All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 13, 2025 - Lionel Nation
25:26
Candace Owens Demands Truth — So Why Does Erika Kirk Say Stop It?

Candace Owens Demands Truth — So Why Does Erika Kirk Say Stop It?

|

Time Text
Do you stand with Erica Kirk?
I stand with Erica Kirk all day on X. Do you stand?
I stand with Erica Kirk.
Well, of course.
What are you talking about?
I also stand with Candace Owens and stand with the truth.
Because there's something very wrong, again, when the one person who's insisting on the evidence is painted somehow as some kind of a villain, some heartless, inhuman, unfeeling villain.
And the people sitting on the money, loads of money, as we learn, and influence and curated narratives, they're treated as fragile porcelain who must never be questioned.
That's the posture around Candace Owens right now.
And it doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't make any sense to you.
And it's precisely why so many viewers and people and observers are instinctively siding with her, with Candace, even if they can't recite every detail of the case.
Now, at the bottom, this is not about personality.
It's about process.
It's about procedure.
It's about whether citizens are still allowed to apply the basic tools of a jury and say, wait a minute, that doesn't add up or that doesn't make sense without being labeled mentally ill or a conspiracy theorist or unbiblical or cruel to a widow.
Come on.
And you know something's going on when you're told right away, shut up, don't ask any questions.
Where have we heard that before?
Try everywhere.
Start with the official story around Tyler Robinson.
You buying this?
The public is told that this young man, once anonymous, is the sole actor, the lone gunman, the tidy endpoint.
Wrap it up.
Yet, very little about the presentation inspires legal confidence.
And as a former prosecutor, I'm telling you, I'm not buying it.
We can go through that.
The story with his gay lover, roommate, trans, fuzzy, whatever you call it.
You know, critical footage is missing or withheld.
And the account of how he allegedly turned himself in has shifted and changed.
Details about clothing and movement and mode and state of mind all collide rather than cohere.
And people are told he was suicidal, yet also so fearful of police that he supposedly surrendered to avoid being shot.
Remember the gun?
Remember the gun, how he called in text messages that sounded almost like chat GPT with punctuation and references to vehicles in a weird kind of an 18th century Baroque style.
What?
I mean, this guy was not exactly the bard, and yet he's telling this lover, hey, would you do me a favor?
Would you go get that rifle?
You know, that's grandpa shooting iron.
And, oh, I'm going to be, I'm going to have hell to pay for that.
You're facing murder charges.
Why are you having her, him, they go and risk finding the weapon?
I mean, it's just nuts.
And nobody's even asking any questions.
And that has nothing to do with Erica Kirk.
His presence at key locations raises questions that are treated as, oh, of course, impolite to ask.
Don't ask this.
Think about her.
Be quiet.
Go away.
We'll take care of this.
Kash Patel is on this.
Pam Bondi's on this.
In any serious, legitimate human or homicide, actually, interesting human homicide case, a competent prosecutor would expect a defense attorney to tear into that record.
Where is the complete chain of custody?
Where is the unedited video?
Where are the phone records?
Who else was on this scene?
How did the investigators rule out accomplices or higher level coordination?
Was this an entry wound, an exit wound?
Where's the bullet?
Where's the fragment?
What about the ballistics?
What about the evidence which was completely cleaned up and paved over?
What about the maroon colors of the day?
I mean, there's so Egyptian flight.
I mean, come on!
You've got to be dead not to say, wait a minute.
These aren't conspiracy questions.
These are textbook inquiries any first-year law student or anybody with a couple of neurons would raise.
Candace Owens is doing what a competent cross-examiner does.
She takes the state or the government story and tests it against time and physics and prior statements and record and human behavior, looking for what is called impeachment.
That's where you test or you question the legitimacy of the evidence itself.
And when she says that the narrative around the alleged shooter doesn't meet the reasonable person test, she's not declaring the identity of the killer.
She's saying that the state has not met its burden of persuasion.
You want this guy to walk?
Or Epstein?
I'm just telling you, I want to get to the bottom of this.
See, that's a crucial distinction her critics conveniently ignore.
And boy, does she have critics.
And I'm not talking about that nutcase Tim Poole.
I'm talking about everyone.
Now, place that next to Erica Kirk's public role.
As a widow, she deserves sympathy.
Absolutely.
No decent person begrudges her grief.
Candace herself gave her time and space at the outset and refused to speculate before Erica spoke.
That is on the record.
And the difficulty arises not because Erica is grieving, but because she chose and was chosen to become CEO and chairman of a most powerful political machine that raises enormous sums of donor money, shapes elections, and now controls the institutional memory of her late husband.
And once you step into that role, you are no longer, I'm sorry, you are no longer simply a private mourner.
You are a fiduciary.
You owe duties of candor and truth and transparency to donor staff and the wider movement.
You cannot move through every major platform from Fox to CBS to curated town halls.
Repeat the same pre-clear, pre-written, edited talking points, and then tell Candace Owens to shut up, that the only acceptable answer from her is silence.
You can't do that.
You can't broadcast heavily produced grief to millions, use it to sanctify an institution, and then accuse people of cruelty when they merely examine that institution's conduct.
That ain't going to happen.
Charlie wouldn't have done it, and he wouldn't have stood for it.
From a legal mind, from a legal point of view, the problem is obvious.
Erica is being used as both shield and sword.
Her widowhood is invoked to shield the organization from scrutiny.
Throughout history, from Yoko Ono to Coretta Scott King to Jackie and Ethel, The widow, this critical part becomes almost a part of the narrative.
And it's used as almost like Kevlar to deflect and to say, no, no, no, no, get away.
Anytime the questions arise, anytime they get unnecessarily messy, you bring out the widow.
I'm sorry to say this, but you know it's true.
And it's being done to shield again the organization from scrutiny.
Her titles are invoked, you know, to give her pronouncements, institutional media collective weight against dissenting or questioning voices.
That, my friends, is emotional leverage.
That's not evidence.
And a courtroom would separate the two.
So does Candace.
She repeatedly says that as a widow, Erica deserves respect, but as a CEO, she owes answers.
She doesn't need to take that position.
She wants that position, and they want her to take the position.
Well, with that goes a concomitant duty of disclosure.
And those are not contradictory positions.
Those are categories the law recognizes every day.
Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
And then there's Tim Poole, whose response has been loud, erratic, feline, strange, jealous, unglued, and remarkably light on substance.
Instead of, and I'm not even bringing up the fact of his allegations of his own attack not being able to be substantiated.
That's for others to determine.
I don't know.
I do hope, though, let me remind you that if you say that you're the victim of some kind of an assault, I hope it doesn't happen, but you sure as hell better make sure it happened that there's evidence of it.
The public does not like to be lied to.
The public does not want to be made or portrayed as a fool.
And instead of walking through evidence, timelines, and official contradictions and the record, he casts Candace as dangerous, irresponsible, almost contagious, with vile, misogynistic, rude, sick, demented language using the female equivalent of the N-word.
I'm sorry, I'm a bit of a gentleman.
You don't call somebody that, a woman, a married woman with children, that dreaded word, repeatedly.
It's almost like his rage is done not to show his anger, but to convince himself that he's legitimate.
He's almost like saying, keep it up.
Keep it up, Timmy.
You've got a couple more seconds, and maybe they'll buy this feigned performative outrage.
This is emotion, I guess, masquerading as analysis.
And when a commentator, when a commentator spends more time diagnosing the motives of a critic rather than dissecting the conduct of an institution, the jury, you, the grand jury, can fairly ask whose reputation he is protecting and why.
And I think we know what that's about.
Timmy's posture serves one function.
It attempts to stigmatize doubt.
If you share Candace's questions, you're told you might ruin the trial, harm the movement, destabilize some larger mission.
Really?
This isn't a legal argument.
This is a narrative.
This is some kind of weird narrative discipline.
You know, trials are not sacred rituals that forbid citizens from thinking.
Because remember, the Sixth Amendment provides you with the right to a speedy and a public trial.
The drafters of the Constitution wanted to ensure that your trial is public.
That's one of the best protections, not in some basement, some star chamber at 3 in the morning in the dark.
No, it's in the open.
They are public proceedings that rely on public scrutiny.
And the idea that asking about missing footage or conflicting statements, that somehow this invalidates a prosecution, would be laughed out, laughed at and out of any serious legitimate courtroom.
And look also at the broader pattern that Candace is pointing to.
You know, we've seen versions of this before.
During COVID, citizens who asked basic questions about data or mandates were told to trust the experts and accused of killing grandparents and you're responsible for this.
During the George Floyd summer, remember that one?
Oh my God.
People who questioned BLM and their shaky finances and their narrative and this weird kind of a direction or worldview framing, you were called racist, reactionary, or worse.
And in each case, emotional leverage was used to shut down the inquiry and to shut you up and shut you down.
In each case, you were told, and that proved that every single time that much of the establishment line was incomplete, distorted, outright false.
We knew this.
And if you broke it out or dared to address it, you were sick.
You were part of the problem.
And now the same tools, the same foci, the same expatiation techniques are being used against anyone, anyone who refuses to repeat the approved story about Charlie Kirk's death.
You see the similar sequence.
First, dissent, always framed as crazy.
You're nuts.
You're a lunatic.
You're a tinfoil hat crazy.
You're just out for the money for your own platform or whatever it is.
Then it's rebranded.
And by the way, the funny part about that is you're going out doing these various meetings in order eventually to bring money to TPUSA.
I mean, nothing wrong with that.
It was a good organization then, I'm sure it still is, but yet you can't do it.
The cable news shows and broadcast fora that are using Erica, they're making money as well.
So for you to, if everybody was disqualified because they have some type of concomitant financial benefit from this, forget it.
Some qui bono, qui protest who benefits thing.
You see, all of this is rebranded as some kind of danger to public health, you know, the public order or some pending trial.
And finally, finally it's called, excuse me, immoral, unchristian.
And by the time the full record emerges, everybody sees it like you, the damage is done.
And excuses are mumbled about, you know, bad information at the time.
We've heard this.
They didn't understand we're experts in this.
We've had this happen to us.
Candace Owens refuses to play the cycle.
She insists on contemporaneous skepticism, which I think truth warrants.
Rather than this retrospective regret, she's willing to carry the weight of being called every name in the book to preserve the simple right to look at a fact pattern and say, that does not make sense.
And that was my friend.
And in his name and in the name of truth, that doesn't make sense.
And that's why many viewers, even those who don't share Every suspicion, feel obligated to defend her.
They understand that if she can be shouted down, if she can be shouted down here in this particular case, then no one else would dare raise their hand when the next very clear official story arrives.
And we're not backing down.
Absolutely not.
The accusation that she's doing this for money and clicks is, well, particularly hollow.
As I mentioned, pardon me, every commentator in this space, Tim Poole included, monetizes content.
Everyone runs ads, sells merch, boosts views.
Yet that motive, this is an informational commerce we're talking about.
Yet that motive is invoked selectively.
When Candace questions power, her revenue is sinister.
When others attack her, their revenue is invisible.
It's different.
It's warranted.
Come on.
That kind of asymmetry reveals the game.
And the problem isn't that someone makes a living as a commentator.
No, no, no, no.
The problem for her critics is that she refuses to join the scripted chorus.
She's not going to be sitting there like some sock puppet repeating the rote memorized Pavlovian talking points.
From a prosecutorial vantage, what Candace is doing looks almost routine.
It does.
Identify inconsistencies.
Preserve documents.
Press witnesses who change their story, prior inconsistent statements, and ask why obvious leads are ignored.
Ask why institutions react defensively instead of cooperatively, if that's the word.
Ask why the people with the most to gain from closure are the ones most hostile to scrutiny.
See, none of that is slander.
All of that is what a serious advocate would do on behalf of a client who can't speak.
The establishment has simply decided that the client in this particular case is not the public, is not you.
In their view, the client is the institution.
That priority is the reputation of organizations and donors and media partners and whatever unseen actors may have an interest in keeping the story very clear.
Candace Owens has made a different choice.
She is representing common sense.
The basic citizen who looks at missing video.
Odd aircraft.
Interesting.
Trailing.
You would think Erica would say, hey, what's going on here?
I'm sure she has.
Looking at conflicting statements, unreal ballistics, and who says, you have not earned my trust.
I'm not signing off on this.
That is why the momentum is with Candace Owens.
You can feel it.
You know it.
And the harder they push, the harder they push scripted town halls and pre-screened questions and rehearsed condemnations and the I stand with Erica.
Again, who doesn't?
That means Candace Owens is a nut.
That's what that means.
When all this happens, the more ordinary people recoil.
They recognize the tone from COVID briefings and corporate DEI statements.
It is the sound of power instructing you to abandon your own eyes and your own common sense.
And the fair, legitimate legal question is not whether every suspicion Candace Owens raises will be proven right.
That's not it.
No investigator has a perfect batting average.
And some questions cannot be answered.
The fair question, the fair question is whether the unresolved facts that she highlights would better matter, in essence, to a reasonable jury or to anybody who wants to know the truth.
Would a juror want to see complete footage of the alleged shooter?
Huh?
What do you think?
You think so?
Probably, yeah.
Would a juror, a rational juror, want clarity on who removed security media and why, who pulled out cards, who took down cameras, who acted weird?
Would they want to see all of the ballistic theories and hypotheses, especially from a lot of experts?
Would they want to see camera angles?
Would they want to see ballistics?
Would they want to determine whether wounds were exit or entry?
Yes.
Would a juror want to know why key witnesses told verifiable untruths in the immediate aftermath?
Would they want to see the particular text messages between shooter and lover and reveal that particular story?
Would you want to see any?
I mean, there's so many questions.
See, that's enough to justify her line of inquiry, and that's just surface level.
In the end, this audience, us, really does function.
We function like a grand jury.
We're not delivering a final verdict on who fired what weapon at what second.
That's not it.
We're deciding whether there is enough unresolved evidence, enough institutional inconsistency, and enough elite overreaction to justify continued investigation.
You damn right there is.
You are deciding whether Candace Owens is acting as a reckless arsonist or as a stubborn advocate for truth.
For a truth that powerful people would rather bury.
On the record presented, the case for Candace Owens is strong.
She has articulated concrete concerns, adjusted and changed, and maybe regrouped when minor details prove off.
And she's refused to surrender the principle that grief and wealth and institutional prestige do not place anyone beyond question.
That is not cruelty.
That is civic duty.
And if the people who claim to welcome the truth want this to end, they have a simple remedy.
Simple.
Provide the answers.
Release the records.
Stop hiding behind scripted emotion and elite approval.
Until they do that, until they do that, the one figure still insisting on evidence will not be the problem.
She will be the only person doing the job a free society requires.
I don't know how much clearer I can be.
I don't know how much clearer we can be.
This makes complete and total sense.
Let me say again, nobody stands against Erica Kirk, nobody.
But ask yourself this.
And I want to say something right now.
And I hope you don't take this the wrong way.
But I'm more interested in what women have to say by virtue of their sometimes uncanny ability to see through emotion that seems performative, rehearsed, insincere, inconsistent, not legit.
Now, I've done a couple of things here.
First, I want to hear your thoughts and comments.
I've got some questions in the comment section.
What do you think?
Being a grand juror.
Number two, like this video.
I want our methodology to pick up steam, to be in the HOV lane of intellectual inquiry.
I want to be our own Russell tribunal, our own Sartre tribunal, as we take on the role of actual grand jurors.
I want to see what do you think?
What is your take?
What is your belief?
Very, very critical.
Very, very important.
That's what I want to know.
Please like these videos.
Subscribe to our channel.
Because if you like the truth, and if you like the pursuit of the audacity of truth, the audacity of verity and veracity, the limpid, clear clarity of fact, then stay with us.
All right, my dear friends, thank you so much.
It is an honor to be with you.
I cannot tell you enough.
It is an honor.
▲
Export Selection