Andrew Wilson vs Candace Owens: Who Got Destroyed?

🚨 Andrew Wilson vs Candace Owens — Full Debate Breakdown
Tonight on The Ryan Samuels Show we break down the highly anticipated $300,000 debate between Andrew Wilson and Candace Owens over the Charlie Kirk assassination and the case against Tyler Robinson.
Did Wilson prove there is “overwhelming evidence” that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk?
Or did Candace Owens expose major holes in the official narrative and dominate the exchange?
We cover: • The key moments that defined the debate
• Wilson’s performance and preparation
• Candace’s strongest points and pushback
• Whether this debate helped or hurt the truth about Charlie Kirk’s death
• What this means for the Right moving forward
No filter. No narrative protection. Just straight analysis.
🔴 Live tonight — The Ryan Samuels Show

Uncle Ted says subscribe on Facebook!

Transcript

SPEAKER_07 5:06

Good evening, America. Welcome to the Ryan Samuel Show. Tonight, we're gonna tump to talk about something a lot of people on the right still won't say out loud. Candace Owens has turned Charlie's Kirk's death into a product, not a search for truth, not a demand for justice, a product, one that pays, one that grows her platform, one that keeps her super chats coming, while a widow and two children are still trying to live without their father. Charlie Kirk is dead. His organization is still standing, his wife is still grieving, and Candace has spent the month since his murder treating the entire situation like the next chapter in her personal content empire. Every new question, every new dramatic implication, every new attack on the people closest to Charlie gets packaged, clipped, and sold. The algorithm rewards it, the audience rewards it, and Candace's bank account rewards it most of all. This is not the behavior of someone who simply wants answers. This is the behavior of someone who saw a high traffic tragedy and decided to make it her brand extension. Let's look at the record. Candace Owens has been fired or forced out of almost every major platform that ever gave her a real stage. The Daily Wire, previous media relationships, corporate corporate partnerships, the pattern is consistent. She arrives, she escalates, she burns the house down, and then she tells her audience that the house has always been the problem. It's never her judgment. It's never her methods, it's always the establishment. The Jews, the controlled opposition, or whatever new villain of the week fits the narrative. This is not courage. That is a professional pattern. And that pattern continued in a debate with Andrew Wilson. Patrick Pet David put put them on stage, tried to force both sides to defend their actual claims. What we got was classic Candace. She was not prepared on the substance. She did not bring strong affirmative evidence for the most serious claims. She has always floated. What she brought was a skill set she has perfected over years, twisting words, controlling the emotional temperature, and making her opponent look like the problem. She's an expert at this. She can take a single sentence, strip it of context, and sell it as proof of something far larger. She can demand, quote, overwhelming evidence, quote, from the other side while offering almost none of her own. She can shift the burden, pivot the emotion, and play the victim the moment the heat rises. That is not preparation, that is manipulation. Andrew Wilson walked in claiming the evidence against Tyler Robinson was overwhelming. Under pressure, that claim softened and he struggled with certain details. That is a fair criticism. But his core point still stands, and Candace never really answered it. Skepticism is not evidence. Pointing out gaps is not the same thing as proving a frame up. Demanding proof while producing almost none yourself is not truth-seeking. It's a debate tactic. Candace is excellent at debate tact tactics. She's excellent at making people feel like she is winning even when she has not proven her case. What she is not excellent at is producing the affirmative evidence her strongest accusations require. And that brings us back to the money. She accepted a high profile, high-dollar debate. She took the stage, she performed her usual rhetoric routine, and then she went right back to the same content cycle that has defined the last several months. More questions, more implications, more attacks on anyone who doesn't fully accept her framing. The debate was never going to end the content stream. It was always going to feed it. Patrick Bet David tried to create a controlled environment. Andrew Wilson tried to force her to produce the evidence. She largely avoided doing so while still claiming the moral high ground. That's the pattern. Charlie Kirk spent his adult life building institutions and arguing in public without needing to destroy the people. He never needed to destroy the people standing next to him. Candace has made a career out of doing the opposite. She enters spaces, extracts their values, burns relationships, and then sells the ashes as proof that she was almost the only honest one in the room. I'm not saying every official question about the official story is illegitimate. I'm saying the way Candace has conducted herself since Charlie Kirk's death has been self-serving, reckless, and profitable. Those three things can be true at the same time. She has been fired from everywhere for any reason. She twists words for a reason. She turns tragedy into concrete content for a reason. And the reason is not pure devotion to truth. Charlie Kirk is not a prop. His death is not a content series, and the people who treat it that way should be named for what they are doing. That's where we start tonight. We're gonna walk through the debate, the claims, the performance, and the pattern. No free passes, no sacred cows, no pretending the rhetorical skill is the same as being right. This is the Ryan Samuel show. Do not go anywhere. We have a great show for you tonight. Do not forget you can call into the show five six one, seven eight, six, two nine one six. We will be right back. It was more of just two people sitting down and kind of having a conversation. We didn't really see that, which kind of shocked me. I think he's trying to maybe take a step back from that role of who he is into something different. I'm not really sure what's going on. He was featured on the Tim Pool pro uh podcast for years, and then he kind of went off and just started debating and became a professional debate and professional debater and just kind of made his notoriety that way. He's been around, I've seen his videos for years. I would not say he's like a really great debater. I would say he can kind of hold a conversation and he can kind of go back, but sometimes he gets his facts messed up. He's not like an expert. What I really would have wanted to see was Candace Owens versus like Ben Shapiro or me. I would tear her to shreds in a debate. But here, so here's a clip, and we're we're gonna watch this. We're we're gonna break this down, we're gonna go over this. But here is basically so all of Candace's minions who are so team candice, pro Tandays, go Max Candace, uh stay-at-home moms, full of drama, very low intellect. Yeah, I I criticize the her audience for sure, 100%. Because if you buy what she's smelling, you're you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. But they're gonna come out and defend her no matter what. Andrew Wilson does not have an incredibly core base like Candace Owens has. But let's watch this clip and let's judge for ourselves. The question is just not.

SPEAKER_01 15:15

I mean, it seems it seems pretty like if you're gonna engage and you're gonna say the evidence is overwhelming that Tyler Robinson is guilty. I just think that you should like can you tell me one. Then let's do the characters.

SPEAKER_02 15:25

You can really hang out. This is a great gossip.

SPEAKER_01 15:27

No, no, no. You just got to ask me, play clips out of context, put me in the hot seat. So please just answer the question.

SPEAKER_02 15:32

Name all seven since you've been following the case.

SPEAKER_01 15:35

Okay, sure.

SPEAKER_02 15:36

You name you name one. Yeah, you named all seven. I'm happy to do that, but can you name one? I think he's I think he's been charged with murder.

SPEAKER_01 15:42

That's actually incorrect.

SPEAKER_02 15:43

Okay, great. Now name all seven.

SPEAKER_01 15:45

He doesn't even this is like name all seven. And and and I can you name all seven? I I can't then do it.

SPEAKER_02 15:50

Sure, you don't have to put it. No, do it. I'll count them. Go ahead.

SPEAKER_01 15:54

You don't have to put your fingers up. I can't. Okay, hang on. Name them. Yeah, sure.

SPEAKER_07 15:57

Name them.

SPEAKER_01 15:57

The first charge is aggravated murder because that's what carries a death sentence in the state of Utah.

SPEAKER_07 16:01

Right. So murder. So he said murder. And now he said murder. He doesn't know exactly what the charges are. Candace obviously knows is is going to know more about this case because she's dove into every detail to try to twist it and turn it into something it's not. Right? He should have came prepared, knowing at least what the charges are and why the charges should stick. This is something you you should be doing if you're going to debate Candace Owens about this case. But it appears that he didn't. Now they're using, oh, he doesn't even know what the charge. He said murder, right? The guy's obviously being charged for murder, but this is what Candace does. Oh, well, no, it's not murder, it's aggravated murder. See, you don't even know what you're talking about. You don't, so how could you possibly this is what she does? She twists things around.

SPEAKER_01 16:52

No, that's not that is literally not murder. Okay. And so just for people, no, don't I don't have to do it in a time limit. There's nothing going on. And just to explain to people the difference of why that really matters and shows that he doesn't actually care about this at all, is because aggravated murder, it's it's narrowly defined, and because it carries a death sentence. I'm not, I'm gonna answer the question. Okay, I'm just gonna recognize that your strategy of thinking that people are intimidated when you try to put a time constraint doesn't work, and you'll be better the next time you debate.

SPEAKER_02 17:16

I got it, I got it. Give me the other ones.

SPEAKER_01 17:18

If the more you cut me off, the longer I'll take. Do you want to just wait for me to finish of why that's a big difference so that people don't watch it? Yeah, I'm gonna do that. You just don't get to pretend that there's a time constraint for me to do that.

SPEAKER_02 17:29

Well, how how long does it take you to list seven charges?

SPEAKER_01 17:31

I'm because I'm speaking.

SPEAKER_02 17:32

You just got to It sounds like you're just delaying it because you don't know things.

SPEAKER_01 17:35

I I know all seven of them, and I'm gonna say again because you're gonna get embarrassed. I you don't have to rush this. I'm also showing an example of a very flawed debate strategy. I actually am under no time constraint.

SPEAKER_02 17:46

I got one.

SPEAKER_01 17:47

Great. The second charge is the felony discharge of a weapon. The next two charges are for obstruction of justice.

SPEAKER_02 17:56

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 17:56

The next two charges are for witness tampering.

SPEAKER_02 17:59

And the what's the specific charges, though?

SPEAKER_01 18:01

That is them. Obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, witness tampering.

SPEAKER_02 18:06

Okay, witness and there's no other specifics to him.

SPEAKER_01 18:08

Well, we I can tell you why he's being charged with it.

SPEAKER_02 18:10

No, just the charges, and then seven.

SPEAKER_01 18:11

Yeah. See, it's a bad thing, is when you you try to be an a-hole and it doesn't work.

SPEAKER_02 18:14

What's the seventh?

SPEAKER_01 18:15

The last charge is violence in front of a minor.

SPEAKER_02 18:18

Okay, got it. So then he's being charged with murder. You just say aggravated murder. That's the distinction you just want to.

SPEAKER_01 18:26

It's a massive murder versus aggravated murder. This gets to the entire crux of why him being up for the death sentence. And I actually find it's really not that big of a difference. The defense's filing about why this is not aggravated to be very compelling of why it's not aggravated murder. I actually think that if the state was going to even try to pull this off, they should have charged him with just murder. And then I do also, again, want to stress to audiences that that debate strategy, like it's some sport. I think he thinks it's a blood sport. It's not. It's about being right and being principled when you're engaging. And you can make mistakes. I make mistakes all the time, but at least be genuine in pretending that you care about this case enough to know one of the seven charges that are up against Tyler Robinson when you say the evidence is overwhelming that he's guilty. If you would like to move to final statements, I'm fine. I want to make sure Andrew has had the time that he has requested.

SPEAKER_08 19:23

I think your team would like to pull up the seven charges that he just asked you about. If you guys want to pull that up just to confirm the seven you went through. Can you guys zoom in a little bit further?

SPEAKER_01 19:33

Aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm, obstruction of drugs, obstruction obstruction of justice, which is counts three and four, five and six, tampering with a witness, and count seven violent.

SPEAKER_02 19:47

Yeah. Yeah. So five, six, tampering witness, third-degree felony. Now, I did notice something I just was curious about. If I'm just wondering, when you pulled out your phone just before you asked that question, did somebody by chance text you that question? You can check my phone. I'm just curious.

SPEAKER_01 20:01

No, you can absolutely not. I didn't, I have not had one communication with a single person, not even my producers who are in there this whole time we were here. You want to check my phone? I'm happy to do it because you're just gonna get double embarrassed. Where's my phone? Do you want to see?

SPEAKER_02 20:13

I'm just curious, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 20:14

You can literally do that. Here you go. PVD, you're the moderator. Take it. Let's see it. Let's see if anyone was texted at all during this debate.

SPEAKER_05 20:23

All right.

SPEAKER_01 20:24

About the violent charges or anything.

SPEAKER_08 20:27

I'm looking through this. You give me permission something like that.

SPEAKER_01 20:29

I have full permission to go through my phone. I don't need to cheat.

SPEAKER_08 20:32

So the last one has nothing to do with it. It's just a compliment.

SPEAKER_01 20:36

I haven't even read my text message yesterday. That's a compliment. He's reading them.

SPEAKER_08 20:40

You're okay. You're giving me permission. I'm just gonna read 31 to 1132 because after that I don't need to read it. Any other text?

SPEAKER_02 20:46

Could have been telegram, could have been something.

SPEAKER_01 20:48

All I have is signal, you can check that too. I only have signal. Telegram I used in Russia. Uh and that was it. I downloaded it for Russia. I'll take your word for it. Yeah.

SPEAKER_07 20:55

I don't I don't need Don't do something like that unless you know the answer, Andrew Wilson. Now everybody's coming out saying that they're getting cooked. She pulled out her phone. He's been oh, did somebody by chance text you? Okay, maybe, maybe not. Maybe somebody Facebook messaged her. Maybe she has disappearing messages on her Instagram or her Snapchat. I mean, who the hell knows? I mean, I don't know. I I have no idea. But the the the the issue here is that she has to name one charge. He names murder, right? Now, just because she she can list all seven charges doesn't mean that she's creating some conspiracy out of nowhere in order to put more money in her pocket. Just because she can list it all does not mean that she's right about her position or that people don't. A right to question her position. Let's watch this clip.

SPEAKER_08 23:46

Just out of curiosity, are you between zero to a hundred, what is the likelihood that you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed him?

SPEAKER_02 23:53

Based on the evidence right now? I don't know, I'd say 75, 85%, Candace.

SPEAKER_01 23:59

Zero percent?

SPEAKER_02 24:00

Zero percent.

SPEAKER_01 24:01

I'm at zero. With what we've seen in terms of the evidence? I'm at zero percent. There is no evidence.

SPEAKER_07 24:06

She just she does this is what she does. She just says, Oh, what I've seen in the evidence. Okay, what evidence? I mean, that's Andrew Wilson. That would have been a great time for you to say, okay, perfect. Let me stop you right there. Name the evidence that you can present right now, here in this room, that would prove or at least give some explanation as to why you believe there is a 0% chance that the guy who admitted to killing Tyra Robinson didn't actually kill Tyra Robinson, that the guy whose father turned him into the police because his grandfather's gun was used and he recognized his son from the surveillance footage. Explain to me what evidence you have that suggests there's a zero percent chance. She never has. She has never given any piece of evidence that suggests anything.

SPEAKER_08 25:07

Oh, that maybe somebody was behind him as a patsy influencing him. You're not even saying that he didn't even shoot Charlie Kirk. Right.

SPEAKER_01 25:13

I would, if you said, was he involved that day, as I have consistently said on my platform, I would say yes, he was. I don't know what role he played, but as the shooter, zero percent.

SPEAKER_08 25:22

Do you have any evidence for it?

SPEAKER_01 25:24

For what? My percentage.

SPEAKER_08 25:25

The fact that he didn't he didn't shoot and kill Charlie Kirk.

SPEAKER_01 25:29

Yes, which I'm hoping we're gonna get to all of the evidence that he feels that he has. I mean, I don't, I'm not even convinced that Charlie was shot from the rooftop on Losi that day, based on the evidence that has been Do you think he was shot? I I do not think that Charlie was shot from a 30-odd six from a just shot at all. I don't, I don't know. I I think that a projectile hit Charlie, and I'm open to other people's presentations, but I have not seen any compelling evidence that Charlie was shot by a 30-odd six.

SPEAKER_02 26:00

Can we see maybe if we're gonna have an all-branch to each other, if maybe we can establish what we consider the facts of the case to be first?

SPEAKER_01 26:08

Yeah, sure.

SPEAKER_02 26:09

Okay. So you don't you you're not sure if he was actually shot. You're open to alternative theories.

SPEAKER_01 26:15

I'm he was definitely hit with a projectile of some description. If we're talking about was he shot from a gun, a 30 odd six, I would say definitively no.

SPEAKER_02 26:24

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 26:25

It defies it defies common sense to think that he had a Superman neck, and even if he did have a Superman neck, which has been demonstrated. I think actually recently a YouTuber actually set up Spalhalla steel cages and shot it and it went through. So under no circumstance will I So at least not a 30 out six. Definitively not.

SPEAKER_07 26:44

It also depends on the type of round. Round shatter, they mushroom, hollow point rounds, soft rounds, target rounds. It depends on what kind of round you're using. Candace Owens is not a weapons expert. Neither are half of these morons that are jumping on podcasts and saying that they are. Bullets do weird things when they go into bodies. Very weird things when they go into bodies.

SPEAKER_02 27:10

A 30 out six or low C 150 feet.

SPEAKER_01 27:12

No.

SPEAKER_02 27:13

But you're not necessarily closing off the avenue that he could have been shot at all.

SPEAKER_01 27:16

With maybe a smaller caliber.

SPEAKER_02 27:18

Smaller caliber. Okay. And then there's some things that I'm going to make concessions on that I do think we need more answers on, and I'm fine with that. And we can get to those things as well. The other thing is in the timeline, one of the things that we dispute, I think, on the timeline, is that you think that Robinson drove hours away to a steakhouse in the timeline. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And what's the compelling evidence that you think you have there?

SPEAKER_01 27:46

I spoke to the owner of the restaurant and I've seen the receipts. I know the conversation that I had.

SPEAKER_07 27:52

I've seen the receipts. I know the conversation that I had that nobody else is privy to. He didn't come onto my show and do an interview with me, but I've seen the receipts. I know the receipts. It's common sense. Everybody knows it. And that's that's it. Yeah, I can't even believe you're questioning that.

SPEAKER_01 28:10

And I think it's enough that you know it will be presented, obviously, if this goes to trial. But yes, I do believe that he was in Panguage, which is near his grandparents' home.

SPEAKER_02 28:19

Did he give you an unedited copy of that receipt?

SPEAKER_01 28:23

I have seen an unedited copy, a copy of that receipt. It was not given to me from the owner. But I want to before you we get into like all the timeline stuff, I want to address what you think is evidence so we can keep this on par with what your claim is. Since well, I think that that's a piece of evidence that's in dispute, and that's why I'm Yeah, but we're we're trying to get to whether there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did this.

SPEAKER_07 28:43

So that's Andrew. That's Andrew's claim, is that there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did shoot Charlie Kirk. I agree that there was that there is overwhelming evidence, and I would not allow Candace Owens to remotely come close to saying that there's not. I I so they had some sort of agreement, they had some sort of contract before they conducted this this debate. They they had mutual terms that they would not ask certain questions or do certain things. Maybe he can't do his normal screw you, you're an idiot, you're a dumbass. What are you talking about? Maybe that was part of it, or he doesn't get paid, right? She's getting paid a massive amount of money to do this. I think $300,000, which is the only reason Candace does anything. The only reason Candace does anything. Here is another clip about Erica being complicit in Charlie's murder.

SPEAKER_08 29:46

Erica's complicit, if you guys want to play that video.

unknown 29:48

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 29:49

That's also disaster.

SPEAKER_00 29:50

And so right now their guys are going out and they're going to look for evidence. And then by May, which is fortunately around the corner, then she'll see what they found. So what the F is that performance? How could you sit up there and say, I, I, yes, I 100% believe Tyler Robinson did it? That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erica Kirk is not complicit somehow.

SPEAKER_02 30:18

Because what that those two thoughts actually don't even follow. How would it be the case that even if Erica Kirk did believe that Tyler Robinson was 100% responsible for the death of Charlie Kirk? Let's just say she believed it with every fiber of her being, believed all the evidence, because she did. She just actually did. Would it then follow that somehow she's complicit in his death?

SPEAKER_01 30:41

I didn't say implicit in death. You added those two words.

SPEAKER_02 30:45

Okay. It's what's she complicit in?

SPEAKER_01 30:47

Yes. So sewing this narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty. So you're chopping up clips, like I said, you didn't have the confidence coming up.

SPEAKER_02 30:54

What does complicit mean?

SPEAKER_01 30:55

We are showing a clip of her on Barry Weiss, which I can't remember the date that she did that interview. And Erica, when she is She's evading responsibility.

SPEAKER_07 31:04

I didn't say he was complicit in his death in his death. I didn't say in his death. No, you said after she's how she's been having, how can you say she's not complicit? And Andrew's like, oh, complicit in what then? Complicit in what? This is one thing he's good at is not allowing that to fade away.

SPEAKER_01 31:22

Asked, are you one, you know, do you do you feel with 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson did this? And she says, I do. Then again, context matters. I sit down with Erica for four hours under the assumption that she had some evidence, right? Like, like I'm like, I actually, this is why I did not engage in any like Erica, everyone's questioning what she's wearing and all of this stuff. I was like, I'm gonna wait here because I don't know. She did nothing but tear, tear her apart. Just it feels weird to think that. Do I did I think that some of her mannerisms were weird and stuff like that? Yeah, but that's not you can't convict somebody on weird man mannerisms. And then when I sat down with her and I was expecting for her to say, Well, you know, I'm obviously the victim on the case, and we got to see the shot, you know, taken or this or that, whatever it is, great. You know, that's why she's being, that's why she has that much confidence two months ago. And when I sat down with her, it was nothing. It was nothing. Okay. So this is a conversation.

SPEAKER_02 32:22

How would that make her complicit?

SPEAKER_01 32:25

Complicit? Again, you said complicit in the death of Charlie Kirk. Complicit in what? Yeah. Well, if you let me finish my sentence, I could tell you that.

SPEAKER_07 32:32

But my point being what she did. He's asked this like five times. She keeps circumventing it. He keeps trying to get her to answer it. And what she's doing is delaying and talking in circles until she can create something that she can say.

SPEAKER_01 32:47

That then you take a look at this and you go, Okay, well, this is weird. Why why would you have this confidence? And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, Okay, great, I want to go out there and defend you now. I want people to know that you can't say this stuff publicly, but you know more things. And she just blanks. And then she says, Well, I'm gonna call the lawyer. And she called the lawyer. Again, all of this is on my show. So out of context, clips is not gonna work because I know what I say on my show. So we call her lawyer, and her lawyer says to us, uh, he calls him on the phone, pardon me. And it's me, her, and Justin Streif. And he's I'm like, Okay, great. What do you guys have? He goes, Well, we don't have anything yet. That's not, we're not at that phase yet. And I'm like, Well, what do you mean you don't have anything? And he says, Well, don't you know how it works? It's a probable cause hearing. So basically, the state says that they're gonna bring this forward. And now our people go out and they look for the evidence to assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty. And so I asked her directly, her lawyer directly, the phone's in between us. I'm like, wait, so just so I'm clear, you haven't seen anything that the public hasn't seen. And he says, No. So I'm going back in my head and I'm going, okay, so why is Erica saying, with such a degree of certainty, like she was sent out to convince the public and people bit, by the way. I remember even Megan Kelly was like, you know, let's wait. She's gonna have access to things. I did think she had access to things that we didn't have. Why express that confidence to the public as opposed to just being like, we don't know yet? I'm I feel confident he's probably he's involved. They make the rest.

SPEAKER_02 34:12

We don't understand how would any of this make her complicit and what?

SPEAKER_01 34:15

Well, I've already told you she was she she's complicit.

SPEAKER_07 34:18

She never told him that. She never, she never told him that. He kept asking, Oh, well, if you would let me finish, I could tell you. And now he's again asking. This is one thing Andrew Wilson is the best at is not letting you escape a question. He's going to hone in, he's going to corner you, he's going to force you to answer it.

SPEAKER_01 34:43

In in trying to fool the public into thinking this is some open and shut.

SPEAKER_02 34:47

How is she trying to fool the public into this? If she believes that Charlie that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk, if she believes that, how would that be complicit in anything?

SPEAKER_01 34:58

I I I do Are you saying that you think she doesn't believe it? I I don't believe that at that stage when she sat down with Barry Weiss, that that's what she believes. No, but that's my opinion.

SPEAKER_02 35:06

Right. But so when you just say complicit, you just mean she believes that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk? That's it.

SPEAKER_01 35:13

That's what we were talking about. That's why I said if your strategy was to dice up clips and take it out of context and make it seemed that she was complicit. Yeah, but then why not just play the full thing?

SPEAKER_02 35:22

Like why and Because we don't have like infinite amounts of time, I'm guessing? You probably don't want to watch.

SPEAKER_01 35:28

I'm gonna go back.

SPEAKER_07 35:33

She she's a clinical sociopath. Clinical sociopath, master manipulator, the type of woman you will see in family court. You just we just watched that together. We just broke that down together. Candace Owens is going back and forth and saying, Well, I didn't say she's complicit in Charlie's death. I never said she is complicit in Charlie's death. Andrew Wilson, okay, then what's she complicit in? Well, that's not what I was saying in the clip. Okay, awesome. What was she complicit in? Well, I never said she was complicit in Charlie Kirk's death. Again, fine. Then what was she complicit in? Oh, well, if you let me answer, I would tell you. Okay, more BS, more BS, more BS. Then okay, again, you still haven't answered what she was complicit in. Oh, I already told you that. No, you didn't. See, this stuff doesn't work when you actually get confronted. Candace Owens never gets confronted. She stands and talks to her microphone, and she lives in her little her little female lunatic echo chamber with with all of these uh Candace Owens followers that just beef her up like she's actually doing something good, and she's crazy. She's a lunatic. Here's another clip.

SPEAKER_08 36:52

And so before we wrap up, final thoughts, I'll come to you first.

SPEAKER_07 36:56

Yeah, she we're gonna do more. I'm gonna play this video, but there's more, right? So we're bouncing around. There's a lot of clips I need to get to. This is the end, and this is Andrew Wilson basically telling her. Again, she just sat here and and talked crap and didn't prove anything.

SPEAKER_02 37:12

Had nothing, just nothing. Any for all of her claims of Patsy, nothing. She didn't have a single claim, she didn't have a single solid piece of evidence. She had no positive evidence Israel's involved in anything, no positive evidence that France is involved in anything, no positive evidence TP USA is involved in anything, no positive evidence that Erica Kirk is involved in anything. When I ask her about her claims about Erica Kirk, yeah, it's just fun and uh it's just fun and you know, or yeah, I do think that she needs to sit down and ask some questions, but uh, or answer some questions, but you know what? I don't even know if she has. Like maybe she has. I have no idea. Yes, I'm gonna have an official timeline with unconfirmed evidence, that's just fine. Hey, it's it's hearsay. If that's good enough for the state, it's good enough for me. But my biggest problem with the state is that they're admin admitting all this hearsay. It's like it's she's a contradiction machine. On top of all of this, the thing that I wanted to get out of this, more than anything else, was to just demonstrate one thing. Yes, it's true. I'm not perfect on the case. I'm not going to ever pretend that I am, and never did. But what has been very made very clear to me is that there's nobody with an alternative theory that has any evidence for it at all. None. Zero. And the continuous kind of expression, we're running an investigation. What kind of investigation builds a timeline out on a receipt that they they don't even confirm? What kind of investigation tries to make these bold claims that Israel's involved and France is involved and all these different players are involved and never shows any evidence? We're just asking questions. It's my it's again, like I said, my opening, it's always intuition, my feelings, how I feel about things, how I think about things. You Andrew, how many times do you hear this today? Andrew, you can't tell me how I'm supposed to think. Yeah, nobody's trying to tell you how to think, but you should rationally come to your conclusions based on evidence and facts. And the truth is, is that 90% of what you're saying is simply intuition based. It's can't it did, it came to me in a dream. It's intuition. Almost none of it has any evidence at all. Just I'm skeptical because these people over here said things, and that makes me skeptical. It's like, but no evidence, note this to the audience, to everybody watching. You might hate my guts. That's fair enough. I get that. I'm not the most likable man. I understand that too. But there was nothing, I mean, no evidence at all that Tyler Robinson was a Patsy that was ever put forward by Candace this entire debate. Now, maybe you could say that we stalemated when it came to whether or not Robinson did it. She says I found the evidence convincing or an unconvincing. Andrew says he found the evidence convincing. Okay, fair enough. Maybe you can't do too much about that. But there was nothing. She had nothing for Robinson being a patsy. Never does. Nothing for any of her conspiracies. Nada. Zero, Zilch. And she backed away on a bunch of them. This is the first time I think she's ever really backed away from the Twigs thing. First time I've heard her back away from the Erica thing, back away from TPUSA, being very cautious about making any of those claims now. Whereas on her show, much more likely to be making those claims. So she just had nothing the entire debate. Zero. Candace.

SPEAKER_05 40:41

Per usual! Per usual!

SPEAKER_07 40:48

Per usual. And then her little friggin' minions drive me insane because it doesn't matter what you present to them. Candace Owens could come out and say, I lied about everything, I did it for money, and her little minions would go, No, it's Israel. Israel is blackmailing her. We don't believe it.

SPEAKER_01 41:11

Which one of the charges against or or all of them do you think Tyler Robinson is guilty of?

SPEAKER_02 41:19

The specific charge? Yeah. Yeah. So I think what I think is that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk.

SPEAKER_01 41:27

Yeah, but of the seven charges that he's he's being charged with.

SPEAKER_02 41:30

Yeah, can we list them real quick? I'll tell you exactly which ones. We'll pull them up.

SPEAKER_01 41:33

Well, do you do you know any of the charges these he's up for right now? Yeah, of course.

SPEAKER_07 41:37

But I w This is this is the beginning of the video that we watched earlier. And she's trying to have them listed. Yeah, but she's trying to turn it into that he doesn't know all of the charges.

SPEAKER_06 41:52

He says murder, she says, oh no, it's it's not murder, it's aggravated murder. It's not murder. How could you say it's just murder? That means you don't know anything. Aggravated murder.

SPEAKER_05 42:05

You're an idiot. Alright, let's watch this clip.

SPEAKER_07 42:15

Because both sides are posting that oh, Andrew Wilson torched her. I don't think he torched her. I think he kind of exposed her for who she is. She's just never really been confronted on it. I'm surprised she did it. Andrew Wilson just went on Joe Rogan and said to Joe Rogan, hey, we offered her $300,000 to debate, and she refuses to do it. And then all of a sudden she posts a clip of her watching it and she's like, Oh, I didn't know they were offering $300,000. Let me do that because you got to pay to play with Candace.

SPEAKER_08 42:45

Okay, so we're officially back. Andrew, before we go into the other issues you want to talk about, is it fair to say you're good defending your position of the overwhelming evidence?

SPEAKER_02 42:54

Yeah. Okay, beautiful.

SPEAKER_08 42:56

You take the lead. Go for it.

SPEAKER_02 42:57

Yeah. So I have a bunch of questions for you, and I want to make it super painless, right? So uh no traps, no gotchas. I'm just gonna ask them direct. And I think that as long as they're not loaded, if they're loaded, you should not respond yes or no. But as long as they're not loaded, if I just directly ask them, I'm hoping that you'll just give me a direct answer. So here's the questions that I have.

SPEAKER_01 43:20

Wait, but before we get into that, I would like to just reply to that. So just to be clear, we agreed to debate our claims, and then I agreed publicly that I have no issues having a conversation with you about other things that I've discussed that were outside of the court hearing and things like other evidence that's come across our lap and things that we've been speaking about. But I just do want to make it clear to viewers that for whatever reason you think that you have a right to sort of depose me.

SPEAKER_02 43:46

I'm not deposing you. I just want to do that.

SPEAKER_01 43:47

But you but you you literally said that I want to be able to question you. But okay, so now we're transcending. Like I let's just use a word to use the word that you're saying. But this is but this is what you're doing, right? So this this part to me feels like a bit of ask the questions? I'm going, I've already said you can ask questions, but I made it very clear to you via email and with you in conversation that we should be speaking. This isn't like you get to sit in the house. I want to ask you. I said if you want to depose me, you should join Rajivacron's defense team.

SPEAKER_07 44:19

But you're like, Or she doesn't want to be questioned. Are you gonna question me about my conspiracy theories? No, I want to be able to have a conversation. I don't want you to ask me questions. Nobody, I'm Candace Owens. Nobody asks me questions. Unbelievable. It's a debate.

SPEAKER_01 44:38

Answer it, blah, blah. It's like, I don't know what you're going to ask, and I'm willing to answer as I can. I get it. Yeah, I get it. Just so we're clear.

SPEAKER_02 44:46

Usually in the debate, if something's not loaded, I'm just direct with it.

SPEAKER_01 44:49

Because you kept saying I'm Joe Rogan. They have no evidence, they have no evidence, and now you're like, let's move away from the evidence. Let's talk about transcendentals.

SPEAKER_02 44:54

Yeah, okay. Anyway, so direct question, super easy. Was Lance Twiggs DNA on the rifle, as far as you know?

SPEAKER_01 45:00

Uh we can't say that for certain.

SPEAKER_02 45:02

As far as you know.

SPEAKER_01 45:03

I already answered that in the first part. We can't say that for certainty. I told you the context of which they spoke about those things.

SPEAKER_02 45:09

So no, as far as you know.

SPEAKER_01 45:10

We can't say that for certainty until we know what other the five sets of prints were on.

SPEAKER_02 45:14

So that would be no, as far as you know.

SPEAKER_01 45:16

We can't say that for certainty.

SPEAKER_02 45:17

You can say no as far as I know for certain.

SPEAKER_01 45:20

We can't say that for certainty.

SPEAKER_02 45:22

You can say that for certainty.

SPEAKER_01 45:23

If you're if your energy here is going to be like you're my dad and you can tell me how to speak or what I'm supposed to say, you're you're you're just gonna comp against the wall. I I'm I'm familiar with this debate strategy. But I am just yes or no, yes or no, yes or no. We're not debating anymore, we're having a conversation. So I already addressed that. In the first half of this, about why No, we're still definitely debating.

SPEAKER_02 45:41

This is still a no, it's not a debate.

SPEAKER_01 45:43

Now this is you saying I want to probe things that sit outside of the evidence. I actually already addressed this. You asked me. You're not gonna go like we're you're you're sitting and I'm on trial. I'm not on trial. Okay, great. Kill it.

SPEAKER_07 45:54

So you should be on trial. And the second Tyler Robinson is convicted, you are going to be on trial. At least in a civil court.

SPEAKER_01 46:11

Tyler Robinson's card.

SPEAKER_07 46:14

Let's listen to this one. I haven't listened to all of these. We're breaking them down together. But I mean, Candace is just how how can you show up to a debate if you if you are this person who is so confident and there's a 0% chance I know the case better than you do, I can list all seven charges. You have no, no idea about this. I am the expert. I am Candace. I am Candace Owens. Okay, well, I just want to ask you some questions about some things you said. Oh no, we're not doing that. Because I don't know what you're gonna ask. I don't know what BS you're gonna call me out on. Can't have that.

SPEAKER_01 46:51

Can't be questioned. 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's.

SPEAKER_02 47:09

Can you walk walk me through the inference so that I understand?

SPEAKER_01 47:12

It's it's not a fact. It's not a fact. When you show a blurry image, which you kept saying citing that we don't know.

SPEAKER_02 47:16

No, no, I'm talking about your inference that the fingerprints, even if they're degraded, equals Patsy. How do you get that inference?

SPEAKER_01 47:22

I 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.

SPEAKER_02 47:29

That's not what 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?

SPEAKER_01 47:39

Because what I am saying is that it shows that somebody else had more DNA presence on that gun than Tyler Robinson did. So it is plausible, which is all they're doing, they're presenting plausibility based off of the facts. Okay. It is plausible that somebody just took his gun and put it there. That's it.

SPEAKER_02 47:55

Is there equally uh that that's how it works? And is there equally a hundred other plausible explanations?

SPEAKER_01 47:59

I think that's the reason why most people are exploring when things don't make sense. Got it. So yes, at the beginning of that, this is how this is how the court process works, just so we're clear.

SPEAKER_02 48:07

If there's a hundred other plausible explanations than Candace, why is it that we should go with this idea that it was a patsy?

SPEAKER_01 48:14

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 correct no, my whole claim was that there is more evidence that he is set up that he is set up as a patsy.

SPEAKER_07 48:27

How does that equal Tyler Robinson himself is not even saying he was a patsy? At least Oswald called himself a Patsy. Well, evidence of Patsy.

SPEAKER_01 48:36

I don't know how many times I can say this. Like, I am saying that I am using the exact same mechanism that you are accepting for some reason in the Utah courtroom, yeah. Right to say, I'm gonna look at the evidence and I'm going to infer an alternative theory. So you just saw the states and you're accepting it. And they are, they have not presented any concrete facts. You listed on your own Twitter that what you found to be convincing was something that looked like his car pulled into the driveway, a blurry image. No, I didn't. 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 we pull up his tweet where he goes over?

SPEAKER_02 49:08

I didn't say that's what convinced me.

SPEAKER_01 49:10

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.

SPEAKER_02 49:19

You said it was Well, there's multitudes of things that I find.

SPEAKER_01 49:21

You just said you didn't say it, so we're gonna get a fact check on that. You did. Go ahead. Um, you said the blurry images coming up the steps. Quite literally, when Officer Bagley testified, that 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 pardon 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.

SPEAKER_02 49:50

Why is that absurd?

SPEAKER_01 49:51

That's how you decided these two are the same people. Oh, wow, what a scientific. They're both wearing converses. Okay, that that's an absurd thing to say. That is not evidence that these are the same people if we're both wearing converses.

SPEAKER_07 50:03

No, if you're looking for suspects, suspects often change their shirts. They often bring backpack and sweatshirts and they dump them and run and change their shirt. They often wear, they'll show up with a sweatshirt, then pull it off, dump it in the woods. Now they have a t-shirt. I so your police officers are trained to look at pants and shoes and things that are less likely to be taken off. They also wear gym shorts underneath so they could take off their pants and run away. This is basic police work. And if that's how an officer compared to two, that's that's good police off that's good police work. Does that mean 100% without a doubt it's the same person? No, but it's reasonable suspicion to stop them and say, Hey, well, you kind of have the same shoes on as this guy who's over here shooting people, so you're not going anywhere until I figure this out. That was what he said. That's what flew on the stance.

SPEAKER_02 50:56

But I I still don't understand how that would be absurd if somebody'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?

SPEAKER_01 51:06

The idea that on a college campus, two people wearing this totally different outfits, but both wearing converses can't happen is such an absurdity that I don't even need to like argue that. I'm just gonna let people deal with why is it absurd? Just concede that point. Obviously, it's an absurd thing to say. I'm not I'm not sure.

SPEAKER_02 51:21

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 a fact check on it, but even if it is again, if we're utilizing inferences, when whenever we're dealing with logic and we're dealing with making a logical inference, we're gonna take the entire collaboration of evidence and then we're gonna 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. So when we're I 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 Apache based on the totality of evidence that you have.

SPEAKER_01 51:59

We can keep going through your other evidence, but we should find this tweet where he please where he lists the reasons that he was convinced.

SPEAKER_02 52:05

So let's start with the 30 odd six.

SPEAKER_07 52:06

I think that that's this went on for three hours. And all of Candace's little minions are like, oh go Max, Candace.

SPEAKER_05 52:19

You you killed it, Candace. He did such a good job.

SPEAKER_07 52:29

All right, so we heard his closing remarks. I want to hear hers. When he I'm sorry for the skipping around of videos and the time frame of the debate, but I want to hear her closing remarks after he said there was no evidence. She presented none, which she never has. I've watched her closely. I'm so sick and tired of talking about her, but I feel like you have to. But here are her closing remarks.

SPEAKER_01 52:50

Well, I think that is uh quite a conclusion, admitting somewhere, maybe we stalemated. It probably signifies what I've been saying from the beginning that you didn't feel that you were strong, the actual facts and the evidence, which I was willing to engage with you. I wanted to go over the screwdriver, I wanted to go over the tab and the things that you've mentioned, and you wanted to then move the conversation into a defense of Erica Kirk and her character and what I've said about Erica, which is my opinion. And I have not edited that opinion after discussing with you. I would like to extend a compliment to you for being willing to sit down and to have the conversation. I still walk away feeling that the people who are jumping on the bandwagon about this case don't care about this case. They don't care about Erica Kirk. It tends to be follow that they take a meeting with Turning Point USA and they come out and suddenly have a lot of junk to say about Candace Owens. And I do want to also stress that Turning Point USA tried to pepper him with something as a surprise. He showed clips that were meant to be a surprise. I did no such thing. I stressed to PBD from the beginning that I was grateful he was taking Miss on and that I wanted this to be a clean debate because I believe I can win this on the merits, and I believe that I did win this fully on the merits by engaging the evidence of what has happened. I do still believe that there is more evidence, which supports that there are more people involved and that Tyler Robinson has been set up, and that none of the evidence that was presented was in any way overwhelming, which is why I think you wanted to move to end that discussion quickly and to speak to me about France and to talk about this Panguitch receipt and my timeline. I want to remind people that a lot of the at-home investigators, which you were open to, as you called them Internet sleuths. I think it was on a show that you did right after Charlie was assassinated, that internet sleuths would solve this. This is the reason why Charlie, a year on, is still a conversation every single day trending on Twitter. I knew Charlie. I cared about Charlie.

SPEAKER_07 54:54

I care about notice how she's not giving any evidence to respond to him saying that she has none.

SPEAKER_01 55:00

Finding out what the truth is here. My heart is in the right place. I think anybody who watches my show or even just watched this debate knows that if I get something wrong, I'll instantly correct it and own it. I don't, I'm not arrogant. I don't need to sit here and pretend that I didn't misspeak on Malance thing. It hasn't been ruled out, but you saw that he just really wanted to hammer that point. You know, part of being a well-meaning person is to concede when you are wrong, to take something off a timeline when you know it's not right. And I would like to think that that is why I have earned the audience that continues to follow me because they know my heart's in the right place. That I deeply cared about Charlie and I deeply care about the answers. I want to thank Andrew's team who are providing the fact checks. It's a very small room that they're in. I want to, as always, thank my team who worked really hard to make this happen and flip the set. And for to you, PBD, just for being a great moderator. I think very fair, letting us both speak and making sure that Andrew got out of this what he wanted, which is a little more than what I wanted, but I'm very content with how I dealt with this. And I I won't let I trust I don't need to convince the audiences with the magic trick of what they need to think about this debate. They can watch it and draw their own conclusions.

SPEAKER_08 56:04

Beautiful.

SPEAKER_07 56:08

Nobody No evidence to counterclaim. No evidence to counterclaim what she said.

SPEAKER_05 56:26

Unreal.

SPEAKER_01 56:31

Yeah, I I mean, can I ask a question? I know it's been or or like, can I ask a question, or are we? Not really.

SPEAKER_02 56:36

We're just I'm just gonna hold to the actual contract itself.

SPEAKER_01 56:41

The contract is does not say that you are allowed to just question me without me being able to respond to you.

SPEAKER_02 56:48

I've never said you can't.

SPEAKER_01 56:49

Or have a conversation.

SPEAKER_02 56:50

You've been able to respond to every question I've asked you. And by the way, the uh the other thing is is like it your way.

SPEAKER_01 56:56

I want it to look like we've done everything Andrew wanted to so that people can fairly assess the situation. So you have it your way. I will not ask a question.

SPEAKER_08 57:03

Totally fair with me. So are you good with her asking a question? Or he said no. Waiting for the clip. Okay. So you want to wait for the clip first. Okay.

SPEAKER_07 57:11

Yeah, I'm Candace Owens saying you don't have to provide evidence. You just have to think.

SPEAKER_02 57:31

Do you have any evidence that Erica Kirk or TP USA participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?

SPEAKER_01 57:35

I've never said they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk, so how could I say that I have evidence they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?

SPEAKER_02 57:42

Okay. So then you don't believe that they did.

SPEAKER_01 57:45

I never have said that statement, so I'm not going to get you to ask me personal questions about things that I've never said on record. Okay, fairly.

SPEAKER_08 57:56

Okay, go ahead. I don't know what the video is.

SPEAKER_07 58:03

She looks a little nervous.

SPEAKER_08 58:06

Yes, you said that there's a video you want to play that Candace said she has full confidence Israel was involved. Yep.

SPEAKER_01 58:15

Yeah. You said evidence that I that they killed him. I said they're that is why people think they're involved in the involvement. If they have the clip, they can play the clip.

SPEAKER_08 58:23

They're referring to a clip.

SPEAKER_03 58:24

Yeah. Via who? My guess is Pierre.

SPEAKER_07 58:33

Look at her face. Look how nervous she is.

SPEAKER_03 58:43

I think that there's a reason Pierre knew that Charlie was dead first. I think there's a reason he was a priority. How? Why I think France and Israel are involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination. And I'm gonna put that out there with full confidence.

SPEAKER_07 58:57

I thought she said she didn't say that.

SPEAKER_01 59:00

I have evidence they participated in the murder.

SPEAKER_07 59:03

I'm gonna rewind it. Let's hear what she said again.

SPEAKER_02 59:06

Do you have any evidence that Erica Kirk or TP USA participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?

SPEAKER_01 59:11

I've never said they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk, so how could I say that I have evidence they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?

SPEAKER_02 59:17

Okay. So then you don't believe that they did.

SPEAKER_01 59:20

I never have said that statement, so I'm not going to get you to ask me personal questions about things that I've never said on record. Okay. Fair team.

SPEAKER_08 59:28

Your team is sending messages in the back. They have the clip.

SPEAKER_03 59:31

I think that there's a reason Pierre knew that Charlie was dead first. I think there's a reason he was a priority. How? Why think France and Israel are involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination? And I'm gonna put that out there with full confidence.

unknown 59:45

Okay.

SPEAKER_02 59:47

I understand. Yeah. So you think you you with full confidence, you think that's the first one.

SPEAKER_01 59:51

Yeah, I think Israel's and Israel. Yeah. I I mean the person that gave me that thing that I reported said that uh French Foreign Legion were on the ground that day. Again, this would be the French Foreign Legion really aren't even special. They're really not that special. This would be at a professional imitation for me to then go and probe that information that I handed over. I can't do that. I'm not the same. Okay, right. I don't you can you just stop? It's it's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying positive evidence. I've uh just ask me what I think, and I just tell you, yes, I think they are involved. No, I said here's what here's what I think.

SPEAKER_02 1:00:28

I have every right to ask you about your claim.

SPEAKER_01 1:00:30

And if there's positive evidence for your claim, I literally just said I think and I am allowed to think. Yeah, you're allowed to think you have positive evidence. I have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think.

SPEAKER_02 1:00:41

I I agree you're allowed to think. Okay. So nobody's disputing whether or not Candace Owens is allowed to think. What I'm asking is it's a but you what's your issue then?

SPEAKER_01 1:00:47

What is your issue with the statement? I think that Israel is involved.

SPEAKER_02 1:00:52

That's not what that's not just what you said. You said it's with it's with full confidence. Yes. I think that if you had full confidence to think when you think. If but if you if I said, for instance, uh, I think I'm going to be late to work, right? With full confidence, I would say my evidence for that is that I'm 20 minutes away and I need to be there in five. That's how you would know whether or not you had full.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:16

Let me finish.

SPEAKER_02 1:01:16

Let me finish. Let me finish. If it was the case that I said I've I have full confidence I'm going to be late to work, I would say my evidence that I'm going to be is that work is 20 minutes away, right? And I have to be there in five. So I have full confidence. That's why I would think that. So I'm asking, if you think that Israel and France were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and you say with full confidence, I'm just asking for the evidence, or at least walk me through the mindset of why it is that you can think that with it.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:42

I actually don't have to walk you through why I think. I can also I can give you something that I think with full confidence. I think with full confidence that you know you lost the substance of this debate, and now you're moving toward things that I have said that I think, which I can do. I'm a bit of a pertinent to this debate. It's not exactly pertinent to this debate. It's 100% pertinent. It's not pertinent because our debate is a very good thing.

SPEAKER_02 1:02:00

These are claims made out made about Charlie Kirk's assassination. That's the complete substance of the debate.

SPEAKER_01 1:02:05

No, actually, would you like to remind him of what our debate claims actually were?

SPEAKER_02 1:02:09

And would you like to remind him that you said I could ask you about any of these things to my heart's content?

SPEAKER_07 1:02:20

That's all he did. And she says, Well, I don't have any evidence. It's just what I think. Right. So you don't have any evidence of anything, of any of your claims, of any of your accusations. You have zero evidence of any of it. And then she turns around and says, Oh, I'm just I'm I'm just asking questions. I'm allowed to ask questions. That's all I'm doing, is just asking questions.

SPEAKER_02 1:02:52

So and I'll explain exactly what the groundwork is. When you make claims which pass the idea of I'm just asking questions because the state's evidence is not convincing, I think you have to answer for those claims because they are in regards to this case. You're saying I have a claim, it is in regards to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is what we're talking about, not just the case of Charlie Kirk, his assassination. You should have to answer for the claims that you've made in regards to the assassination itself. You should, yeah, agreed. So if that's the case, then I would I would like to finally dive into some of that evidence and dive into it.

SPEAKER_01 1:03:26

Well, just to be clear, the and I'm happy to have you talk about, like I said publicly, you want to engage in some conspiracies, but I said I want to make sure that we get to the substance of our debate. Uh, the substance of our debate is the majority of me demonstrating that all of the quote unquote evidence that you feel that you have, which demonstrates that Tyler Robinson, I mean that Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk. You don't find convincing, I get it. It's well, it's been invalidated by the by the testimony that we saw. And in your answer for when I explained to you that it had the most degraded prints was I don't know.

SPEAKER_02 1:03:55

Okay, well, there then there lies my ability to process that it's just fine for you to not be convinced up to this point. All of your viewers, everybody watching, nobody's giving you conceded. Nobody's giving a dispute that if all your claims ever were, were just up to now, the evidence that the state's given, I'm just kind of not convinced. That is not what's been happening. What's actually been happening is that you've made tons of claims in regards to this case and in regards to the Kirk assassination, which are far above and beyond, I just doubt the state's theory.

SPEAKER_06 1:04:35

Yeah, correct. Correct.

SPEAKER_07 1:04:45

At this point, I don't understand how anybody could believe her or listen to her or it's just something people want to believe. They want to believe that Charlie Kirk was killed by Israel or Erica Kirk. They they want the the dramatic story. They they want all of all of this nonsense. That's what they want. And and here's exactly what what you get. Candace is giving people what they want to hear. They want the the rifleman on the on the grassy knoll. They don't want to believe Charlie was killed by just some normal college kid who is dating a furry trans person. They don't want to believe that. But here is Andrew Wilson on Steven Crowder. I believe this is after the debate.

SPEAKER_04 1:05:31

We all know that there are people who will agree with you. And by the way, PBD's crowd mostly agreed, mostly thought you won. Uh, we'll bring up our own poll. But you know that there are people who will already agree with you no matter what, people who will agree with her no matter what. Then there are some who have ears to hear, eyes to see. How do you think that needle will be moved from today?

SPEAKER_02 1:05:52

I think well, I think it's the beginning of a snowball effect. Okay. So now that she's been challenged, I think, and had to give an accounting for the evidence, did a very poor job. I think that more of them will feel compelled to do more of these debates, or at least I'm hoping so. And I think that that'll create the snowball effect. At least that's what I'm hoping. But ultimately, there wasn't there wasn't a need to push back too much on too many things because she just admitted that she didn't have any evidence for anything. Well, the problem is where do you go from there? You're like, hey, do you have any evidence for that? And they're like, no. She went back on all of her claims. And so, like, what do you where do you go from there? There's nowhere, there's in other words, there was nowhere I needed to go to demonstrate what it was that I was trying to demonstrate, which is that these people have lots and lots of claims. And the second they're confronted with them, they back off on all of them. Every single time. Her sources, that well, what a joke that was. My sources told me, my sources told me. Well, what validates your sources? The fact that I've released some, you know, footage and stuff. How would that validate your sources in these things? That makes no sense at all. These, I think ultimately there's I'm sure that there's gonna be some negative clips about me, especially pushed by the Owens people, but ultimately I'm gonna do some negative clips on you, but that's just for funsies. Yeah, of course. But ultimately, she didn't have anything. She had nothing. She literally had nothing. And so what made this an easy debate for me was that she didn't fucking have nothing. Like, what do you want me to do?

SPEAKER_07 1:07:21

Well, I mean, he's right. Like, we we know she has nothing. We've been saying she has nothing, and they're gonna try to twist this and turn this the the Candace Owen people into something that is just completely not. It's nonsense. She she has nothing. And all she has done. Is number one aided and abetted in destroying Charlie Kirk's legacy. Destroying his wife, destroying his family, destroying their conservative movement, creating a split and a rift in the conservative movement because she is just a trash pail. She's a trash pail. That's what she is. That's what we say in New York about somebody who's just a garbage human being that we do not like. You're a trash pal. And that's precisely what Candace Oas is. She has been fired from every job she's ever had. She got fired. Charlie Kirk fired her. From Turning Point USA, because it's all about Candace. She got fired for the Daily Wire because it's all about Candace. She's never held a job longer. Ben Shapiro giving her the job at the Daily Wire was probably one of the biggest mistakes in political history. Because now you have this conservative person who's pushing nonsense conspiracy theories that you gave credibility over the past 10, 12 years, and you made her a star where before she was nobody. So you put this lunatic on the map who is flying a flag under the name of the Republican movement, and it's nonsense. She has a lot of hate. My feeling is she has a lot of hate and discontent towards Charlie Kirk because he fired her. She wants to get back a turning point USA. That's where she started. Not to mention, there's massive paydays, massive clicks, and all of this. She just got paid 300 grand to sit there and go, no, that's not what I said, and then watch a video of exactly what she said, and then turn around and say, Well, that's not what I meant. I already answered that question when you didn't. But I'm telling you now, mark my words, put a pin in it, flag it. When when Tyler Robinson is convicted of this crime and all of her claims are invalidated, Turning Point USA and Erica Kirk are going to drop a hundred million dollar lawsuit on Candace Owens. And they are going to bankrupt her. They are going to take away everything she has. And they should, because what she is doing is a tragedy and it's disgraceful and it's unethical and it's willful. This isn't her just following pieces of evidence. This is her looking for pieces of evidence to try to figure out how she can turn that into her side of the story, to how to turn that into a story, the story that she wants to project. When you spend months turning around and saying, Oh, I have, I brought receipts. I bring the receipts. And then when somebody debates you to call you out on it, and you say, Oh, well, no, I don't really have any evidence, all of this is going to be used against her. Erica Kirk's sitting in her living room right now with a legal pad, taking notes. Yep, gonna get her on that one. Her lawyers are sitting around a table. How can we get Candace Owens? Well, we have to wait. We have to wait until Tyler Robinson is convicted because then there is no question as to whether or not this is liable. Then we're gonna wait till after he's convicted and see what she says. Mark my words. That's precisely what is happening. Thank you for tuning in tonight. Don't forget to hit that like, share, and subscribe button. Go to RyanFsamuels.com, check out the blog. I'm gonna write an article about this interview. I haven't gotten around to it yet, but I'm gonna write it tonight when we hang up. But we will see you on Monday night. We are live Monday through Friday, 9 p.m. Eastern time. God bless you. God bless our troops. God bless your families, and God bless the United States of America. Good night.

SPEAKER_04 1:11:43

Thanks for tuning in to the Ryan Samuel Show. Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe.