Lionel Nation - Candace Owens Says Charlie Kirk PREDICTED His Own Death Just Hours Before It Happened

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 10, 2025 - Lionel Nation

17:40

Candace Owens Says Charlie Kirk PREDICTED His Own Death Just Hours Before It Happened

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	My friend, let us continue and return to the most important and critical question that nobody wants to ask.
	When a man looks you and the world in the eye, when a man looks you in the eye and the people around him, and he says, they're going to kill me tomorrow, and then he ends up dead.
	Any serious country asks one question first.
	Who failed him?
	Who?
	Candace Owens is the only prominent figure on the right or the left or any direction who was willing to say that out loud and stay there and stick with it.
	She is the one insisting that we take Charlie Kirk's reported final warning seriously.
	That we ask who heard it, who ignored it, and who might be hoping this whole thing just fades into the background, into the background noise of the news cycle and the news chatter.
	Now, according to Candace, Charlie did not walk blindly into his last day.
	She says a tip from inside TPUSA made it clear that he knew something was wrong.
	That the night before he died, he reached out to a donor, to a person inside the organization, and to his own security people.
	And the alleged message, the alleged message, according to Candace, was not vague.
	It was not metaphorical.
	She says he explicitly said, they are going to kill me tomorrow.
	Now, if that is true, if that is true, then at least three people had noticed that Charlie believed he was under threat.
	A donor, a staffer, a security member, his security, that alone would be enough to justify hard questions from any honest movement, a movement that claims to care about its own.
	Instead, we get silence.
	No press conferences from those who were supposedly warned, no televised appeal from the donor who allegedly received that message.
	No emotional interview from security saying, I tried to stop him.
	I begged him not to go.
	Nothing.
	Absolutely nothing.
	Why?
	Candace calls that silence a massive question mark.
	And she's right.
	Because when a man with a national profile predicts his own death, the people who heard him didn't get to lock that in a private diary and move on.
	They have a moral duty, an absolute duty, an affirmative duty, to speak because of legal agreements.
	That itself is a story.
	If they will not speak because money, careers, or loyalty to an institution matter more than loyalty to the dead, that is a scandal.
	But this goes nowhere.
	This line of inquiry goes nowhere.
	Candace Owens has been blunt about this from the start.
	People betray each other for money, sometimes for 30 pieces of silver, sometimes for billions.
	Her point is not that she knows exactly who did what.
	Her point is that we should be fools, or would-be fools, to assume that everyone around power is always virtuous when history screams the opposite, and you know this better than anyone, we know this.
	And history is on her side.
	Reality is on her side.
	The same establishment, the same establishment that rolls its eyes at the word conspiracy theory, has been caught in real conspiracies again and again, time after time.
	Governments plotted coups, agencies ran illegal programs against their own citizens, intelligence networks buried crimes for decades.
	When those operations finally came into the light, the public was always told the same thing.
	It was just a few bad apples.
	It was an anomaly.
	It's not systematic or systemic.
	Or it was for your own good.
	Please go back to sleep.
	We'll let you know if anything happens.
	Nighty night.
	And now Candace Owens is saying, no, not this time.
	Not when someone she knew, someone central to the modern conservative movement, is dead in broad daylight in front of everybody after allegedly expressing fear for his life.
	And she's not just fighting media attacks or social media smears.
	She's fighting her own side's instinct to protect the brand first and truth second.
	To see, this is what makes her situation so dangerous and so important.
	Consider her position with federal law enforcement.
	Candace went public with a claim that a high-placed French official had warned her of a plot on her life connected to the same web of interest she believes touches Charlie's death.
	She didn't hint.
	She didn't tease.
	She put it in writing, blunt.
	She named a foreign head of state.
	She said there was a professional unit involved and that she had verified the source's position inside that government.
	You would expect a reaction, wouldn't you?
	You would expect something.
	You would expect agents at your door within hours.
	If only to confirm whether this was a misunderstanding or a genuine threat or real or fantasy or whatever, but you would think there would be follow-up.
	You would expect top officials to say on camera that they have contacted her, that they're working through the material, that they will keep the public informed.
	Instead, what we saw in the Megan Kelly interview with Kash Patel was something else entirely.
	It's very interesting.
	When Kelly asked Mr. Patel whether any foreign government had a role in Charlie's death, he gave the safeline, no credible information at this time.
	Investigation ongoing.
	Nothing to see here, nothing to see yet.
	Fine, okay.
	That's the answer you would expect from a careful bureaucrat.
	But then she asked the direct question about Candace.
	She quoted the allegation that she had received a credible threat.
	She asked whether that threat or any foreign link to the assassination had been investigated.
	Mr. Patel's answer floated about the specifics.
	Any American who feels threatened will be investigated.
	We don't turn our eye away.
	We remain diligent and vigilant.
	If there's anything to it, we will respond.
	That's good.
	But what did he not say?
	He did not say, yes.
	Yes, we have spoken with Candace Owens and are reviewing her evidence.
	He didn't say, no, her claim has been checked and found to be baseless.
	He stayed, unless it's in the fog.
	He answered in generalities while ignoring the particular woman sitting in the crosshairs, ostensibly, allegedly, putatively.
	And that kind of answer leaves Candace in a very strange place.
	On paper, the Bureau says it takes every threat seriously.
	In practice, she says they have not contacted her, haven't collected the detailed information she claims to have.
	That they haven't given her the basic respect any citizen deserves and would expect after making such a serious allegation.
	So, so she's attacked from both directions.
	Her critics accuse her of wild conspiracy thinking.
	Oh my God, the word.
	When I hear conspiracy, it's like, that means there's something to it.
	Remember, conspiracy theories are always right.
	They're not crazy.
	They're just conspiracy.
	They talk about a confederated union of two or more guilty people.
	They talk about these wild conspiracies, while the very institutions that could prove her wrong or prove her right refuse to engage her directly.
	That's not how you calm a country.
	That's how you deepen suspicion.
	Now, through it all, Candace continues to press questions that many on the right are afraid to ask.
	Imagine that.
	She asks who benefits from Charlie's death?
	Cui bono, cui protest.
	She asks why a major youth organization sat for days before offering unsatisfying statements and disappearing audits.
	She asks why there are reports of large sums routed through shell companies, why life insurance arrangements raise eyebrows, why people closest to him seem eager to paint this as a tragic freak accident and move on.
	Are these allegations true?
	Is there any substance to them?
	Well, well, what do you do when you have an allegation?
	Pursue them.
	Is every detail she has repeated guaranteed to be correct?
	Probably not.
	She herself has admitted that some tips are unverified and that she wants more documentation.
	That honesty, that honesty alone makes her more credible than many of the people attacking her.
	They speak as if they already know every fact.
	She speaks as someone trying to assemble a picture that offers something that others are hiding.
	And her critics say she's hurting the movement.
	That's my favorite.
	Calm down, Candace.
	You're hurting the cause.
	You're hurting the movement.
	Please tamp down that enthusiasm.
	We'll take care of it.
	Don't rouse suspicions.
	In reality, she's acting out the best part of what the conservative movement claimed to be.
	Suspicious of power, unwilling to accept official narratives at face value.
	And also, do people forget who we are?
	Do they know who we are?
	We have no problems by questioning authority, by going beyond the veil, the corporate veil or the veneer of reality and say, what's really going on here?
	Ready to believe that elites of different nations and parties can work together when their interests align?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	See, the ugly truth is that many of the people screaming loudest and screeting loudest at her and what she's saying have more to lose than she does.
	See, they build careers near the same circles of donors and operatives and consultants that now sit under the shadow of his death.
	They need this to be simple.
	needed to be an accident, a lone gunman, a freak, some nuts, some lone wolf, some outlier, a freak shot, anything that doesn't lead to awkward questions about who they've worked with, where the money came from, what kind of world they're actually living in.
	We've heard this before.
	But Candace is different.
	And this is what you have to remember.
	She's willing to be the one who says, I am not eating the story you're selling me.
	I'm not buying it.
	I'm not swallowing it.
	She's willing to take the hit so that ordinary viewers don't have to swallow their own doubts.
	She's standing in the gap between what people see with their own eyes and what they're ordered to believe.
	And if she's wrong, disprove it.
	That's the way it goes.
	Disprove the suspicion.
	That's why this matters.
	This is not about one commentator, one woman, one person, one death, one investigation.
	It's a test of whether the right still has any instinct left to question power, even when that power uses friendly faces.
	It's a test of whether we're serious.
	Serious when we say no one is above scrutiny, or whether that was just some slogan we used to use against the other side.
	And what's interesting too is that whenever we talk about assassinations in particular, whether it's JFK or RFK or MLK or the attempts on the life of President Trump, the right just runs.
	They get very squeamish, very scared.
	I don't know why.
	What kind of police work are you doing?
	That's kind of what we are.
	We are cops.
	We're investigating a lead.
	We've maybe able to establish probable cause, not reasonable doubt, but they run from it.
	It scares them.
	It spooks them.
	Why?
	They're supposed to be so tough.
	They're so busy doing pull-ups and push-ups.
	Look at how strong we are.
	Well, let's see how strong you are.
	Be a man.
	Be an adult.
	Grow a pair.
	Butch up.
	Ask the questions.
	So what do you do now?
	If you believe in truth, if you believe in truth, then stand with the person asking the hard questions.
	Not with the people shouting her down.
	Demand that those who allegedly received Charlie's warning speak publicly and on the record.
	Dispute it.
	Did it happen?
	Is that what you recall?
	Demand that law enforcement show transparently whether they've engaged with Candace's evidence and what they have done with it.
	Refuse to let any organization hide behind branding and patriotism while dodging basic responsibility and accountability.
	Excuse me.
	And most of all, most of all, do not let them convince you that suspicion itself is a crime.
	They do this all the time.
	Quit asking questions.
	What's the matter with you?
	Conspiracies are not rare events from the pages of fiction.
	They're a normal feature of human history.
	Whenever money and power and secrets come together, all crime is a conspiracy.
	Everything's a conspiracy.
	I'm sorry, it's a conspiracy.
	And conspiracy does not mean crazy.
	Candace Owens is not crazy for remembering that.
	She is courageous for refusing to forget it.
	This is still the story that won't go away.
	I find it fascinating.
	And I find the reaction to her fascinating.
	And I find how everybody is trying to glom on either to share her spotlight or to destroy her.
	I don't understand this.
	If there is the slightest chance that what she is saying is remotely true, is remotely possible, the authorities have to pursue it.
	Imagine the police trying to investigate or investigating a kidnapping.
	And you go to the police officer and you say, you know, I saw a man in the neighborhood.
	Nah.
	You know, this may seem odd, but I noticed that my child was acting odd that day.
	Nah.
	You know, remember she was saying that there was a man following her.
	Nah.
	That's malpractice.
	If that ever happened, if that truly happened exactly as I told you, well, that's what this looks like.
	If true.
	Now, I'm not omniscient.
	I wasn't there, but I know enough.
	I have enough common sense to tell you I know a little bit about how this thing works.
	And you don't have to be a prosecutor or a defense lawyer or a criminal lawyer to understand that's the way things work.
	I want to know who killed Charlie Kirk.
	I don't have to ask you why.
	I don't have to explain why.
	I don't have to justify why.
	I don't have to ask you.
	It's my, I want to find out who killed him.
	Who killed anyone?
	I don't have to ask permission and I shan't ask permission.
	So dismiss her at your peril and dismiss her if you'd like, but I'm not.
	Because while this story gets the attention, we're looking at it.
	If she didn't speak, I'm telling you, he would go the way of every other tragedy that just is swept under the rug, forgotten.
	Because as Gorvidal says, we have become the United States of Amnesia.
	Thank you, my dear friend.
	Thank you for watching.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for allowing me to opine, as it were.
	Please like the video and please subscribe to the channel.
	And I've got a number of questions that I'd like you to answer that I think are most important to delimit and focus the particular questions that appertain to this subject.
	I thank you.

▲