Candace Owens vs. The $140M Lie: The CEO Refuses to Answer
|
Time
Text
The Candace Owens Erica Kirk story, this kerfuffle, has lost all semblance of reality.
People are jumping in at this point, trying to do something, say anything, something mean, hateful, vile, profane, so that somebody will pick up on it.
To make a claim, substantiated, unsubstantiated.
This is per usual.
I've seen this, my friends, for 37 years in the talk radio biz.
This is nothing new.
But I want you to understand something.
What we're seeing is not just a political squabble, as we're used to.
What we are witnessing is a fundamental collision between evidence and emotion.
Two completely different things.
You can say, I like Candace Owens, but she's wrong.
Or, I feel sorry for Erica King, but I think she's disingenuous.
I think she's coming across as a phony.
I'm not buying this.
When you are a juror sitting and listening to a witness, weighing the credibility, you take into fact into account how they're acting, how you would react, whether they're saying the same thing over and over again.
Does this seem edited?
Does it seem performance-based?
It is a conflict that we're seeing where logic is being branded as a virus.
You have to separate the two.
Don't forget that accountability is being dismissed as gossip because frankly, and I don't mean to be crude here, these people don't know what they're doing.
They've never been able to handle a case like a prosecutor would, like a trial lawyer would, to put the facts on.
See what happens.
Find out what are we being charged with.
In a trial, I put on witnesses and then I'm prosecutor defense.
But I have to ask you, here's what the charges are.
Here's what you're being asked to determine.
Ask this question.
What is it that they are saying?
In essence, what are the charges?
They don't know.
It's just saying terrible things about Erica Kirk, and that's not it.
Or Candace or anybody else for that matter.
Or you see this poor Tim Poole, who I think is chronically, very frankly, a nervous breakdown.
But that's another story.
For years, my friends, I spent my career, like I told you, as a trial lawyer, as a prosecutor.
And that experience maybe instills in me a single kind of an indelible principle.
When the facts don't fit the story, you change the story.
You don't shame the investigator.
My job was never to accept the official narrative at face value.
My job was to test it, to prod, to break it down, break it down into its constituent parts, and then to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
And if you've got a case, you got a case.
If you don't have a case, you don't.
You don't emotionally invest and then make the facts fit the better narrative.
The facts rule.
However uncomfortable the destination, that's the way this goes.
And this is, by the way, the exact unyielding posture that Candace Owens has taken.
And frankly, it's the only correct analytical adult posture position when dealing with an event as consequential and tragic and horrible as the assassination of Charlie Kirk, her friend.
So let's look at it this way.
First, let's talk about the burden of proof versus the plea for privacy.
This is interesting, okay?
You can't have it both ways.
I want to address this directly regarding the recent interview given by Erica Kirk, particularly her impassioned defense on Fox News, and then later on with Barry Weiss, I guess.
Now, objectively, I agree with her core statement: burial is a private matter.
Can my children have one thing?
That's a powerful human plea.
Absolutely.
But here is where the prosecutor's eye takes over.
In any legal or ethical review, we look for inconsistent prior conduct and selective transparency.
Erica Kirk voluntarily chose to invite the public into the most intimate of moments, crying over her husband's open casket, publishing a close-up of his body on social media.
Now, that was a choice to leverage a private moment for massive public emotional impact.
She invited the audience onto the ship for the maiden voyage, so to speak.
Now, to then three months later, stand before the public and demand absolute privacy regarding the location of his grave, effectively saying this is sacred, is a textbooked example, I'm sorry, of what we call selective transparency.
It's the Megan Markle syndrome.
Demanding privacy only when it shields you from scrutiny, not when it limits your publicity.
Now, in a court of law, I don't forget public opinion to an extent, but in a court of law, this inconsistency doesn't necessarily prove guilt, but it absolutely erodes credibility, which is the role of the jury to assess credibility.
You're the trier of fact.
It raises the question: why draw a fortress around the grave when the coffin itself was a public spectacle?
The answer, analytically, is that the grave location is not private for emotional reasons.
It is being shielded for strategic ones.
Now, this is the Nehemiah defense.
This is a flawed alibi.
Let's analyze the Nehemiah defense.
Erica stated: I do not have time to address the noise we are busy building.
This is her rationale for dismissing the serious questions regarding the narrative and the organization, okay?
Now, as a prosecutor, I immediately clock her subsequent public schedule.
Hannity, the five, Fox and Friends outnumbered, Megan Kelly, CBS Town Hall, a trans flight to D.C. for an ambassador swearing in.
Just, okay.
A CEO who cannot find time for a two-hour interview to demystify the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of her company's founder, but can find time for a coast-to-coast flight to watch a paper get signed, it's not lacking time.
She is revealing her priority.
Her priority is clearly message control and PR management and not truth seeking.
The ideal that she is too busy building the wall is a demonstrably false alibi.
Time is being made.
It is just being allocated to media appearances designed to generate sympathy and donors and to shut down inquiry rather than to address the 20 verifiable or plus questions, lingering questions on the public record.
The $140 million problem, emotional manipulation.
This is the next thing.
This leads us to the most galling piece of the defense, the accusation that Candice and other independent journalists are making hundreds and thousands of dollars by critiquing TPUSA, okay?
All right.
Now let's be precise about the finances, okay?
Because in the criminal or civil fraud case, this financial context is paramount.
Since Charlie Kirk's assassination, Turning Point USA has taken in a staggering $140 million, at least combining the $40 million raised at the Mar-a-Lago event with over $100 million in separate donations.
And yet, and yet the CEO, the head of a $140 million plus organization, that's just new influx, feels compelled to use her national media time to attack independent citizens, making what amounts to statistical noise.
This is not a financial critique.
This is emotional manipulation intended to shift the audience's focus.
She's trying to paint the truth seekers as opportunistic profiteers to distract from the unprecedented influx of untaxed, unaccountable capital into her organization following a traumatic event.
Now, the true opportunism here is evident in the financial spreadsheets, not in the YouTube comments section.
Next, the CEO versus the mother.
The issue of compartmentalization.
The assertion that we can't critique the organization because its members are family is the clearest indicator of why the situation requires a logical prosecutor-like temperament.
A mother is rightly emotional.
She protects her children.
A CEO and chairman cannot run a $150 million-plus organization by saying those multi-million dollar subsidiaries, that's my family.
So you can't critique them.
You can't do this, okay?
In law, in business, in reality, in leadership, you must compartmentalize.
If Erica Kirk, if Erica Kirk accepts the title, the power, and the salary of the CEO, she forfeits, listen to me, she forfeits the luxury of responding to valid critiques about finances and employees with shady pasts and inconsistent narratives with the shield of widowhood.
Now that's reality.
Now her defense is absent logic.
An organization that wants to prove its integrity answers the questions.
It doesn't use the trauma of its founder's death to declare itself untouchable.
This is absolute axiomatic.
Next, Tucker Carlson and the common sense virus.
This is interesting.
Finally, we have the ultimate confirmation, the analysis by Tucker Carlson.
And when a figure of Tucker's standing, who, let us be frank, has lifelong connections to the National Security Establishment, when he goes on air and confirms Candace's claims about Egyptian registered aircraft following Charlie and Erica, and that's not a guess.
That is vetted intel.
And it seems, my dear friend, that Candace was right about the Egyptian plane.
She was right about the foreign registered cell phones.
And these are, let me say clearly, not conspiracy theories.
These are verified data points that directly contradict the simplistic lone radicalization, I'm doing air quotes, killer nonsense.
As Tucker correctly stated, the FBI's default assumption of a singular solitary actor is wholly and completely unscientific, unnatural, and nonsense.
In any honest investigation, you follow the evidence.
Follow the evidence.
Foreign knowledge.
The posts on social media predicting the exact date of the assassination.
Next, motive and radicalization.
The sudden, unexplained transformation of the alleged assassin.
Okay?
Next, foreign and state involvement.
The documented trail of foreign registered assets, which Tucker confirmed.
And you see, the state and the media and those associated with TPUSA are employing what I call the, what many people also, the common sense virus.
It's a common sense virus psyop.
They're trying to shame us into believing that asking questions, the very foundation of journalism, law, life, law enforcement, and free thought, is somehow wicked.
It's unbiblical.
It's tawdry, it's horrible, a sign of being infected.
And I think we reject that entirely.
We are the nosy neighbors who, when confronted with verifiable lies and inconsistencies and bizarrely simple official stories, we have a moral obligation to demand a proper investigation.
We're not Gladys Kravitz.
Ask your parents, by the way.
Candace Owens is not creating a conspiracy or conspiracy theory.
She is merely applying common sense and analytical rigor to a narrative that is failing, failing drastically, the smell test.
And this sninks.
And until the CEO of TPUSA is willing to drop the emotional shield and address the forensic evidence, we, the public, who have been emotionally invested in Charlie's plight, his life, his mission, those of us who are very, very affected by his death, have no choice but to support the indefatigable investigator who will keep digging.
And if you don't like this, then get out of the business.
Turn it over to somebody else.
You can't systematically claim, I want to talk about Charlie, but not now.
I want to publish books.
I want to go on shows.
I want to bring the money in, but I don't want to talk about anything involving the facts of the case.
I mean, it makes no sense.
Remember, the truth doesn't need protection.
It only needs an honest tourcomada, so to speak, a prosecutor, somebody to lay the facts bare.
And that is what we continually do.
We are not getting out of the garden, so to speak, of questions until we get the truth.
And this goes for everything.
Look, I've been through this and you've been through this.
I've been through this from 9-11 to JFK to this.
They think that if you were, if you don't, like, how dare you not believe this?
How dare you not believe whole cloth this story?
Sorry, we're not going to seek pre-approval before we move forward.
Now, look, the bottom line is it's fun to watch this, but the children are running out of things to say.
They really don't know what to say.
They're just sort of, yeah, she's a, and by the way, I got to say this again.
Look, I'm no wallflower when it comes to saying terrible things.
But this, this Tim Poole language, dreaded C-word references to Candace Owens.
No woman, no woman deserves that.
Sorry.
You can say, listen, Candace has said some things before that, you know, I'm not exactly 100% on board with, but that's with anybody.
I mean, I'm not an apologist for her.
I'm not on her team.
I'm not paid by her.
If she says something wrong or does something wrong, I'll tell you, as I have.
But here, no, no.
She's 100% spot on.
That's why.
That's why she's getting so much grief.
Because remember, you only catch flack when you're over the target.
Okay?
All right, my friends, do me a favor.
Please like this video.
Help us with the metrics.
Subscribe, subscribe, subscribe.
And I want you to go into the comment section.
I've got some questions for you to answer.
And I want you to look at them very, very carefully.
And I want you to know that it's important that we are still the grand jury.
We are the independent grand jury.
And I'm leading the grand jury.
And never ask for permission to ask questions.
And if something stinks, there's a good reason for it.