All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 9, 2025 - Lionel Nation
24:48
Candace Owens BLOCKBUSTER: The “Dead Man’s Switch” That Could Expose Everything

Candace Owens BLOCKBUSTER: The “Dead Man’s Switch” That Could Expose Everything

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What the hell is Candace Owen saying?
What is she saying?
What is she getting at?
What is she trying to say?
What are you interpreting what she's saying as?
And what is everybody saying about what she's saying?
I have been watching everybody's commentary.
Everybody running, running to their channels to comment on what Candace Owens is saying because she got the last text from Charlie.
And Charlie said they're they're after me, and and I'm losing money, and I don't know what to do.
And they want me to get rid of Tucker, and it's the funding, and you know who's behind this.
You know who's behind this.
And he sends this to her, basically, explaining everything.
It's one of those, forgive me.
It's one of those, those kind of a text messages similar to Tyler Robinson, where you say, who wrote this?
Who wrote this?
Why would somebody so media and legally savvy as Charlie write text messages?
Basically implicating countries, leaders, heads of state.
Why?
To the person, to the person who makes her living basically with controversy after controversy, and has one of the biggest pending lawsuits against the wife of the president of France claiming she's a man.
Now let me stop right there.
Let me stop.
I like her, I'm a big fan.
Stop it.
Forget that.
Just look at what this is.
We're adults.
What is going on here?
Ask yourself.
Is Charlie Kirk really this materialistic?
Or he says, Oh, you're not going to believe it.
I'm gonna lose two mil or three mil, and I've got to do this, and I'm gonna lose money.
I'm not I'm I'm I'm not fulfilling my role as mouthpiece enough.
I guess is that what he's saying?
Is is is that what this is?
Am I the only one who says, what are you putting into right?
Why are you putting this in writing?
Giving it to basically the the Rona Barrett, the Kitty Kelly, I'm gonna ask your parents of our time.
Candace Owens is a gossip columnist.
She's and listen, very successful, but remember telephone, telegraph, tell Candace.
Are you kidding me?
Doesn't he know that he should just say, listen, Candace, can you can you send this to or tell me who you're going to release this to?
I'll just do it directly.
Why would you do this?
Why?
Does she work in coordination?
God forbid with TPUSA with Erica Kirk, and that's another one.
I don't know what the story with that one is.
But my friends, this is this is just incredible.
If I want you to think about this, think about it differently than what you've been hearing.
Because see, you're being told that there's some connection here.
That basically Charlie was offed by a group of people, and that the Charlie knew they're after me, Candace.
If anything happens to me, you know that whole thing.
And by the way, we we have done too much of this.
I'm not committing.
This is YouTube, I can't use the word, but you know, I can't if anything happens to me, it's not because of me, it's because of you know, I'm I'm happy now, I'm not depressed.
Wait a minute, hold it, hold on, stop, stop for a second.
Stop, stop.
It's become cliched now.
Everybody's saying, Oh, remember when the old the old uh uh joke was that um so and so and uh Epstein didn't commit the suicide or Epstein didn't harm himself.
Remember that one?
It was it was becoming a punchline that's kind of an extension for this.
I want you to just step back from the noise for a moment and ask yourself a simple question.
What exactly is Candace Owen saying and why now?
And we've all seen the headlines, we all know the social posts, and and and I know you read these, and and I'm telling you, you've got to.
You've got to see how everybody is jumping on this.
From Piers Morgan to F. I mean, you name it.
Well, Piers Morgan jumps on anything.
He has no original thought.
He just lets other people fight it out.
Then he decides what's the most obvious take, and then he grabs the low-hanging fruit.
But the dramatic declarations that she's prepared to release something, you know, maybe perhaps even a dead man's switch has been called.
Should anything happen to her?
You know.
Now, now assuming for the sake of argument that the text messages between um Owens and Charlie Kirk are authentic.
Okay, which let's just assume that because it's a first thing.
I'm sorry, I'm a lawyer.
Can you how do I know these are authentic?
Do you have his phone?
Can I does does Twitter or Twitter iPhone, who, whoever technical terms for this, but wherever this came from, they would have the original transmission and that which was received, that Apple or you know, Google, they could authenticate, meaning, is this a true and accurate depiction of what you saw or what was said?
Anyway.
What are we really dealing with here?
Is this whistleblowing?
Is it an act of conscience, or is it theater, the kind that keeps people talking about never actually, you know, the the stuff that people talk about, but but that we don't know anything about that tells us nothing.
Now let's look at the facts, or at least what's been claimed as facts.
Candace Owens has stated that she held one final conversation of source with Charlie Kirk.
And please, I'm giving you the most generic Adam Bracian review of what happened based upon somebody who does not spend all my time going through this, so if I miss some extremely microscopically salient point, I apologize in advance.
But from what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong in the comments, correct me.
I'm human because I want the truth.
She had these conversations with Charlie Kirk.
Of course, as you know, the head of Turning Point USA before his sudden and still unresolved murder.
Now the implication is that Kirk was afraid that he was sitting on something explosive, that forces were closing in.
And she now says she possesses messages, maybe even recordings, that she's keeping as a protection, a trigger that will automatically be released if she's silenced.
It sounds dramatic because it is dramatic.
It's designed to be dramatic.
But from a prosecutor's point of view, the first question is always motive.
Why would she say this?
What is the end game?
Is she protecting truth?
Positioning herself at the center of it, wanting to be the epicenter of everything that is done within the ecosystem of the conversational strata or platforms or whatever you want to call this.
Is she just after somebody who's who just wants good trying to stand up for her old buddy?
don't know.
I am so jaundiced.
I don't believe any of that Initially, could be, but that's not my default reaction.
Because make no mistake, Candace Owens is a media creature through and through.
She is the best and knows it better than everybody.
She knows how to control the news cycle.
She understands outrage as a form of currency.
She knows that nothing drives engagement to her channel, like a little danger, a little intrigue, a certitude, this almost this frothing certitude.
And the implication that she knows something that we don't.
Now let's assume for a moment that the texts are authentic.
And I say assume because it's not that they're not, it's that in order for me to say what I'm saying, you must assume arguando that they are authentic.
Let's even assume that this so-called, and I I I think it was called, I think Alex called it a dead man's witch, but but let's just let's just assume this all exists.
What does it mean?
What is she promising to expose?
And to what end?
At this stage, nothing she's revealed has fundamentally changed what we know, or rather what we think we know about Charlie Kirk's death and perhaps the motivations behind it, and what happened contemporaneously to his death.
Now remember, a lot of things were going on prior to his murder, not death.
Death sounds natural.
It was a murder, it was a hit.
A lot of things, a lot of things were going on contemporaneously.
There might have been health concerns, it might have been some marital spas, it might have been worries about his children, worried about his family, worried about the institution, worried about dark forces that are trying to direct his way.
I don't know.
I don't know.
But because they are contemporaneous, doesn't mean they are the cause or they're causally connected.
Because when you're somebody that big, you've got 50 million things going on at the same time.
So when you ask somebody, was there anything odd going on or anything dangerous going on prior to his murder?
You can say, yes, there were eight million things.
If God forbid something terrible were to happen to uh I think the great uh hero of truth, Alex Jones, let's assume, let's assume.
Something were to happen.
And you were to say, was there anything going on prior to his dispatch?
Anything untoward, anything he was worried about.
Yeah.
Everything which makes getting to the bottom of the homicide even more difficult because you've got a gazillion possible suspects.
Now remember again, no one official investigation has concluded.
I don't even think it's begun.
No law enforcement agency has produced a report.
I don't even think we have any kind of uh of a have we had a burial?
Have we I don't know.
I don't know.
Because it's been taken off the list.
Is there an autopsy?
Can we see it?
Is it I don't know.
Do we get the rifle?
Did we check the ballistic?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Because everything keeps changing so fast.
So fast.
And don't forget, we got the playoffs, and the Yankees are in the playoffs, and oh forget it.
So we've got you know, Bread and Circus is going crazy, so I don't know.
But we don't have evidence.
We we we have narratives, we have suspicions, and narratives are where truth goes to drown, to die.
We have suspicions, we have folks who align themselves with particular political and ideological predispositions, Zionist, anti-Zionist,
Israeli, American, MAGA, Democrat, Progressive, Conspiracy Theorist, uh, globalist, uh pick pick the what do you want?
Pick the name, pick the label, pick the the insignia that best describes you, please.
We still don't know who killed Charlie Kirk.
We still don't know if Tyler Robinson had anything to do with it.
We don't even know if his text messages are legitimate.
We still don't know if this was a political personal or or something else hit entirely.
Well we do know is that the speculation has reached a beyond fever pitch.
Social media detectives, sleuths, uh experts, anonymous insiders, podcast whisperers, all oh, true crime, don't forget true crime.
What is true crime mean?
Clueless.
But all of these folks insisting, they've cracked the code.
We're getting to the bottom of this.
But from a prosecutorial standpoint, this isn't evidence, it's noise, it's motion without progress, it's controversy without any kind of disclosure.
Now here's the problem.
Candace Owens has positioned herself as both messenger and martyr by invoking almost a I don't want to keep saying dead man's switch, but but this is my this is my last hurrah.
She's suggesting that she holds something so explosive, so dark, so great, so powerful that dark forces might silence her to keep her from getting out or it from getting up.
It's a story straight out of a political thriller, except that it isn't fiction.
This is the news cycle of 2025.
But think about it.
If if what she holds is real, if it's that dangerous, why hasn't she released it already?
Why tease the world with something big only to hold it hostage beyond?
You know, if if something happens to me.
But she she has released a lot of things.
She's she's shown you much, much to indicate.
Look what happens.
Look, uh, it's out there, it's it's out there.
So I know a lot about already what was allegedly sent to her, communicated with her.
So if anything, God forbid it, we don't want that to happen.
Were to happen to her, this there's no there's no insurance because you've already shown me this.
That makes any sense.
So the the the motivation behind this is control.
Now, to be fair, Candace Owens has a history of going where others fear to tread.
She's attacked institutions, bravely, I think.
She's defied allies, paid a price for it.
She's sharp, she's ambitious, very smart, unafraid to name names, and reckless, absolutely reckless.
And her fans love it.
Because reckless is great, great theater.
But the pattern isn't always the same.
Bold claim, media explosion, confusion, then silence.
No resolution, no verification, no end.
So the question becomes is this about revelation or relevance?
Is she trying to expose something real or simply stay in the spotlight by implying she could if she wanted to, or there's more, or I am the only person who knows something about this, so much so that my and by the way, I don't mean to dismiss this because let me tell you something, nobody would have ever thought anything would have happened to Charlie Kirk.
I never would.
This this guy was the was loved, he was the most innocent, good, God fearing person ever.
And look what happened to him.
And we have a lot of motives behind it, a lot of theories as to who might have been involved.
This is a different story.
I don't know.
But here's the truth.
Power doesn't just hide in government buildings or deep state or shadow government basements, whatever.
It hides in influence, in the ability to shape attention, to direct the mob's, you know, focus and gaze.
And few people in the modern conservative ecosystems do that better than Candace Owens.
Her claim of a of this information functions as uh armor and megaphone.
It says, I'm a target because I'm dangerous to them.
While always keeping her followers in a state of permanent suspense.
What now?
What's she gonna do?
And it's true.
She's brave.
We love her.
She vicariously she takes on the world.
How big it is, I don't know.
She went after Kamala, who talked about her provenance.
Does anybody really care about Brigitte Macron?
I mean, other than being, you know, tittering and and uh and uh mean girl stuff.
Anybody really care about that?
No.
She's gonna find out about that.
But the story becomes a loop.
It's kind of like this the self-sustaining self-referential loop and ultimately self-serving.
This is the classic media.
I know what the words kind of like a scrum.
This is a controversy that feeds on itself.
It's like autophagus, if that makes any sense.
Not only to uncover truth, but to preserve attention.
And it works.
You see, the more The public questions her motives, the more she becomes the story, and the more people demand proof, and the more she gains power by withholding it.
It's the oldest trick in the political playbook and entertainment.
The suggestion of secrets greater than the uh system itself in essence.
Now that doesn't mean she's lying.
No, never said that ever.
But it does mean that we should ask, why is the why is this happening and what is the purpose of all this?
If the goal were justice, she turned over the evidence, maybe perhaps to uh I don't know, the trusted law enforcement or or or something, maybe work in concert with TPUSA.
But if there is something to this, if there is something to the allegations made, by virtue of the way it has been turned into a dog and pony show, later on, in the event something comes of this from a prosecutorial point of view, people are going to be asking the question, why did you do this?
What what was the what was the purpose of this?
Why were you doing that?
Why?
See, remember, if the goal is truth, you provide verification.
But if the goal is engagement, clicks and shares and likes and that sort of thing in airtime, then ambiguity is a project.
Project, it's like in radio, you always say coming up, coming up, you know, tease the next spot, coming up, coming up, coming up next.
Don't leave.
Here we go.
What happened?
Coming up.
Quit saying coming up.
And the sad part is that the result is that a man's death, murder, Charlie Kirk's death, becomes background noise in the theater of speculation.
Tyler Robinson's name is I don't know, dragged through the mud.
Some might say.
I'm not sure exactly what he did.
I don't know if he said it.
I don't know.
I'll let people talk about it.
Do you really feel good about Tyler Robinson?
Did I say a lot?
Tyler Robinson being the sole person.
I want to hear more.
Remember, just because I have a suspicion doesn't mean I think it's a lie.
And the audience, you, us, all of us, the public, uh, we we become addicted to the next twist, you know, the next leak, the next tease, the next almost anything revelation.
And in the end, it's not even about the facts anymore, it's about the the feeling and the constant hum of tension and the sense that something's just about to break.
But here's the hardest truth of all.
Maybe nothing will.
Don't be surprised.
This isn't Occam's razor.
Maybe there's nothing to break.
Maybe this is the entire story.
For all the smoke and drama, uh, it may lead nowhere.
No end diamonds, no confessions, no explosive reveal, just another cultural fever dream, I guess that that burns hot, then cools, and then leaves everybody walking around with nothing but cynicism.
You know, that's the danger of this new media ecosystem, this world that we live in.
This is the line between information and entertainment has evaporated and scandal has become sport and death, sad to say, is drama.
And this thing that we love, we always talk about truth, it becomes kind of optional.
So when Candace Owens promises a, you know, kind of like a, I keep saying a dead man switch for lack of a better word, but it doesn't just don't just ask whether she's telling the truth, which is of course true, but ask what truth means in this world anymore.
Because if we've reached the point where we confuse suspense with substance and and controversy with courage and all that, then maybe, maybe that that that switch, whatever's gone off, you know, with with all of us, or in us.
It's the strangest thing in the world.
I've seen this and I know where it's going.
And it's it's absolutely fantastic.
It's some of the best theater you can imagine, the best theater of the mind, the best theater.
What next?
Because we love an intrigue.
And there's so much.
And to show you how good everybody's talking about her, including me.
And I'm talking not so much about her, but what she means.
In the world today, the big names in in podcasts is of course Joe Rogan, who's a different kind of ax Jones, who was the Potter Familius, he is the ground zero of this.
And then there's I guess you you say maybe maybe Tucker, uh, for sure.
And then there are others who are very popular, but they're they just respond.
So and they react.
And that's, and that's great.
Nothing wrong with it.
I'm I'm reacting too, but I'm asking a question.
If I was a prosecutor now and I said, okay, give me this information, what do you want me to do about this?
Candace at the at your best.
What do I do with this?
Okay.
He feared or or or he he was about to lose funding according to this.
Or does that mean that lose his life?
Or I don't know.
Maybe there are other files out there.
I don't know.
Does his wife know anything about this?
I'm just curious.
Don't you think somebody's wife?
Is there anybody, does the Trump DOJ know anything about this?
I think you can trust them.
Does Cash Patel know?
If you're insinuating that these text messages were in essence saying they are after me and they are going to kill me, and not only are they pulling my funding, but they don't like my message, and I fear for my life, I think that's relevant.
If it is relevant, you just compromised any chance of this being brought to court, any chance of this being brought to trial, any chance of this being prosecuted, you just ruined it.
Because it's not become theater.
It's become theater, it's become clicks, and uh, and that's not what you do.
You don't do that.
And sometimes it's difficult when you feel almost, and I've seen this happen, you get into the world of radio or you get into the world of promotion, and you feel as though you are a you are delphic, oracular.
I am the voice of truth.
I am a force that people do not understand how powerful I am.
I am that critical.
I am I am I am not just a show, I'm not just some show that people like, I'm not just some pretty face.
I'm the voice of truth.
And let me tell you something.
▲
Export Selection