All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 30, 2025 - Lionel Nation
18:18
Candace Owens Unleashes Shocking Truth About Fort Huachuca!

Candace Owens Unleashes Shocking Truth About Fort Huachuca!

|

Time Text
Nothing Complicated Here 00:02:43
All right, dear friend.
You know, I have been, and we have been, and the world's been talking about everything Candace Owens, in terms of what she is saying and what she's alleged.
And I've been telling you that what she is saying is not crazy.
It's a thought.
It's an observation.
It's a hypothesis, a theory, an accusation.
And it's not crazy.
I've never seen anything like this.
Immediately people are jumping out and think she's out of her mind.
And I'm not an expert in all of the various nuances and machinations and subtexts of what's going on.
But I would like to, if I could slow this down just a tad and do something simple.
Not cheerleading, not denouncing, not trading insults, just laying out what I think Candace Owens is actually alleging so you can understand the claim before you and you can decide, does this sound nuts to you?
Does this sound like a woman unhinged?
That's all.
Because right now, people are arguing past each other.
And the facts and the dates and the names of all of the participants and the timelines are getting lost in all the noise.
So here is an adumbration, a review, a peroration, so to speak, of what Candace Owens is saying.
She is alleging in the Fort Wachuca, a controversy, if that has a name, laid out, I hope clearly so you can understand the case being made without being told what to believe.
Because it's really nothing that complicated.
Candace Owens says the Fort Huachuka story matters because it simply challenges the simple official narrative surrounding the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
And it raises questions about who knew what and when.
Fair enough?
She's not saying she has solved the case or proven a conspiracy beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt.
Sighting Claims and Criticism 00:13:44
What she says she is doing is simply following a timeline that she claims doesn't line up cleanly.
And she's asking why certain people react with panic and character attacks instead of calm explanations.
Doesn't that make sense?
Her claim begins with a witness, a former special forces operative named Mitch Snow, who told her he believes that he saw people connected to Turning Point USA, TP USA, at or near Fort Huachuca in Arizona on September the 8th and September the 9th of this year,
the evening and morning immediately before Charlie Kirk was killed in Utah on September the 10th.
Okay?
So far so good.
Now according to Candace, Mitch went to Fort Huachuca on September the 8th to retrieve old records related to past work.
He says that while there, he encountered unusual military activity and was briefly detained.
Candace says she verified that Mitch was in fact on the base by obtaining the official incident report.
Now that report says that military police were called, bomb dogs were deployed, and Mitch was questioned by a base officer.
Candace argues this matters because it proves Mitch was not fabricating his presence at Fort Huachuka.
In her view, she claims if the confirmed parts of his story are indeed accurate, then his other claims deserve to be examined rather than dismissed outright.
Sound good so far?
Sound makes sense?
Good.
Now, Mitch told Candace he is highly confident that on the evening of September the 8th, he saw Erica Kirk, Charlie Kirk's widow and current leader of TPUSA at the Candlewood Suites Hotel on or near the base.
He also says he saw Brian Harpole, who was TPUSA's head of security, exiting a meeting at the base early the next morning.
And he further claimed he may have seen other figures connected to TPUSA or Republican politics, including Cabot Phillips or Congressman Mark Emeda.
Though Candace stresses, Candace stresses she never presented those identifications as absolute certainty.
All right, you following this one?
Okay.
She also says that she consistently framed the identifications as high confidence, but not 100%, and openly acknowledged the possibility of misidentification.
You with me?
Okay.
Candace says that that all changed her view.
And what's important to understand is that what changed her view, I should say, wasn't the witness alone, but the reaction once Fort Huachuka entered the discussion.
She says she initially treated Mitch's claims cautiously and publicly rated some aspects at about 50-50.
She says witnesses can be wrong and faces can be mistaken.
However, once the story became public, she says there was an immediate and intense pushback that didn't focus on dates or facts, but on smearing her and the witness.
She says this reaction made her more confident that the questions deserved attention.
Now a central part of her allegation involves what she calls misdirection around dates.
Candace says that Andrew Colvett, a spokesperson for TPUSA, appeared to be living or to be rather live texting YouTubers of material presented as proof that Erica Kirk could not have been at Fort Huachuca.
The material shared showed Erica's metadata and schedule for September the 9th, including a dinner with Charlie Kirk.
Candace says this doesn't address the allegation because the alleged hotel sighting was on the evening of September the 8th.
She argues that presenting September the 9th as definitive proof is misleading because it doesn't cover the time in question.
You with me?
Go ahead.
Candace also points to Erica Kirk's own words in a Jesse Waters interview.
In that interview, Erica says Charlie was at the office all day on September the 9th and that they were supposed to meet up for dinner.
Candace argues that this wording implies they were not together all day.
Erica also says she stayed in Phoenix because her mother had a medical issue, that Charlie came home alone, slept in a different room, and that she did not see him the next morning.
Candace says these statements do not close the window on September the 8th and do not clearly account for the eight hours, or the excuse me, the early hours, I should say, of September the 9th.
She says she's not claiming this proves anything by itself, only that it leaves unanswered questions.
Another part of Candace's case is how critics responded to the witness.
Instead of focusing on whether Mitch could have been where he said he was or whether the timeline works, she says many attacks focused on his personal history, relationships, and alleged past behavior.
Candace argues that attacking a witness's character doesn't answer whether he saw what he claims to have seen, which is a great point, which has been my point.
She compares this tactic to other high-profile cases where critics were dismissed as unstable rather than addressed on the facts.
Don't listen to what they're saying.
Just call them nuts.
See?
It's interesting.
Candace also raises questions about why information was allegedly rooted through friendly content creators instead of being sent directly to her.
She says if the goal was simply to correct the record, direct communication would have been the easiest path.
Instead, instead, she says the approach created confusion, spectacle, and further mistrust.
She also notes that despite repeated claims that she is lying, no lawsuit has ever been filed against her by Erica Kirk or TPUSA.
And she argues that if her claims were clearly false, legal action would be an obvious response.
She further argues that Fort Huachuka itself should not be treated as an absurd location to mention.
She points out that the base is known for intelligence and psychological operations training, and that Erica Kirk's family background, according to her, includes ties to defense and government contracting.
Candace says this does not prove wrongdoing, but makes outright dismissal unreasonable.
In her view, pretending Erica would not know what Fort Huachuka is or could never have been near it doesn't make sense.
Now, Candace also says that critics misstate her claim by saying she accused Erica of being inside a base in Tucson on September the 9th.
She repeatedly says her allegation centered on an alleged, excuse me, on an evening sighting on September the 8th at a hotel on or near the base and follow-up questions about early morning activity on September the 9th.
She argues that critics attacking a different claim than the one she made is a classic straw man tactic.
Now, she places this dispute in a broader pattern.
She says she has seen quite often before.
She argues that when uncomfortable questions arise, the response is often to label the questioner as crazy, as dangerous, or hateful, rather than engage the substance.
She references historical examples where dissenters were discredited instead of debated and says this approach teaches the public to stop asking questions.
Candace emphasizes that she is not asking people to accept the witness's claim as proven fact.
She says she is asking for transparency, direct answers about September the 8th, and explanations that match the dates being discussed.
She argues that if the witness is wrong, that can be shown clearly with evidence tied to that evening.
If the alibi is solid, it should close the window cleanly.
She says what alarms her is not the allegation itself, but again the reaction, the wrong dates, the rooting of messages or routing, the escalation to smears, and the refusal to calmly walk through the timeline.
In Candace's telling, this is why Fort Huachuka matters.
She says it's not about winning an argument or declaring guilt, but about refusing to accept that serious questions should be shut down by ridicule.
She argues that the intensity of the backlash, the involvement of prominent voices, and the lack of direct answers suggest fear of scrutiny rather than confidence.
She frames her effort as demanding clarity in a case where the official story asks people to stop looking too closely.
Now, that is the case, I believe, I contest, I submit, that Candace Owens says she is making.
She says it is about dates, timelines, reactions, and transparency.
She says listeners and viewers do not have to agree with her conclusions, but she argues they should understand what is actually being alleged before deciding whether it holds up.
Sounds simple.
Now, if you listen to it specifically like that, it doesn't sound at all crazy.
Doesn't sound nuts.
Would it not be best to take what I believe to be a correct review of her allegations and go through it bit by bit?
I listed a number of them.
Don't you think that makes sense?
I think it does.
The fact that it's not being done makes us wonder why.
So there you have it, my friend.
The case continues unabated, uninterrupted.
It's picking up momentum and speed and velocity.
And I, along you, merely want to know what's going on.
Let's Focus On Facts 00:02:19
And why are we not interested, apparently, all of us, I know we are, I believe Candace is as well, in finding what really happened regarding Charlie's demise.
There doesn't seem to be any concern for that, but merely this incessant desire to get Candace Owens to just shut up and go away.
A behavior and a reaction, I respectfully submit, is inconsistent with the way most normal people feel.
And there you have it.
What do you think, fair friend?
I have some questions for you to answer.
Your insights have been terrific.
If I'm missing something, if I need to clarify something, please I want to hear from you.
If something needs to be clarified or pinpointed or honed or expanded, let me know.
And thank you.
Thank you for your kind words.
All we want is the truth.
Let me also thank you for following the channel of my beloved wife at Lynn's Warriors.
What is happening right now regarding a separate matter, which is in some respects even more critical, and that is the digital predation of our children and how what is happening to them in their future is so frightening that somebody has to speak about it.
So please go to Lynn's Warriors as you have, and I appreciate that immensely.
And I appreciate your kindness and your wisdom and your insight.
Please weigh in.
You don't have to agree with me.
The only thing that I ask, and I think it's the best, is that we remain civil.
Let's talk about the facts.
Let's talk about that which is being alleged and not who's crazy or who's not crazy.
Because very frankly, I've been doing this for so long and I've been called crazy so much because I've said things that apparently people don't like.
And I guess whenever you say something that people don't like, that is per se insane.
In any event, thank you.
Thank you.
Have a great and a glorious day.
Export Selection