Candace Owens FIGHTS for Truth About Charlie Kirk's Death
|
Time
Text
As everyone today, the last day of the year, is still trying to discuss all that is going on regarding Candace Owens visa vis the world, let me remind you of something.
She is the only person, the only entity, the only system, the only institution even calling for any investigation into Charlie Kirk's assassination.
Do you hear what I said?
The only one.
The rest of the people are going through her testimony attacking her.
Attacking her.
Nobody is saying, but listen, let's put that aside.
Let's go forward.
Let's go through the stories.
Let's go through the narrative.
Who was responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk?
She's the only one saying it.
She's it.
Let me say that again.
I don't know if you get this.
I'm sure you do, but she's the only one.
Not TPUSA, not Erica Kirk.
Nobody.
Not the guy who's in charge of security.
All they're doing is they're trying to attack her over the most unimportant facts and extraneous collateral witnesses there are.
Candace Owens has become the central and most controversial figure in the unfolding online investigation, the only one into the assassination and the murder of Charlie Kirk.
And the reaction to her efforts blows my mind, exposes deep fractures within what was called the conservative media base.
It's not MAGA per se, and also political advocacy groups and online investigative communities.
You know, everybody in this country loves to say, oh, we love true crime.
We're true crime.
We don't care about true crime.
This is true crime, and nobody's talking about it whatsoever.
What began as an attempt to publicly examine unanswered questions and issues surrounding a high-profile act of political violence and assassination has turned instead into this bitter and highly personal and irrelevant conflict over who gets to ask questions,
how investigations should unfold in real time, and whether independent inquiry and questioning is being actively discouraged.
That's the issue.
Candace Owens made clear from the get-go that she was not presenting herself as a law enforcement authority or claiming to have final answers.
She told her audience that she was beginning a live investigation, sharing updates as information came in, and evaluating tips and leads and witness claims in public.
That framing is crucial.
A live investigation, by its nature, includes false leads, partial information, conflicting accounts, and evolving, developing conclusions.
Candace Owens emphasized that she would follow tips where they led, discard them if they failed to hold up, and continuously reassess and reevaluate what she believed.
And as it is protein and changes, like John Maynard Cain said, when the facts change, I changed my opinion.
Now, for a time, that approach was broadly accepted, made sense to people, viewers, supporters, IU.
All of us appeared to understand that not every lead would prove accurate.
That's the way it's all the time is.
And that uncertainty was part of the process.
Well, that changed.
That changed abruptly once Candace Owens began discussing claims involving foreign aircraft, intel connections, and most explosively, activity at drum roll.
Now, when I say this, you say, ooh, Fort Wachuca, in Arizona.
Fort Huachuca.
At that point, everything changed.
The tone of the response shifted from skepticism to outright hostility.
Why?
What happened?
Critics then began accusing Candace Owens of recklessness, instability, and deliberate misinformation.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Why?
What changed?
The subject matter.
The subject matter changed.
Now she's talking about intel and military, and then they say, you could talk about bones that somehow withstand a 30-out six.
But not this.
You only take flack when you're over the target.
Well, what's the target?
What do you think?
See, Candace Owens, her defenders argue that the backlash is disproportionate and very revealing.
They point out that without her reporting, several elements now widely discussed would never have entered the public arena or the public conversation.
And these include references to internal group chats involving Charlie Kirk.
And I'm being deliberately generalized.
You know what I'm talking about.
Claims that Charlie Kirk had expressed fears for his safety shortly before his death, and from whom, and why, and what changed.
Questions surrounding requests made to federal agencies, disputes over the type of ammunition allegedly used, and inconsistencies in early medical explanations.
None of these claims are subtle facts, but supporters argue that they represent legitimate questions, questions, what's a question?
It's like a question, but legitimate questions that deserve immediate scrutiny and brave and bold analysis rather than dismissal.
And at the center of the Fort Huachuka controversy is a former Special Forces Green Beret man by the name of Mitch Snow.
Oh my God, Mitch Snow, the lynchpin, the cornerstone of everything.
Mr. Snow contacted Owens with a story that placed him on or near Fort Huachuca on September the 8th and the 9th, days before the elimination of Mr. Kirk.
According to Candace Owens, she verified Snow's presence at the location through documentation, metadata, and official records, including evidence that military police interacted with him during that period.
And don't forget, the evidence from his estranged son, who was ostensibly put there to destroy the testimony of the father.
That was a oops moment.
So what Candace Owens did not claim and repeatedly emphasized she could not yet prove was whether Mr. Snow correctly identified specific civilians he believed he saw at the base.
Is this critical to anything?
You tell me.
Mr. Snow told Owens that he was highly confident he saw Erica Kirk, Charlie Kirk's widow, at a hotel on or near the base on the evening of September the 8th, and that he believed he saw TPUSA security chief Brian Harpohl leaving a meeting the following morning.
Candace Owens consistently described her own confidence level in these identifications as uncertain or what have you.
She stated publicly that she was 50-50 on the civilian sightings and that misidentification was possible.
Well, so what?
So what?
That goes without saying.
But nevertheless, the implications of the claim alone ignited a fierce backlash.
Oh, I wonder why.
Critics accuse Candace Owens of platforming on ridiculous claims, an unreliable witness, and effectively accusing a widow, a widow, a bereaved widow of involvement in her husband's death.
Is that what they said?
I don't think that's what she said.
Do you?
They're reading into this.
Maybe they know something we don't.
Maybe that's the target they're talking about.
Candace Owens responded that she never, ever made such an accusation herself, and that her role was to present the witness's account while seeking corroboration or contradiction.
She argued, among other things, she argued that suppressing a witness before evaluating the claim undermines the investigative process itself, which is true.
That is axiomatic, my friends.
And the controversy escalated further when Candace Owens hosted a large X spaces discussion that drew roughly, what, 130,000 people?
And during that live audio forum, Candace Owens walked through her timeline, explained what she believed had been verified, and clarified what remained heretofore unresolved.
Mr. Harrison Smith, a fine, fine man, political commentator who works with Infowars, great organization, have tremendous respect for Mr. Smith.
He had previously posted some say a cryptic tweet months earlier suggesting that Mr. Kirk feared retaliation from a variety of sources if he broke ties.
And I think you know what we're talking about.
If he participated in certain things, but Mr. Harrison participated in the discussion.
And during the space, Candace appressed Mr. Smith directly about his source.
And the following day, Mr. Smith posted publicly that a government official had contacted him asking whether his source was willing to speak to investigators.
It's amazing all this public acknowledgement of stuff.
And according to Mr. Smith, he passed along the contact information to a source who said he would consider it.
There you go.
And supporters of Candace Owens view this development as significant, arguing, arguing that Mr. Smith's tweet had existed for months without apparent interest from authorities, and that renewed attention, renewed and fresh attention, only came after Candace Owen raised it publicly.
You got a problem with that?
I don't.
And this moment reinforced a key argument made by Candace and her supporters that public pressure, not quiet dismissal, but public pressure, is what forces accountability.
They argue that without Candace Owens and her persistence, potentially relevant information would remain, in essence, ignored indefinitely.
And meanwhile, get ready, the Fort Wachuka narrative continued to evolve.
Another figure mentioned by Mr. Snow, Cabot Phillips, publicly denied being at the base on September 8th or 9th and released photos and surveillance footage to support his statement, claim, alibi, if you will.
Candace Owens responded by requesting access to the original image files to examine metadata, noting, noting that screenshots could obscure timestamps.
Interesting?
Interesting.
Mr. Phillips, I believe, agreed publicly and said Owens was free to review the data.
Well, that's good.
Now, that exchange did not end the controversy, as you can imagine, because online investigators began scrutinizing the images themselves, noting, noting magazine display dates and other contextual details that they believed raised questions and eyebrows.
Others pushed back, arguing that retail displays often linger past their printed dates, which is true, and that the scrutiny was veering into obsessive speculation.
Well, I'm sorry, but when you're trying to get to the bottom of who assassinated one of the most beloved figures in American history, yeah, it gets a little obsessive.
That's kind of what the whole true crime business is.
And Candace Owens herself has not publicly concluded that Mr. Phillips' alibi, whatever you call it, is false, instead stating that she's reviewing the material.
What's wrong with that?
See, that's the beauty of crowdsourcing.
That's because we have the ability to turn to so many people in our own ranks who know so much themselves.
Now, at the same time, Candace Owens reported communications with TPUSA leadership regarding Erica Kirk's whereabouts on September the 8th.
Again, just to corroborate, not to allege complicity in the assassination.
And according to Candace Owens, she was told that Erica was at home cooking dinner for Charlie Kirk and was provided with screenshots of messages as evidence.
Candace Owens then asked for uncensored images to verify the phone numbers involved.
She says those were not immediately provided with explanations citing, among other things, inter alia family obligations.
As of her last public update, she said she was still awaiting confirmation.
Okay, so it's evolving.
Now, what has frustrated the supporters of Candace Owens is not any single unresolved detail, but what they describe as a consistent pattern of near answers that stop short of full verification.
They argue that straightforward transparency would obviously, quickly, and immediately resolve many of the questions that would be one.
And also that delays any, you know, I should say that it would resolve questions and that this dilatory response, the delays, just keep fueling suspicions.
So people want to get to the bottom of this.
As the factual disputes, my friend, intensified, so did the personal attack.
Oh, God.
Conservative media figures who initially expressed concern for Owens' well-being pivoted to outright denunciation.
Some, it was alleged that Mr. Jones, Alex Jones, of whom I'm a big, big fan of, by virtue of what he has done historically, but in this particular context, Alex Jones, once framing his involvement as an effort to protect Candace Owens,
began, according to people, releasing videos or evidence accusing her of running a sort of a CIA-style psyop, maybe perhaps being tied to British intel through her husband, a Brit, and acting, in essence, as a deliberate agent to undermine TPUSA and the Trump administration.
Video titles escalated in tune, shifting the focus almost entirely from evidence to character.
And critics of Mr. Jones argue that this marked a turning point, interesting pun, turning point, a turning point where the discussion ceased to be about facts and became about delegitimizing Owens as a person.
What do you think?
Do you think that's what happened?
I think there's evidence that it gives rise to that, certainly.
Now, they point out that accusing someone of simultaneously working for multiple rival intel agencies is not a serious evidentiary claim, but kind of a kind of a rhetorical device designed to end discussion.
You know, say, yeah, and you're ugly too.
You know, can I have a second opinion?
And a recurring theme among Candace Owens is defenders.
And I am not a defender.
I am an observer.
I give the unedited, the unvarnished, unburnished truth.
But one of the positions of the defenders of Mrs. Owens is that the unrealistic standard being imposed on her work, you know, they argue that she's being punished not for being demonstrably wrong, but for failing to be perfectly right in real time, getting everything right, every loose end cinched.
And in their view, critics are treating a live investigation as though it were a finished court filing, like a grand jury true bill or an indictment.
It's like they're weaponizing uncertainty, which is good because you want to be very careful.
Uncertainty means the evidence has not been concluded yet, but they're weaponizing it as some kind of proof of malice or incompetence, and that's not true.
You see where this is going.
Now supporters also reject the argument that public investigation somehow taints or affects or contaminates legal proceedings.
They say among other things that journalists and authors and independent researchers have historically examined criminal cases without being accused of obstruction.
They argue that asking citizens to stop thinking or questioning because in that sense an official investigation exists sets a very, very dangerous precedent.
I mean think about it.
Can you imagine anybody saying stop talking about this?
And if you show any hesitation, any trepidation, any weariness to make an absolute finding as to truth, then that's an example of you not knowing what you're talking about.
And underlying the entire conflict is a deeper divide, my friend, over control of the narrative.
Candace Owens operates independently of major conservative organizations and does not rely on their approval or approbation or certification or permission or platforms.
And her reach has grown by virtue of the fact that she's been placed in the public domain in the spotlight has grown substantially, substantially during this mess.
And critics also argue that attempts to silence her have often amplified her audience instead.
Ain't that funny?
I've been telling you this since day one.
But who will listen?
Some folks believe that this dynamic kind of explains the intensity of the response.
Voices, voices that can be ignored rarely provoke this level of coordinated attention, kind of choreographed attention.
And voices and people and opinions that cannot be controlled often do.
You see, what remains unresolved, my dear fellow truth lover, is whether Candace Owens and her investigation will produce concrete new evidence or whether it will ultimately reinforce the official account.
Let's see what happens.
Owens herself, Candace Owens, has stated repeatedly that she is open to being proven wrong and that her goal simply is clarity and truth, not vindication.
Now for now, the story has shifted from the specifics of Fort Wachuka to a broader question.
A broader question about who is actually involved, allowed, I should say, to ask uncomfortable questions and how dissent and disagreement are handled within political movements.
See, that expectation that Candace Owens should either be flawless or silent has become, for many folks, the most revealing aspect of the entire episode.
Be perfect or go home, Candy.
And as one supporter summarized, the original hope was that allies and organizations and independent investigators would work together to understand, to understand what happened.
Instead, the investigation has become a battleground, a mess, a scrum over credibility and loyalty and control.
Now, whether Candace Owens leads ultimately to the truth and whether her leads ultimately hold up or collapse, we'll see.
Whatever happens, the controversy has already reshaped how many view independent investigation in the new digital age.
Can you imagine if this had been going on during the age of OJ?
I remember that like it was yesterday.
OJ, it was, my God, it would have been incredible.
It would have been incredible.
But there was nothing.
It was a little bit more circumspect.
Only a few people had access to the public.
So only a few experts got to speak.
It has demonstrated, my friend, both the power and the peril and the danger of conducting investigations in public where matters of truth and transparency invite participation, but also a relentless, brutal scrutiny.
And as the new year begins, my friend, Candace Owens, listen to me, continues to pursue her investigation.
She's the only one, listen to me, the only one who cares about getting to the bottom of who killed Charlie Kirk.
And while she's doing this, the critics are escalating their attacks against her.
And the central question, dear friend, the central question remains, of course, unanswered.
Will the focus return to evidence and timelines and data and metadata and testimony, or will the conflict remain trapped in accusations about motives and identity and who's crazy and who's MIT?
For now, Candace Owens stands at the center, the center of an American storm, as the great Bob Seeger would have known.
The center of a storm that shows no sign of quieting.
And it is so representative and so emblematic of a moment when asking questions has become as controversial as the answers themselves.
We are not going to let this go, my friends.
Again, as we creep into 2016, let me give you a bravo.
Your response, like I told you, and I'll say it again, for a long time, I never read these comments.
It's like they were brutal.
It's like, my God.
But now I'm reading them assiduously, and you remind me of things I've left out, and I incorporate them into the analysis later on.
You're fantastic.
And there are many of you who still despise her, and you are entitled to feel that way.
I believe in the First Amendment.
I believe in free expression, up to and including that.
Let me also tell you that we are making such incredible, incredible progress here at this station, at this station, at Lionel Nation.
Don't forget we have our legal sub-channel, if you will, if you will, our sister's channel, Lionel Legal.
And my wife, Lynn's Warriors on YouTube, have been incredible.
There's a story we did the other day about what new devices are going to be, and she's trying to teach people how children who are using devices and AI toys in particular.
One kid was actually told he was encouraged to participate in self-harm, asked by a particular AI bot, do you have any matches?
Let's go play with matches.
Where do your parents keep the knives?
I mean, this is, so that's a part of something which, again, people don't want to talk about it because I think it involves a little bit of intellectual heavy lifting, and you know how people are about that.
So thank you.
And I also ask you, continue to support and follow her, Lynn's Warriors on YouTube.
And also with this, as we get into the New Year's Eve, I may have a couple of more, I don't know, I want to get all my stuff in before the, I feel like I'm under a timeframe mistake.
I always think to myself, oh, I left something out.
I left something up.
But please like this video.
Please hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
And also, I've got some questions for you.
Please, let's have a robust and a very civil response.
Let's do a give and take because I love your take and your questions as to what's going on.
And my friends, I wish you and your family and your friends and everyone a happy new year.
And 2026 is going to be a gangbuster.
And remember, this is not about supporting Candace Owens.
This is about supporting the truth.
And this is about supporting a brand new collective, I guess you'd call it a collective tribunal of truth, namely in the digital platform world, the tribunal of veracity.
All right, dear friends, have a great and glorious day.