that was behind him facing the audience and the SD card at the same time and he nervously looks around, grabs that back one, and then walks around to the back of the tent as you just showed.

And I don't want it to be lost on our audience, so I want to reiterate.He never provided, and this is based on the testimony that you can hear for yourselves during the preliminary hearing.He never provided the SD card, the original SD card to the investigation of evidence tampering, no.I'm not saying that he did do that, but that there's a possibility for that.

There's certainly a possibility and what's also interesting to me is the SBI, they control the case, right?So that's the State Bureau of Investigations, the lead investigators on the case are the SBI.They were on the ground that day, I believe he testified.It was about why are you not giving them the SD cards?And the only excuse that we have gotten about where those SD cards are came from from Andrew Colvett weeks later, he told the public that the SD cards were given to the FBI.That makes entirely no sense.

This is not a federal case, this is a state case.The lead investigators are in the state.Why would who in the FBI has those SD cards?And when were they given those SD cards?Did Terrell take it back?give it to Arizona and then give it to Kash Patel thereafter.

We don't know, but these are questions that anybody who is looking at this case should be rationally asking, because Terrell had an opportunity to edit that footage.He did, he just did.And the story that we were told by Andrew Colvett was that he just wanted to secure the footage for the purposes of making sure that nobody stole anything, make sure that things weren't stolen because he left those other cameras.He left that other SD card as the one that he stepped over and addressed his computer.That's not the first thing.And I wanna be clear, this is all happening within 10 minutes of Charlie getting hit.

Terrell went to the car, he says, Charlie's dead, which is a stunning thing to say.Your next step is not to call 911, but to jump down and secure the camera behind his head.Is that, are we allowed to acknowledge that that's strange?

I mean, I'm acknowledging it.I do think that's strange.And what's even more strange is the exclusive footage that you presented on your show just yesterday.So you asked rightfully, what happenedimmediately after he took the SD card out of the camera?And you managed to find footage of what he did immediately after.

So that's what we're going to take a look at next.Everyone take a look at this video.

Here's what Terrell did thereafter, seen for the first time.Terrell is there.He looks around, again, nervously.He doesn't run to the other cameras and try to grab the SD card instead.What he does is he whips out his phone.And he begins texting with someone.

I mean, that's a legitimate question.And think about the traumatic scene that everyone just witnessed.Less than four minutes after Charlie Kirk gets shot, he goes for the camera to take the SD card out.I just feel like most everyone reacts differently, I guess.But I know I wouldn't react that way.My first thought wouldn't be, I gotta get the SD card out of the camera directly behind Charlie Kirk's head.

It's just strange.

of it, stands over the other camera which has been knocked over to basically unfasten that camera to bring it down, take it to the side.Doesn't care about all of these expensive cameras that could be stolen.Andrew's story is he was worried about people stealing.Well, okay, looking both ways.as if he is doing something wrong or he has some sort of a fear.I mean, that's what I see in his body language when I look at that.

Yeah, and also, I mean, the scene was tampered with in a way that would bury potential or possible evidence.Can you go over some of what you find strange?So there was the whole paving over of that area.What do you know about that?

So what we know, and he did an interview, he explained everything.He got a call over the weekend asking him to come in for what was described to him as an emergency paver job that was being done because the FBI and the governor of Utah were requesting it.Now, what we do know about that entire area of that courtyard is it was under FBI control that came out in the preliminary hearing.They did happen across state lines.They decided giddy up, we're going down immediately and we are going to be in control of this.courtyard.

So what he's saying would make sense.The FBI was in my entire career heard of a paver emergency that couldn't wait until the next week, and they had him laid.

I remember you talking about how the authorities also provided Erica Kirk with material that should have been maintained as part of the investigation.Can you just quickly go over that?

Absolutely, you're going to keep certain things into evidence until you get to the trial, right?That's just assume that it needs to go into evidence.And you will recall that there was sort of this moment where the public really first saw Erica and she's hanging out of the window and she's holding Charlie's St. Michael necklace, a St. Michael pendant and it's on a chain.Now there are some people that say, would you just give that immediately back to Erica and not see that as evidence?And we found that made no sense.Namely, Frank Turek, he told a story and his story has shifted somewhat and he said,

it's fine, everyone has different memories.But he says that when he got to the Haas bar and wanted it cleaned and resold within 72 hours.I mean, the whole thing is just so crazy that you would tow that car in 48 hours that had Charlie in it and could potentially have some evidence.Would it allow him to get his belongings?And then he said, where's Charlie's pendant?Because I know Erica wants it.

And the FBI said, no, you can't have it.no, I demand it for Erica and they just gave it to him.That's not really a believable story and I'm sorry that the FBI said, well, if Erica's emotional and looking for it, here you go.

Like what is -.

So Frank Turek is one of about 20 people who claim that they were Charlie's personal pastor.I find that to be very strange as well, really wanted to work on his debate skills.Anyway, Frank Turek accompanies Charlie to this event, which is up to the middle of the day because they just love Charlie Kirk so much and they wanna hear him speak.And mind you, that son that he's referring to, I'm pretty sure is in the military.And the shot happens and Frank Turek jumps into the back of the car to accompany Charlie to the hospital.And he did a media blitz thereafter, and told a lot of stories about what he did in the car, and how it was just sitting on his backpack when he was at the car.

And the Fed said to him, their Fed's looking for it, why were you looking for it?Why did Erica want it?Why couldn't this have gone into evidence first?As they take everything, and then the Attorney General of the state has to sign off if you want anything personal back.For some reason, violated all of that for Erica, allegedly.

We did see her holding it the very same day.Because you've done so many of these types of events alongside Charlie.After Charlie is allegedly shot, why is he being transported to the hospital in an SUV as well?opposed to an ambulance?Doesn't Turning Point USA usually have an ambulance nearby in case something happens?

Every single event that I have done has had an ambulance on the side.This is brand new.I mean, everything that day was brand new.I showed how I even had boiling the frog.Ironically, the one time, the one semester, so to have him wearing this double mic, they have this camera behind his head.We never had cameras behind our head.

You can go back and find the footage.I mean, I have toured with Charlie from 2019 until spring of 2024.Really, what is all of this?Why is Terrell there?My first question, what is Terrell doing here?He does the big events.

He's the CEO of the audio visual company.This is like a chump change event.I've done UVU with Charlie before, literally have done that exact school.You can go find the footage.What are we doing here?And well, and Terrell said to me on the phone, we were trying something new.

He kept saying that we were trying something new.What was new that you were trying?He said, we wanted immediate feedback, back to the ops, back home, so we could cut clips the fastest.Someone's racing to beat turning point, admitted by Terrell, new fixtures, immediately as they got me out of the picture, airing from the Daily Wire.And then a year later, Charlie's dead.That doesn't sit right with me.

That just doesn't sit right with me.And again, you can look at every piece of this objectively and go, more information that could help make sense.

Yeah, that's the part of this that's so strange to me, Candace, because it's usually the same group of people who are like, there's nothing to see here when it comes to the Epstein files.Usually people who defend Israel's undue influence over our government and the wars that we fight on their behalf.It's always the same group of people who are not only hounding you and just trying to make you out to be crazy.Well, by the way, totally ignoring your arguments andnever.Strange to me is, don't you want these questions answered?

Don't you wanna get to the bottom of what actually happened that day?Very likely that Tyler Robinson is involved in some way.Is he the only person involved?And I've been saying that - You haven't said that.

I think he is involved.

Yes, you haven't said that.Yes.

Yeah.I've never said I think he's completely innocent.I say I do not believe he fired a shot and killed Charlie Kirk.So for what is being brought against him, I think he is innocent of.Could he be an accessory to murder?Was he burying clothes and hiding it, taking instruction from his boyfriend?

I know he was around campus that day, around.I was told by a Robinson family member that he did not step foot on campus that day.And so yeah, I feel like it's not like we're being crazy here.We're asking Turning Point to help assist us.And the most disturbing part of all of this for me is that his wife is not telling the public the truth about so many things that she could easily tell the truth about.And this is not some widow that went home and is averse to publicity.

If she was like, I don't care, I'm not getting involved, that's just who she is.No, she's on tours.She's Shabbat and she's Shalom and she's talking to everybody.You can't keep her away.She went right into the office that week and led a call giggling about emojis.How are you out of bed?

The world who did not know him mourns longer.People who did not like Charlie Kirk mourned longer, and just because it was so traumatizing.I think everyone felt less safe after Charlie got hit, and you watched it.I felt this like suddenly, no, God's got me.He's like, have you lost sleep?She's like, no, are you taking any medicine?

I don't need any.

Made me a lot more critical of Erica Kirk, came up in the context of your debate with Andrew Wilson.Because he opened the debate by reading an alleged text ofmessage that Charlie Kirk sent.And just to kind of sum it up, and I'm not reading it verbatim, I want the audience to know that.Charlie Kirk communicated in that alleged text message that he wanted the security to be bolstered because he's worried about someone on the left trying to kill him.Which is strange because that was Allegedly a text message that Turning Point USA, it could have only been one person, Erica Kirk, she's the one with his phone.

She provided that to Andrew Wilson.Okay, first of all, why are we hearing about this now?wouldn't you want to put that out immediately?Because she has 100 % backed the theory that Tyler Robinson was the one who shot and killed Charlie Kirk and that he was motivated by Charlie Kirk's views on the transgender community, right?That this was motivated by left wing hatred of Charlie Kirk.Okay, wouldn't you want to release that text message immediately then?

She didn't.She waited.So there's that, but Also, Candace, I recall Erica Kirk saying in an interview that he sent no text messages saying that he feared for his life.Now, that was in the context of people speculating that he was in fear of Israel coming after him or of getting killed.Okay, well, what changed?Because now all of a sudden, there's this text message that alleges that he was afraid of someone on the left trying to kill him.

I don't know, that inconsistency is really weird to me, and shows a little bit of dishonesty that's going to make people question anything that is going to be claimed moving forward.But I want to keep going because there's so much D -06.I'm not a ballistics expert.And so I had no choice, shot in the neck with a 30 -06, there's no way there isn't an exit wound, okay?There's no way that you don't blow someone's head off with that.And then you have a few really possible that the bullet wouldn't, there wouldn't be an exit wound.

If you're unfamiliar with Robert O 'Neill, he's the guy, the Navy SEAL who killed.He's been kind of sounding the alarm about the allegations in the official narrative.And I just want to show the audience a little piece of what he had to say on Piers Morgan.

So where'd that bullet come from?You don't bleed like, and I've shot guys closer than the camera was, and an entry wound at that.And then the initial reaction was, well, he was obviously wearing body armor and it was deflection.One, no, he wasn't wearing body armor.And two, it doesn't deflect like that off of body armor.Why was his shirt moving from right to left?

Why were people being interviewed saying, yeah, they came from my left to right, from his right to left?A .30 -06, well, it's gonna take several minutes.I grew up, my first rifle was a .30 -06 in Montana.And I can't remember the last time I took it apart.I could take the bolt out, clean that off.But in order to break it down to the point where you can even walk with a limp, it's gonna take a solid five minutes, I would guess.

Okay, so I wanted you to comment on what he had to say about dismantling the weapon.Because I don't think people are really paying attention to the absurdity of the claim.

Well, so we are to believe that he sort of he stuck the weapon into his pants, one part in his backpack and then had the weapon in his pants, but it was disassembled.And then he gets onto the rooftop and takes out a screwdriver.And they don't have footage of this, but they want saying yes, I have shot and killed animals.When you do that, the part that he didn't even get to is the scope which is needed to look through.You would have to zero the scope, meaning you have to zero it to make it work again.So he didn't fire a bullet to test, if you took it apart, the scope would just be completely messed up.

A 30 on six, I mean, it would decapitate you.There's no other way to say, even if you tried topass the idea that there was some, let's take it at face value and he shot from that distance a piece of steel.And it went through, okay?So even if Charlie had a steel neck, it would have gone through.There are people who have replicated this experiment, said I happened, I'm just stating that this did not happen.

And even Turning Point USA, when they introduced that, they say it was a miracle.Now the only time, when they first acknowledged that it didn't go through, and this is why I assume that it went through, because everyone would have made that assumption.And Terrell showed me the footage.Okay, okay, tell us what you just started.He called me after on the 18th, and I was like, you're acting really weird.You're just acting weird.

Everything you're saying is weird, Tara.What is going on?Help me help you.The next day, he called me on the 19th, and he said, okay, I'll just show you the footage on FaceTime.And thank goodness, someone on my team said, Candace, just screen record the conversation.You just don't know, just screen record the conversation, and I did.

And when I looked at it, I was then even more shocked at the fact that Tara wouldn't show this footage because there was no gore.It was the cleanest footage.We already saw him get hit.My husband gets a phone call from the COO of Turning Point USA.And they're like that the reason that they were asking was because the feds were freaking out about the fact that I shared on my show that I had seen an answer because I'm going why does it matter one way or the other?Why does it actually matter?

And this is why it matters because it proved that didn't go through.So the next day they like panicked and they just On the same day, they panicked and they sent out a tweet.Andrew sends out this tweet and says, we just now kind of want to announce to the world this miracle happened and Charlie ate healthy.And the surgeon said it's because he's got strong bones and he eats salad and I guess he's Popeye the Sailor Man or something.And he had strong bones.

He's so strong that the bullet doesn't even push his body backwards at all.

Backwards, that is 2 ,000 pounds of force coming at you, okay?Didn't blow him backwards, even if you said, it didn't go through, he'd be.by the front.And I do wanna say this, Ana, because I think people have forgotten this most crucial element.I did not suspect Turning Point USA at all.So on that day, I was one of the people that was on the phone talking to Andrew.

I was crying on the phone, what's going on, all this stuff.And then my husband was told separately.So three different people communicated to us that Charlie basically had no necklace.I had a source who dealt with Charlie's body and said that's simply not true.Charlie really just had a small wound.And I know it looks bad from the front, but it happened to hit his corroded artery, which was completely blasted out, whatever it was that hit him.

And that's why the blood looked really bad, but Charlie looks good.He looks good in the casket.So I revisit that, okay?I revisit that and I go, Were they trying to establish a narrative that I accidentally, this is their anger at me, they're so angry at me, I don't know where it's coming from.And I accidentally ruined this idea that the 30 -06 went through.Terrell was supposed to take the opinion, but also in my experience of what happened that day, what I was told, and what I have seen.

And I want to be clear with the audience about something else as well, because I think a lot of people are putting a kirk of being complicit in perpetuating this narrative that's kind of being forced upon us about, this is what happened.This is what Tyler Robinson was motivated.During the preliminary hearing, this is so shocking.And the fact that it's not getting any pickup in legacy media boggles the mind, or maybe it doesn't.During the preliminary hearing, some of the evidence that was so overwhelming, one piece of evidence was the image that allegedly showed Tyler Robinson.But that image was manipulated.

The courtroom saw a manipulated image.So let me show the audience what I'm talking about.All right, let's go to this graphic.At the top, you're going to see the unmanipulated image of who is supposed to be Tyler Robinson, cars that are distorted in the background.Now, as we all know, Tyler Robinson is a very skinny guy, okay?Let's take a look at the next image side by side of Tyler Robinson on the left hand side.

On the right hand side is the unmanipulated image that was not shown in court, the manipulated image was shown in court.But this is the unmanipulated image which obviously shows a guy who doesn't look like Tyler Robinson and doesn't have All we can do is speculate why, right?But how is that allowed?How is that okay?

And why is no one talking about this other than you?It makes no sense once they showed the surveillance footage during the preliminary hearing.You then go to yourself, okay, they are footage which you showed at court immediately to help people find Tyler Robinson or find Charlie's killer.Why didn't they release more?They had more, they had access to more.And simultaneously, they're taking influencers to court to tell us that the evidence is so dense.

This is your time, it's a preliminary hearing.You're trying to establish probable cause to move forward.Drop a clear photo of him and say, here you go.Here's Tyler Robinson.I would have immediately said, well, there'sis.

There is Tyler Robinson.I can't even meaningfully say that.I think there's a Tyler Robinson.That's a standard white guy with brown hair.He's wearing a cap.That's the best I can do.

Yeah, and one of the - Could be Tyler Robinson.

It could not be Tyler Robinson.

This is insane.Honestly, it's crazy.Okay, so there's more.The other thing that came out during the preliminary hearing, Lance Twiggs is allegedly Tyler Robinson's furry lover, who he loves so much.that he felt motivated to gun down Charlie Kirk over his fat, obsessed, and motivated to harm people based on a political view.Lance Twiggs was asked during the hearing whether or not he and Tyler Robinson discussed politics.

And I thought that his answer was strange, considering what Robinson is accused of doing and what the motive was.Take a look.

Did you and he ever talk about politics?He did more than me. I don't really keep up with politics very much.He'd usually talk about stuff he heard on the radio on his drive to work in their work car, since it sounds like their whole crew went in the same car most of the time.But I wouldn't say super consistently because it wasn't a topic I really - So did you ever talk about gender identity issues and LGBTQ rights?

I just think, I don't know.This is subjective, obviously.I think that's strange.

I think that - Republicans, neocons took this immediately and said this is an open and shut case.It was a political assassination based on the views of Charlie Kirk.And it's because people in the LGBTQ community are crazy.And they did this absent any evidence.Absent any evidence, nothing had been confirmed.It was set by a bunch of people.

of people who needed it to be true.And now they're being presented with evidence from the person that we heard about.It was in a text message after he had killed Charlie Kirk.He didn't speak to me about LGBTQ issues, and he didn't talk to me about politics.And then suddenly he's killing a political figure that he knew.We're trying to stoke the flames in a war between the left and the right as they have admitted.

They keep admitting this, that they just wanted to unite the Republican Party, which was fractured after the Epstein files.And they wanted to get them refocused on fighting the left.That is disgusting.I have plenty of things, disagreements with the left.Left has done tons of things that they've actually done that we could talk about.You were gonna put Like the biggest assassination ever on them.

And I definitely thought that even if individuals who perpetuated that narrative weren't in on anything nefarious, it is kind of sick to politicize something like a political assassination.something that is politically beneficial to yourself, right?You're pushing a narrative in order to lead to more conflict among Americans based on political identity.Nobody's online might have been celebrating that Charlie Kirk was shot and killed.That's not representative of the left.I was devastated.

I disagreed with Charlie Kirk on a lot of political issues.But he was a guy who was willing to sit down and have those conversations and have those debates with us.And I appreciated that.Not a lot of people are willing to defend their views in 2024.Okay, the final thing that I'll bring up are the text messages.Because one of the things that gets cited by defenders of the official narrative is, well, the text messages exist.

Lance Twigg said that Tyler Robinson confessed that he did the murder.What do you make of those text messages?And do you think that is enough to claimthat there is overwhelming evidence that the official narrative by our government is true?

Absolutely not, because the text messages have not been verified yet.And that was, and Kathy Nestor back in, I wanna say it was May, actually, it might have been earlier than May, it might have been April.They had a hearing and she's like, we can't go forward because we haven't even been granted our discovery requests.I haven't even accessed my client's phone.You're telling me that Lance Twiggs is saying this, so something that your audience should know is Lance Twiggs was given use immunity for that testimony.What that means in the state of Utah is anything he says in that on that screen as he's giving his video interview, cannot be used against him down the line.

Why did he require use immunity to talk about something that actually happened?Why would he need use immunity?What is the fear here about this particular testimony that he was given this extraordinary use immunity to provide it?And so we do not know if those text messages are real.If they are real, by the way, we don't know where they came from.Like I said during the Andrew Wilson debate, somebody could be in my Apple login right now, sending tech messages from my phone, but I'm here live with you.

That's why they wanted their discovery requests, cuz it would allow them to see, look at the geolocation, where is it coming from?Did it come from a laptop?Did it come from an actual device?Where was my client actually at that time?You're telling me that his boyfriend is saying that This is what his Discord said, and this is what the text message just said.Well, it tends to be that lovers share logins, right?

That's how it goes.They live together, they share logins, was he on his computer?Lance, to me, is a very suspicious character in all of this because the feds have bent over backwards to attack him.And I am on the ground investigating this.I spoke to the Twigs family, and they were the first ones who told me that They found it to be remarkably suspicious that the feds were not looking further into twigs, okay?He has a background, he's got anger issues.

He's got, allegedly, he has drug abuse issues, I will say allegedly.He has been, again, coming from his family's direct testimony.They're going, I don't understand why they are not looking further into him.That's not a good vote of confidence to come from your family that's saying this.And on the other side of this, when I'm speaking to the Robinson family orbit, they're saying the exact opposite.This is not Tyler Robinson.

This isn't what he would do.had great grades all through school, graduated with I think above a 4 .0.But we're supposed to believe he texted the most thorough confession to, they caught me on the surveillance cameras.I was hoping I would live this out.This is my motive, this is why I did this.Anybody with any sense would know, don't text that, anybody would know that.

Like on your iMessages, it's all just so ridiculous.And so we have no confirmation about these messages because the prosecution, actually they blamed the feds, would not give certain discovery requests to the SBI or to the prosecution ahead of this probative hearing, which you just saw.

I was led to believe that Tyler Robinson was turned in by his own family.Is that true?

lie.His family took him to the police station.And actually, if you go back and look, Sheriff Brooksby's told the truth about what had happened.Essentially, they told him, you have no other option.They're going to arrest you one way or the other.We can do this peaceably, or we can do this the hard way.

With people banging down the door, whether it's SWAT or whatever units would be doing that, and you would put your family at risk.And he agreed to go in peaceably, which is why you see, even in the little footage that they show, he's coming in, he's still got his phone, and he's in his hands.hand during the preliminary hearing they showed him.And he's got a bottle of water and he's obviously gone into a room that is essentially, we're gonna speak to you.This is us doing this the nice way and that was what was agreed to because he had no other option.So obviously you can see that his parents did not, there's no statements that they mentioned that the parents made or Robinson turned his son in.

No, he went with his son and drove his son to the police department because he -.A lot about what happened that day.

But I do know one thing, aggravated murder carries an incredibly high burden of proof And there is a lot of doubt in this case that isn't being addressed at all by your naysayers.And so for anyone who's calling you crazy, anyone who's going to come at me for drawing attention to what you've been presenting on your show, how about just address the substance of the material that's being shared and the arguments that are actually being made?Not arguments that they are putting in your mouth, but arguments that are actually being made, but they're not.And I think that that is telling.But anyway.Candace, thank you for being so generous with your time and coming on on such short notice because I think this is important for people to know about.

I want people to give you a fair hearing.

Robinson, again, I wanna be sent to the campus.I do not believe that he is the person that killed Charlie Kirk and I'm happy to be wrong.I hope I'm proven wrong.This is an unimaginable nightmare for me to be thinking the thoughts that I am having and questioning why people that were supposed to be the closest to Charlie Kirk are not assisting me in this endeavor.But I do, for caring enough about Charlie that this story has not gone away.

Thank you, Candace, keep it up.I know that you already know you have a lot of supporters.but we'll be watching.And I think you're doing the right thing, even though you're getting a lot of hate for it.Usually, there's a saying, a hurt dog don't holler, or something like that.A dog don't holler.

Yes, so just keep it up.And I know you're strong enough to deal with it.Thank you.And yeah.You too.Any updates, let us know.

Have a good one.Thank you.

Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.