Candace Owens Never Accused Erika Kirk of Anything Ever
Candace Owens faces backlash for questioning the removal of a framed photo from Charlie Kirk’s office, critics framing her inquiries as accusations despite no explicit claims. She challenges media culture’s conflation of skepticism with guilt, comparing selective scrutiny to Epstein’s ignored ties with influencers like those receiving Pam Bondi’s "binder." Speculating on Erica Kirk’s possible roles—CIA or EMP projects—Owens defends her right to provoke debate, even if unfounded, arguing outrage often masks deeper hypocrisy while urging civil discourse. [Automatically generated summary]
They are coming after Candace like you can't believe.
They are got the pitchforks and the torches out and they're going after her.
She's despicable.
She's nuts.
She's crazy.
She's out of her mind.
What do you how dare you question Erica Kirk?
What the hell's the matter with you?
Don't you understand how this thing works?
Don't you understand it, but you can't do that.
Do not question anything.
I don't give a damn if wedding photos are moved.
Who do you think you are?
You can't shine her shoes.
She is sanctified.
She is untouchable.
You better watch it, Owens.
There'll be a lawsuit.
I don't know what for, but there will be a lawsuit.
You can't question her.
Feel better?
And by the way, how many of these people online who claim that Candace is nuts aren't saying a word about Epstein?
Huh?
Huh?
Everyone, you want me to go through the list?
Remember all the big influencers?
Remember the ones who were given the binder by Pam Bondi?
They haven't said a word about Epstein.
Why do you think that is?
I think we know.
I think we know.
They're coming after our girl, Candy.
They're coming after our girl, Candy.
Let me tell you something right now.
Let's calm down.
Let's talk about something that almost nobody in the middle of this you-know-what, it's called a shitstorm, is actually slowing down enough to separate clearly.
Asking Questions vs. Making Accusations00:03:02
That is the difference, the fundamental difference between asking questions and making accusations.
It's a big difference.
There's a huge amount of the heat around Candace Owens right now that comes from people, a bunch of people, collapsing and confusing those two things into one.
Candace Owens has built a reputation, as you know, as someone who asks pointed, uncomfortable questions in public, like other people do, like the same people who are mad at her.
And that is her brand, that is her method, that is her right.
And in the current controversy surrounding here right now as we speak and her commentary on Erica Kirk and related events, this is one of the most important clarifications is this.
Candace Owens did not actually call for police action or demand that anyone be dragged into a precinct and given the third degree and indicted or anything.
What she did say was voice skepticism and curiosity about details she found puzzling.
And that distinction matters more than people want to admit.
Do you hear me?
In modern media culture, my friends, questioning itself has become controversial.
We live in an environment where audiences are primed to interpret strong questions as implied verdicts.
When a commentator lingers on an inconsistency or highlights, something that feels symbolic, listeners often jump straight to conclusions.
And they assume, they assume that the speaker is making some kind of a hidden accusation.
But there's a real philosophical difference, my friends, a real, a huge difference between inquiry and indictment.
Now, Candace's style leans very heavily on narrative framing, as you know.
She walks her audience through what she sees, what strikes her as odd, and what she thinks deserves clarification.
And that approach, my friend, that approach can feel prosecutorial, even when it is not formally accusing anyone of anything, including wrongdoing.
It is closer to a running commentary on perception.
She is inviting her audience to notice that some details, some details are worth noting, and that the same details she's noticing and to sit down with others at the discomfort of unanswered questions involve a balancing of the two.
She's making accusations.
She's asking questions.
Nobody minds saying anything about her.
They can accuse her of everything and anything.
I mean, they want her not only shut up and shut down.
They want her.
I mean, she is everything.
She is a hateful.
She's a hate-monger.
She's an anti-Semite.
Right?
Nobody has any problems with that.
Those are accusations.
She's asking questions.
Pointing Out The Truth00:06:54
And by the way, one example that generated outsized reaction was discussion around symbolic or personal gestures, like the interpretation of images or changes in invisible surroundings, right?
You know what I'm talking about?
The picture, the picture.
Why is this?
If you, I have not been into Charlie's room.
For example, I've not been into Charlie's office.
My God, it's been on, it's almost frozen, frozen in time like it was on that day.
Nothing changed.
Look, here's papers he left.
Look, here's notes.
And the prominent picture behind him, gone.
Gee, Candace, don't you understand?
You're not supposed to mention that.
You can't mention that.
Why?
Because you can't.
In the age of social media, audiences are trained to read meaning into every frame.
A photograph becomes evidence.
A background detail becomes a clue.
Entire theories can spin out from something as small and as seemingly innocuous as the placement of an object in a room.
And Candace's commentary tapped directly into that phenomenon.
You get a problem with that?
And here's a critical point.
Here's a critical point.
This is important, because remember, if you're talking about this, this is very, very critical.
Theories, theories, like I said, theories that mushroom out of nowhere regarding the placement again or the removal of an object in a room of OJ Dart, so to speak.
Something happened with this.
So what?
I don't want to say this too loudly, but so what?
If Candace says that's interesting, so what?
He didn't wear a ring, he wore a ring, whatever.
Why does everybody get so bent out of shape?
I don't grasp this.
don't understand it.
I don't.
It's a good point.
Because these people, don't you understand, are thrust into our lives.
You buy the package.
When you buy the Charlie and you buy Erica, you buy the story.
You buy everything.
You buy the story and the house and the past and the dating and the drinking and all of this stuff.
You bring up everything that Charlie says from his past and what he believes in.
You buy the package.
You buy it.
Here it is.
And you can question it.
And if something seems to be inconsistent with the package as presented, you can later say, wait a minute, that's not what I bought into, even though you're not actually buying anything.
But here's a critical point.
Interpreting symbolism is not the same as presenting proof.
And she knows that.
Humans are pattern-seeking creatures.
And by the way, the wonderful people who watch and they scour, they scour everything.
They look at what's missing and what's not.
And by the way, one of the greatest signs of judgment, believe it or not, as you get older, was when you notice things that are not there anymore.
We are wired to look for coherence and narratives in fragments.
And that instinct is very, very powerful.
It is also dangerous.
is also dangerous if left unchecked.
You see, because the psychology of online speculation shows how quickly communities can build elaborate stories around incomplete information, both to and fro.
And all she's doing is she's asking a question.
That's all she's doing.
And what's wrong?
So what?
But she's not saying Erica killed Charlie.
She's not saying that.
Each side adds interpretation.
Each interpretation reinforces the emotional arc of the group.
So what?
You don't know this by now.
But everybody, especially all the defenders, they line up and they call Candace's nuts.
She's crazy.
She's crazy.
Do you not understand we live in a world where we constantly look at President Trump's hand and his ankles and whether he's bloated or is he dying his hair?
Does he have a purple blotch on his hand?
Does he have a tremor?
Is he old?
Is he this?
Is he sick?
This is what we do, damn it.
Candace operates inside this system, but she also reflects a broader cultural appetite because people want commentators who articulate their unease.
They want someone to say, you know, this is weird.
There's something wrong here.
Does it feel strange to you?
It feels strange to me.
That's it.
That's a social function.
That's what she does.
That's her goal.
That's her job.
She creates shared attention around ambiguity.
And if you don't like what she says, don't listen to her.
Damn it, I don't understand it.
You're giving her more.
She's loving this.
The worst thing you can do is ignore her.
But a lot of people, they want her sued.
I don't want her to sue.
Sue for what?
For what?
Have we not understood that opinion and speculation are protected?
You can't sue somebody for that.
But ambiguity is not guilt.
Suspicion is not evidence.
Nobody says that.
Responsible audiences, including her, have to understand and hold these categories apart, even when the emotional momentum of a story tries to merge them.
She's not saying anything.
She's pointing to you facts.
She's saying, this, this, this, this, and this are true.
And instead of saying, well, that's interesting, they're saying, no, you're crazy.
She's evil.
How can you be evil if you point out something that's true?
Another layer of complexity is the role of personal privacy, right?
Now, public figures inevitably have parts of their lives examined under a microscope.
But there is a difference between analyzing public statements and inferring motives from private gestures.
Now, if commentary drifts into the interpretation of personal symbolism, then maybe it enters into something which is ethically delicate territories.
However, when you are saying, here I am in the tabernacle, the cathedral of truth, the museum of Charlie, everything, I want you to know everything about us.
I want you to know everything about me.
I want you, especially when you are promoting, when you are promoting and giving me money and millions of dollars, I want you to notice everything about it.
But don't look too carefully and don't question things.
Don't question anything.
Don't question anything that in any way impedes upon or violates my narrative.
Do you understand that?
Don't say anything that impedes upon my narrative.
That's what we're talking about here.
They don't want you to ask questions which says maybe, maybe that wasn't a great marriage.
Don't Question My Narrative00:04:28
Maybe Charlie had it with her.
Maybe they weren't who you think they are.
Maybe she's not who you think she was.
Maybe she's not this vestal virgin or whatever it is.
Maybe she is a CIA operative.
Maybe she did industrials for Woolsey and others on EMPs.
Maybe, maybe she's a liar.
Maybe she's a fraud.
Maybe she's a con.
Maybe she's a work.
Maybe she's an Ursat.
Okay.
That's exactly what you have to write.
Who doesn't do this?
They're doing it to Candace.
They're questioning her motivations.
Are you in love with Charlie Candice?
Well, are you?
Are you?
Look at you.
They showed pictures of her, Candace, and her husband.
And they're making insinuations about the way they look, the way they stand, the way they're dressed.
They do the same goddamn thing.
The same people.
You don't see Candace thinking, I'm going to sue you.
She laughs it off.
So what?
They don't work like that.
These people are thin skinned and there's nothing to their story other than this.
Believe it or not, they're held together by hatred.
They hate everybody.
And they all say, we're going to hate Candace, right?
Good.
She's like, tag, you're it.
She is the person they pick to hate and to despise.
That is precisely what is happening.
That is precisely what is happening.
I'm telling you, I am telling you.
I know what I'm talking about.
One of the reasons why she's so popular and so powerful is that she inspires this absolute rage from Laura Loomer to a lot of people that I like for other reasons.
And others, by the way, who are the usual suspects, who, again, are the very interesting, what do I say, the very interesting commentators and folks who never say anything, interestingly enough, about Epstein.
Huh.
Now, you know, and I know, since I brought up the information about Moby, there are so many people who are on, they are for sale.
They are selling their spots, selling their souls, selling their platform, selling whatever it is.
And you know and I know who's involved and who's not.
And you're going to see more of this.
You're going to see the tobacco lobby one day maybe you do this.
Or you're going to see Big Agra or Big Tech or buy someone off, buy their important and critical platform.
But the bottom line is simply this.
I want you just to understand this and grasp this like you've never grasped anything before.
Candace is entitled to her opinion.
And if what she's saying is completely bullshit, pardon my French, nobody give it the time of day.
But because it's not that way, that's what they're doing.
Because there's something to it, that's what they're doing.
And that's why it's important.
Do you understand?
If she wasn't saying something that was true, if her accusations were completely off the charts, batshit, crazy, I'm being rather scatological, but not really.
I'm being illustrative in my explication.
But if they were off-the-chain lunacy, nobody be paying attention.
And she also does more to inspire hate because people, you know, love the lovely baby, they love to hate her.
They love to hate her.
Absolutely.
You know what I'm saying?
Thank you for watching.
Subscribe.
Subscribe to the channel.
Hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
And one other thing, too, which is important to do.
Note, please do me a favor, which is very, very critical.
Please, I ask you, comment, tell people, weigh in.
Let's be cordial and civil.
Tell me where I'm wrong.
What am I wrong about?
How am I wrong by saying this is Candace's opinions?
I'm not saying Erica did anything.
I'm saying if that's what Candace wants to say, fine, so be it.
It's interesting.
If it wasn't interesting, these people wouldn't be talking about it.