All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 7, 2026 - Lionel Nation
20:22
Daily Wire Brings Back Candace Owens' OLD Channel to HUMILIATE Her in a Desperate Move!

Daily Wire Brings Back Candace Owens' OLD Channel to HUMILIATE Her in a Desperate Move!

|

Time Text
My friend, this is axiomatic.
In the case of Candace Owens, oh, by the way, this story is just, you know, do you find yourself, before we get going, do you find yourself thinking, okay, this is it?
We've run out, we've run through every story there is, there's nothing more to say.
Mitch Snow, Fort Wachuka, that's it.
Wrapping it up.
Time to go home.
Everybody, come on, back into the station wagon.
Let's go.
Nothing more to this Candace Owens story.
That's it.
No, something new will come up.
Something strange.
Something new that the enemy, if you will, that they start, that they promote.
It's the most incredible thing anybody's ever seen.
What are they doing?
If you hate her so much, ignore her.
Why do you're glad they do?
Why do you give her ammunition?
Why?
What are you doing?
Who's running the show?
But I digress.
Hell, I don't want it to be like that, but I've got to tell you.
My friends, it's getting weirder and curiouser and curiouser as they say.
Every single day, it is insane in the membrane.
It's bananas.
It is wild.
Very strange things have been happening.
And even stranger, things appear to be getting even more stranger and weirder.
And in the next couple of days, it's going to be even more bizarre.
In fact, when Candace made her routine, or not her routine, her return, I thought, okay.
Remember, if they ignored her, she would have nothing to say.
She would be talking about, you know, for Wachuca or something or Charlie.
But they don't do that.
Now, some of the stuff that she has done is weird.
And I don't want to use words like unsettling or bizarre, but they're bizarre.
I want to meet who was the genius who came up with this.
Okay, at first it seemed like the biggest story, honestly, would be something to the effect of the latest episode of Candace Owens podcast.
All right.
By the way, is this a podcast?
Is a podcast a YouTube?
I guess it is.
I don't know.
Anyway, and while the episode did include, you know, some interesting claims about Erica Kirk that deserve serious attention and the like, something even weirder and more bizarre happened before the podcast even aired.
I mean, it's, it's, again, you want to meet the genius, the Chidrulo, the Jadrul, who came up with this.
On the night Candace's episode was scheduled to drop, people waiting for it noticed something unusual, some unusual activity while scrolling, whilst scrolling through X, a post suddenly appeared that read something to the effect of, she's real, she's honest, she's unconsolable, or words to those effect.
Now, the post came from Candace Owens' old, old social media account from her time at the Daily Wire.
That account had been, people had thought, inactive, closed, shelved, shut down, out of business.
People had thought for a long time.
But soon after, the same old promotional trailer from 2021 appeared on YouTube and I believe Instagram.
And it appears that the trailer showed Candace announcing her decision to join the Daily Wire years ago.
Again, why?
All of these posts went live about an hour before her new podcast episode premiered.
And you're wondering, what the is this all about?
That's WTF for those for you kids at home, okay?
Now, what's interesting, the timing immediately raised questions.
At first, some people assumed it was some kind of a technical error, some kind of a mistake.
Oops.
And others began to suspect maybe, maybe it was some kind of weird psyop, a gaslight, the two favorite terms.
Maybe it was some way, it was a deliberate move meant to, I don't know, to freak out, to draw attention away from Candace's current work.
I guess.
Why?
Or the content of her new episode?
By doing this, which was so bizarre.
It took whatever penumbra, whatever halo was already around her, and just turned up the intensity even greater.
And the confusion spread, as you can imagine, quickly.
Comment sections were blowing up with statements of disbelief, incredulity.
Some users, some people suggested the Daily Wire was struggling financially, perhaps.
Others asked why an old Candace Owens trailer was being pushed again as if it were new.
Why remind people that she was with the Daily Wire?
Why?
It seems almost, maybe people don't know this.
And you could do all the math in terms of the permutations of what people might think of this.
And many might describe the situation as uncomfortably weird or just creepy, strange.
And Candace later addressed the issue directly because she probably can't think.
She can't believe what she's saying.
Nobody can believe this.
Somebody might say, wait a minute, you mean she was with the Daily Wire?
Well, why are they doing that?
You see what we're doing?
See what we're doing right now?
We're talking about her even more, not about her allegations, but again, the subdirectory of her treatment and the unfairness, the sandbagging, the pylon.
And she explained, by the way, that the Daily Wire is using her old social media accounts to launch a new show.
Yeah, I know, do the math.
According to her, the show is titled In the Know, NO, I guess.
A name she believes mocks her phrase, I don't know, but I know, or something along those lines.
And she said the show appears apparently, from what she could figure out, designed to either criticize her work or act as some kind of a lampooning and turn her own platforms into tools for attacking her, which make no sense whatsoever.
Are you following me on this one?
This is, I mean, again, who thought of this?
I would have said, why are you even reminding anybody, telling the world that she worked with us?
Now, Candace stated that the show was being used to introduce a young woman by the name of Madison Bransford.
Sounds like something from the soap opera days, like a character on Dynasty, you know, whatever.
Madison Bransford.
Hello, I'm Madison Bransford.
How are you, Muffy?
She said that Madison is apparently connected to the Daily Wire and is being positioned as a new on-camera personality or something along those lines.
Anyway, whatever.
If you're going to do it, imagine being Madison Bransford and you're saying, this is the way you promote her or whatever this thing is by connecting her at least umbilically, historically, to Candace.
So Candace made it clear that she doesn't blame Madison personally.
How could you?
She said she hopes the young woman succeeds and that you, whatever you hear that, say, and I hope you do well.
My best to her.
You know what that means.
She's going to collapse.
However, she did describe the decision to build a show around mocking her as weird, creepy, unsettling, strange, problematic.
And she compared the situation to a breakup where one side refuses to move on, you know, heartbroken, still carrying the torch.
Okay, now soon after, clips of Madison began circulating online.
And in those clips, apparently, this Madison, Mali Sung, describes herself as a political moderate.
What is that?
That's like saying, I'm an agnostic.
You're an atheist.
There's no moderate.
Who cares?
No hits, no runs, no errors.
I'm right down the middle.
Phil Crane once said, the only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow line and a dead skunk.
Anyway, she's a political moderate who leaned more to the right in recent years.
What does this mean?
Seriously, we're beyond that.
Children, please.
I lean to the right.
Huh?
I lean towards the Constitution.
That's what I lean towards.
Now, she also explains that she works multiple jobs, manages social media accounts, and edits content for Ben Shapiro.
There we go.
Boy, he's always banging, huh?
Isn't Ben just exuding charisma, the likes of which you never thought even possible?
Ben Shapiro, doesn't he just, he just, he just connects with you?
Doesn't he connect, especially with the young folks, the Gen Zers?
Doesn't Ben make you want to jump on board?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Anyway, she recounts or remembers or talks about sitting down with him to discuss economics, marriage, and adult life.
That's fascinating.
Speaking of adult life with Ben.
She speaks positively about him.
Of course, I could imagine she would.
And describes him as kind and thoughtful.
How nice.
How boring.
How anodyne?
How sacrine.
Now, many viewers were quick to notice some similarities between Madison and Brett Cooper.
Both are young, energetic, and speak quickly with a bubbly tone, kind of an effervescent, perhaps saccharine tone, but bubbly and fast.
And, you know, that's the new thing.
Speak as quickly as possible, because somehow you might be able to convey intellect or intelligence or sapience that isn't there.
But if you turn the frequency up or the celerity up, well, when you got it.
And the resemblance made some people kind of queasy.
Like, this is weird, especially since Brett Cooper and Candace Owens are known to be best friends or to be friends.
It's whatever, whatever.
Again, maybe we're reading too much into this.
Now, reaction on X.
And by the way, congratulations to me because I'm starting to not call it Twitter.
It's been a long road, but I'm doing it.
But anyway, the reaction in the fallout or whatever you want to call it on X was rather harsh.
Some users were comparing it to Daily Wire's, comparing Daily Wire's behavior to that, again, of kind of a scorn ex-lover, somebody who can't stop watching their old former partner, like almost like stalking or going back and watching old movies, reliving, not able to understand that it's finally over with.
Other people said the strategy made the company look desperate and obsessed rather than confident.
And I'm with that.
It was so unprofessional.
Unprofessional.
Can you imagine CBS or Barry Weiss or one of those folks constantly talking?
Or if Fox had run...
Fox never mentioned, for example, Tucker Carlson, and I understand the strategy.
What if the...
What if they kept talking about him?
It's the most bizarre thing anybody's ever seen.
Some folks pointed out that this tactic isn't new.
When some creators fail to attract attention with their own particular content, they turn to attacking Candace instead.
And the criticism brought a lot of views and opinions when original programming couldn't do it.
I mean, everybody, look, it's transparent.
We know what this is about.
So Candace said before that after she was fired, the Daily Wire did not leave her alone.
She claims that the company followed her to events and contacted people behind the scenes and attempted to interfere with her career.
And she described the behavior as toxic, weird, perhaps trespassory, stalking, emotionally exhausting.
And she later joked and quipped that she regretted insulting a horse during an emotional moment, but her larger point remained serious.
I think you know what we're talking about.
In the normal professional relationship among adults, being fired should end the interaction.
Instead, she felt she said pursued, which you would think the best media people would advise against this.
So many people have said and have since asked whether Daily Wire's actions are illegal.
And that's a tough one.
Legally, the answer appears to be no.
I mean, they own it.
Daily Mail owns the rights to Candace's old shows and social media.
And I think the accounts associated with it, I think one would argue, their legitimacy now without her being there, it's weird.
That gives the company the right to reuse those platforms and to replace the host and create new programming.
And I think that's pretty much understood and axiomatic.
But satire and criticism also are generally protected speech as long as they don't include false statements or threats.
So while the move may be legal from a tactical point of view, from a strategic, it's ridiculous.
Many see it as petty, morally questionable, reprehensible, especially from these holier-than-thou folks who get a daily wire.
I can't believe it.
It's almost as strange as the tent, Charlie's death tent, where you can take selfies at it at the Amfest.
It'd be like going to the Kennedy Library and seeing a recreation or an actual comic or the car that Kennedy was killed in, where you can drive it and have a green screen behind it.
Now, Candace Owens has also said, and she also believes that the timing is meant to, or attempt to be designed to distract from serious claims that she makes on her podcast.
Can I say something right off the bat?
The distraction thing doesn't work.
You know that, right?
I know we say it a lot, but the distraction argument doesn't work.
On that episode that we're talking about, she alleges that Erica Kirk was present at a meeting, you know about this, shortly before Charlie Kirk was killed.
Candace said the meeting was meant to pressure Charlie into returning to a political position he had begun questioning, thinking all about that.
She also claimed a foreign leader contacted Charlie with an offer of money and influence, which Charlie reportedly rejected.
Whether this is true or not is beside the point.
That's what Candace said.
Now, according to Candace also, Erica later denied parts of this account, parts of this account, or claimed she didn't hear certain details.
Candace suggested that this fits a pattern in which Erica presents herself as unaware during critical moments, aware together with it, but unaware, selectively ignorant, performatively ignorant.
She also referenced earlier incidents where Erica claimed not to have seen messages that were clearly present on Charlie's phone.
Now, Candace said that this pattern of confusion continues to this day.
And an older clip has resurfaced in which donors ask Charlie, what would happen to Turning Point if he died?
And watching the clip now freaks people out.
It's sad.
It's weird.
It's weird.
It's lugubrious.
It's funereal.
It's inappropriate.
It's bizarre.
And Erica recalls the moment calmly and mentions that Charlie said she would do a good job running the organization.
What the?
And given what happened later, many find the exchange and the weird, troubling, disturbing macabre.
Now, Candace also addressed backlash over some comments and talks where she referred to Erica as a robot.
And I can certainly understand why, or at least some kind of a performative robot.
She also explained that her criticism was aimed at immediate decision, not a personal insult.
She was reacting to the choice to place someone who had confronted Charlie shortly before his death in front of his widow.
She said that that decision showed a lack of empathy.
Now, look, critics, people who were involved in this, focus on a single word while ignoring the context.
See, Candace believes this pattern of distortion is exactly what the new Daily Wire show will continue to do, that that's the way they work.
That's their MO.
She says that her words will be clipped and sorted and partly bodelerized and amended and clipped and photoshopped and AI cut and paste.
Context will be removed.
Commentary added to make her appear unreasonable, which is bizarre.
Because people who never watch her full episodes will then form opinions based on fragments, so she thinks.
I think it's a waste of time.
And this process has been playing out for months.
And now the analysis and the questions remains.
Remain on it.
Why?
Is what the Daily Wire is doing, is it fair competition?
Is it ethical?
Is it moral?
Is it striking below the belt?
I mean, this is what many people are debating, especially from this group of people who, as their middle name, always is, we're above the fray, we're religious, we're in the God, and blah, blah, blah.
Observers continue to watch closely as this situation develops.
And let me tell you something.
Every single day, and like I told you, every time I do this, I think, well, that's it.
We're done with Candace.
And then this comes up.
If I had been running Daily Wire and somebody says, hey, you want to run some pictures of, no, I don't want you to mention her name.
Why are we giving this woman any oxygen, any attention whatsoever?
What are we doing?
What is the purpose of this?
That's precisely what I would say.
So my friend, as we say, the beat goes on and it's phenomenal.
So thank you.
Let me say something about you.
Thank you.
Your comments.
I get these wonderful things on my phone.
Like, damn, that's good.
Damn, good, good, good.
Thank you for being participatory.
Thank you for also paying attention to the site, for liking the videos, for subscribing.
And also, thank you for following my wife at Lynn's Warriors.
January, by the way, is Human Traffic Awareness Month.
And this is something which, again, let's not forget, because we were talking about it with Epstein, we were talking about it with other stuff, but this goes on in so many levels and so many layers internationally, but also here.
People, young girls, young people sold into slavery by their family.
And nobody wants to hear about it, but it happens.
So please be aware of it.
Follow Lynn's Warriors on YouTube and become involved in adding this to your quiver, another cause which you so rightfully and righteously follow and believe in pursuing.
So anyway, I put some questions for you in this area.
And I'm asking, how bizarre is this?
Have they truly lost their minds?
Dear friends, I thank you so much for watching.
Thank you so much for being a part of this.
Thank you so much for giving me just the best possible audience there is.
I mean it.
It's one thing to do this, which is fun, but to have a group of people as connected and as assiduous and as just intellectually discerning as you are, I mean that it is indeed an honor and a privilege.
So thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Follow up.
Go to the question section in the comments.
I've got about five questions for you to, and some observations for you to review.
I thank you right now.
And please, my friends, follow us.
▲
Export Selection