Candace Owens vs Israel | Charlie Kirk Assassination Theories, Propaganda & Backpedaling

Tonight, we’re diving into a firestorm that’s erupted around Candace. She’s been under intense scrutiny for her claim that Charlie Kirk’s assassination was somehow tied to Israel—or to people connected with it. In her newest video, Candace finally responds to the revelations pouring out, are these responses clarifying the truth, or is she backpedaling from her original narrative? We’ll also dig into some of the other theories swirling online, are influencers being paid to push pro-Israel propaganda? Or is this just another layer of conspiracy speculation gone wild? Let’s break it down.

Visit our merchandise store HERE

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:27):
Hello, and welcome to Investigator with podcast. I'm your host,
chat alongside my beautiful wife Sherry. On tonight's episode, we're
diving into a firestorm that's erupted around Candace Owens. She
has been under intense scrutiny for her claim that Charlie
Kirk's assassination was somehow tied to Israel or to people
connected to Israel. In her newest video, Candace finally responds
to revelations pouring out. Are these responses clarifying the truth

(00:50):
or is she backpelling from her original narrative. Will also
dig into some of the other theories swirling online. Are
influencers being paid to push pro Israel propaganda or is
this just another layer of conspiracy speculation gone wild. Let's
break it all down right now, guys, welcome to the show.
It is October the first, twenty twenty five. I'm pretty
excited about this because obviously since the Charlie Kirk assassination,

(01:14):
we have heard so many theories.

Speaker 2 (01:15):
I mean, I'm talking about literally.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
Everything from it was nothing but pro leftist, it was
some type of Antifa hit job on Charlie Kirk to
silence Christians or to silence conservatives, whatever the case may be.
And then I think the biggest conspiracy theory that's been
everywhere online is the conspiracy that Israel somehow had something
to do with the Charlie Kirk assassination. So what I

(01:39):
thought we would do on this particular episode is I
want to break down was some of what I guess
Candice Owens just said in the past, what she has
recently said in her newest video. So we're gonna break
that video down. We're gonna give you our thoughts on that.
And then we also have some pretty big influencers out
there right now that have, as we've said in the past,
they have kind of changed their narrative or at least

(02:00):
what they've been talking about ever since the Charlie Kirk assassination.
A lot of people find this to be very strange.
It is very weird how some people that never talk
about politics, or they never talk about conspiracy theories or
whatever the case is, now all of a sudden is
either coming out hardcore against conspiracy theories, or maybe there's
people are coming out in hardcore stance for Israel and

(02:22):
not against and especially going after some of these political
influencers or I guess you can say, conspiracy influencers such
as Candie Owens, Ian Carroll, Ryan Matta.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
There's the list of them, and it goes on and on. Now,
one of these people we do know very well.

Speaker 1 (02:37):
We are very close with this person, and so I
do kind of at least want to break down some
of what people have been saying. It's really hard to
be honest with you to go on X without seeing Ryan, Ian, Candace,
someone that is saying something about certain people that they
think may have started to get paid. And we don't

(02:57):
actually have this person on the podcast tonight to be
able to defend himself about this. Although you can go
and listen to his nightly live streams you can get
your own I guess opinion or take on what you
think about this. And one of those people, obviously is
Ashton Forbes. Ashton Forbes has been on this podcast many,
many times. We've had him literally since the very beginning.
Ashton came on our show probably about two years ago

(03:19):
when he started talking about the m maas three seventy
videos and we were his very first.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
Podcast he came on.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
And it was also right around the same time, probably
a month or two later, that we started having Ian
Carroll on.

Speaker 2 (03:32):
Ian Carroll was on.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
Probably three or four shows of ours, although he wants
to pretend like he forgets our podcast name in one
of his recent videos, which we don't really care too much.
Oh yeah, there was some like a little podcast that
I was supposed to go on to debate. Couldn't even
mention our name, which is fine. We don't really care
about that. No, it's fine, it's completely fine. But you know,
we did give Ian Carroll the chance during I think

(03:56):
it was last Sunday, if I'm not mistaken, to come
on debate Ashton Forbes. I literally sent Ian Carroll a message.
I said, Ian, will you come on our podcast and
debate Ashton? Because Ashton had started really calling out Ian Carroll,
especially about the conspiracy theories and speculation around Israel's involvement
into Charlie Kirk's assassination, and so Ian agreed.

Speaker 2 (04:19):
I would show this messages. But I'm not one of
those people.

Speaker 1 (04:22):
Although I did share a message between me and Ian
that kind of went viral all over X. That was
actually when he backed out, and he backed out about
an hour before we were supposed to do the podcast
with Ashton and Ian to where they could debate the
narrative and theories around Israel's involvement. And so Ashton then
came on, We've talked about this on another podcast. He
came on, he said what he wanted to say. He

(04:44):
hardcore went against Ian Carroll and Candae so wins and
typically just basically anyone that was kind of pro conspiracy
theory or didn't think something was adding up with the assassination,
I guess theory or logic or narrative.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
And so we got some.

Speaker 1 (04:59):
Backline, Sherry, actually because we didn't stand up to ask
in a lot of people said, or we didn't call
it out. Now, I did push back to certain things
that and I.

Speaker 3 (05:08):
Really listened to it, and I think that we did
push back and we gave him an opportunity to say
what was on his mind because it was supposed to
be a debate, so it almost turned into an interview.
And that's not our place to debate when we say
we're not debating him, yeah for sure. And also I
want to mention too that Chad and I already have
enough tith between the two of us when it has

(05:29):
anything to do with Israel. So we do kind of
back away from that subject as much as possible, even.

Speaker 4 (05:35):
Though that is in the highlights right now. Unfortunately that's
the biggest thing.

Speaker 3 (05:40):
And you know, if Israel had anything to do with
Charlie Kirk, I will be the first one to come
out and apologize to everyone out there saying that Israel,
in my opinion, has nothing to do with it. But
it's you know, just kind of cheesy almost that there's
so much coming out about it.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (05:56):
Well, and the funny thing about this is it's like
there is this faction, Ashton being one of those.

Speaker 2 (06:02):
You know.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
Obviously, Tyler Robinson recently had his first appearance I think
it was actually a second appearance. He had his arraignment,
then he had a second appearance, which is essentially where
they're going over some of the evidence, like what evidence
is there, what evidence is not? His attorney said, look,
we have so much evidence in this case to go
over that we need more time. I mean, we just
can't go through this this fast, and so setting dates

(06:23):
and all that stuff right now is just going to
be really.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
Hard for us to do.

Speaker 5 (06:26):
So.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
Obviously, the people that have been.

Speaker 1 (06:28):
Completely against the Israel narrative around Charlie kirk'ssassination was like, look, guys,
you are are going to owe me an apology as
soon as this case comes to trial. Now, the question is,
will the case ever come to trial? Will Tyler Robinson
ever actually be held on trial in front of the
public for us to actually be able to witness.

Speaker 2 (06:45):
I don't think it will.

Speaker 1 (06:47):
I do not think Tyler Robinson's case will actually ever
go public. I think that Number one, the federal government
FBI and so on, they have been hardcore trying to
figure out some way to make federal charges on this case.
And right now because there are not technically domestic terrorism
laws in place in the United States of America. It's
weird kind of how that works. And there's reasons for

(07:08):
why you don't have domestic terror laws because then you can,
like if say, for example, you're Republican and Democrats are
in they could come after you based on your dissent
I guess for their administration, based on you know a
number of things. They could say, Look, you know, this
guy could threaten our administration, or maybe he may go
after certain people, so we're going to charge him with

(07:29):
domestic terrorism. So there are reasons why you don't just
push this domestic terrorism lall through.

Speaker 2 (07:35):
I think that's a good thing, although we still may
see it.

Speaker 1 (07:37):
But the reality of this is is that Tyler Robinson
right now, it sounds like that there's a lot of
evidence against him. Now, there are also tons of questions
and there's a lot of stuff that according to Candae
Owens and other influencers online, people that have really been
working over time on trying to figure out.

Speaker 2 (07:55):
Like what is what's the deal here?

Speaker 1 (07:57):
Like why did Charlie Kirks memorial look like a WWE event?
You know, you had fireworks, you had literal announcers that
looked like they were WWE announcers, like coming to the stage,
now we got you know whatever, and you had two
guys up in the booth, you had a sold out
crowd in Arizona, and then you had Erica Kirk. Now

(08:20):
people have talked some stuff about Erica Kirk as well.

Speaker 2 (08:24):
You know, Erica Kirk.

Speaker 1 (08:25):
Used to be I guess Miss Arizona, right, Sherriet, Yes,
Miss Arizona. She also was on some television show I
don't exactly remember what.

Speaker 3 (08:32):
Showed it on music videos with some really popular music artists,
country artists. I watched the behind the scenes of those
so yeah, she has acting in her background for sure,
so she knows how to be an actress. But I
am not going to say that she was an actress. Yeah,
I'm not going to put it out there because you know,
we all mourn differently and whatever is you know, under her,

(08:54):
whatever is going on with her, that's the way she's
dealing with it. And I refuse to be one of
those saying, look, she's waking, you know, she's wiping fake
tears away from her eyes, and you know, I'm just
not one to do that.

Speaker 2 (09:06):
Well.

Speaker 1 (09:07):
And the weird thing is like if you actually watch
her speech at the memorial service in Arizona where there
were all these people there, right, I mean, it did
look strange to a lot of people. They were like,
you know, she she took real advantage of certain moments,
I guess is what people are saying. And you know,
was that genuine how she responded and how she reacted,
you know, especially when she was looking up into the

(09:28):
sky and she was you know, it was almost like
a picturesque moment to where everybody was going to take
this picture of the widow of Charlie Kirk and they
were gonna blast it on everything and they did. And
there's obviously some people out there that say, look, you know,
I don't know if she's genuine or not, but like,
who is it on us to actually say whether or not? Yeah,
and to judge her and say, hey, you know she's

(09:49):
she's faking it, she's acting.

Speaker 2 (09:51):
And then of course, you know, towards the end of this,
you had.

Speaker 1 (09:54):
Her caressing with Donald Trump, President Trump, and that was
a lot of people said it was kind of strange
as well.

Speaker 3 (10:01):
But but you got to understand that because of the
White House. That was the reason why they got that stadium.
That's the way they got everything organized so fast. There
is no way they would have even got the stadium
if the White House had enough called and helped them.

Speaker 2 (10:15):
Yeah for sure.

Speaker 1 (10:16):
Yeah, so this whole thing is very strange, right, but
I'm trying to figure out what should we do first.
And by the way, before we actually start with the show,
we are going to break down canis Owens's new video.
This is obviously after she has said, look, Benjamin Netan Yahoo, biebe.
When Benjamin Netan Yahoo read the letter or part of
the letter on Fox News, I believe it was. This
was not long after Charlie Kirk was assassinated. He had

(10:39):
read like two lines from this note, two lines from
this letter that Charlie Kirk sent him that said, like,
you know how much his support meant, you know how
much he loved Israel, all these things, and then the
official letter allegedly came out. Now I say allegedly because
we don't for sure one hundred percent know like this
is exactly the letter that Charlie Kirk sent, although that's

(11:02):
what Turning Point USA has released, And so we are
as of right now going to go ahead and go
with that. This is a letter that Charlie Kirk sent.
And on our last episode, actually I was thinking, I
was like, well, you know what I need to do
is I need to actually go over this letter just
to kind of read it out a little bit, to
just at least show you guys what this whole thing

(11:23):
was all about.

Speaker 2 (11:23):
So let me go ahead and get into this.

Speaker 1 (11:26):
And this is the actual letter that Charlie Kirk sent
to bb net and Yahoo in May. And I'm gonna
go ahead and share this real quick. Let me go
ahead real quick here, and we're gonna go ahead and
talk about like what does this letter mean exactly? Like
is you know what's the deal with this? So here's

(11:47):
the actual letter. It says this is from the af Post.
The letter Charlie Kirk sent to net and Yahoo and
may advise the Israeli leader on how to counter anti
Israel sentiment among gen Z and the information war being
waged against the Jewish state. In the letter, Kirk stressed
that Israel needs a communications intervention with the American public,

(12:08):
stating that dwindling support for the Holy Land pains him
to see and to combat rise and anti Zionism among
the youth. Kirk urged Netnaho to create an Israel Truth
Network staffed by young people, to convey that Israel is
a great friend of America to gen Z Americans, to
bring Israeli's held hostage in Gaza on a speaking tour

(12:29):
across the country, to conduct on the street interviews with
Israeli minority groups entitled Dude, you got us wrong, and
to have more of the Netnahu's own clips translated from
Hebrew into English. Kirk also suggested that Israel could do
more for America, such as offering Hurricane aid with a
Star of David on it, in order to boost American
political and military support, Pleading with Netnahu to stop subcontracting

(12:53):
Hasbara efforts to American surrogates, Kirk or pledged to push
the propaganda to his young audience, identifying himself as a
defender of Judeo Christian Geo Christian civilization. Kirk asher natyahuo
of his unwavering pro Israel stance and insisted that his
concerns came from a place of love for Israel and
the Jewish people. And so if you guys actually want

(13:15):
to see the letter, this is from the desk of
Charlie Kirk, says, and this is the entirety of the letter,
although I basically just read out exactly what it said,
so you know, to me and as soon as I
saw that, I was like, Okay, well that's a little strange, right,
I mean, it's it's strange because if you think about
it that way, Charlie Kirk seemed like he was trying

(13:38):
to help Israel and Benjamin nt Nyah who figure out
a way to propagandize the American public and especially the
American youth. Now we also know there was something that
was posted not long ago. There was a couple of
whistleblowers through various sources and means, some of them allegedly
from within Turning Point USA, that have said that I

(13:58):
guess Israel has high one of Donald Trump's I guess.

Speaker 4 (14:02):
Employee, the former I don't know if it's like.

Speaker 1 (14:04):
Public relations director or someone for President Donald Trump. This
was I believe during the first part of his term,
so the first month Donald Trump then later fired him.
From what we're understanding and hearing is that Israel did
hire this person to go and reach out to gen
Z influencers, the people that are actually out there influencing
huge right now. So you might consider Ian Carroll or

(14:25):
Candice Owens, or just name the influencer out there that
is talking about the Charlie Kirk assassination or any of
the pro Israel anti Israel talking points. But one of
the things he was supposed to do was he was
supposed to go out there and figure out ways to
get the influencer to talk more pro Israel. So what
does that mean, Well, that likely means that he is
going to figure out a way on behalf of Israel.

(14:49):
The propaganda or Apak or whoever, I mean. Apak has
a ton of money. We know how much Apak funds
the United States politicians and government. They're just that's not
a conspiracy theory, that's a fact. I mean, anyone can
look up how much money APAC actually how much they
put into our government and our politics.

Speaker 2 (15:05):
But what they sounds like they want to do is.

Speaker 1 (15:07):
They want to use a lot of this money now
for influence, right, they want to use this to influencers.
So then you start having some conspiracy theories, right, there
are some conspiracy theories out here, And I want to
find this real quick because and listen, this pains me
to see and I hope, I hope and pray that
this is not true. I really really do hope it's
not true. And I don't think it's true. I really don't.

(15:30):
And I'm we're going to get an answer to this
because we're going to bring Ashton Forbes on because and
the reason I bring up Ashton Forbes again is because
literally this is everything that we are hearing about every
single time.

Speaker 4 (15:41):
Well, and I just want to mention too.

Speaker 3 (15:43):
When we did bring Ashton on for the debate, you know,
even Chad was like, Ashton's just acting so different and
so strange, and he said that right after the podcast,
he's like, I just don't understand what's going on. And
you know, before Ashton was never about conspiracies. He's never
about conspiracies, and he tried to always stay out of politics.

(16:04):
His focus was on the missing aircraft and that was it,
and science and free energy and at you know, ether
and things like that, things that are that are above
my head.

Speaker 1 (16:17):
Yeah, I mean that was his entire life. That was
what he has dedicated his entire life to. And so
I get on these are type of posts like what
we see. So this is top lobster, big account of X.
You know, it shows Ashen Forbes picture and he literally
retweets this and it says chief Trumpster. And this is
another person that says which influencers are being bought off?

Speaker 2 (16:37):
We need answers now.

Speaker 1 (16:39):
The actual post talks about Israel is paying influencers seven
thousand dollars per post. Untya who referred to this week
to a community pushing out preferred messaging in US media
and boy are they.

Speaker 2 (16:50):
Making a princely sum. And so that was a article.

Speaker 1 (16:55):
There are other articles out there, and of course the
first person I see is Ashion Forbes.

Speaker 2 (16:59):
You know, this is what we're seeing in everywhere on X.

Speaker 1 (17:01):
Now, I'm not saying that Ashen is guilty of this,
So let me just make that very clear, because I
don't believe I've said this before. I don't believe Ashton
is guilty of this. But we just we all have
to be very cognizant of who we're listening to go.
We gotta understand pattern changes like what are people doing.
Are they shifting narratives very fast?

Speaker 2 (17:21):
And why?

Speaker 1 (17:22):
You know, why is someone that never talked about a
certain subject or whatever it is, all of a sudden
talking all about this subject and completely moving on from
whatever they were on. Now, for Ashton's sake and to
Ashton's defense, I guess here I could say that, Look,
he's done m I stream seventy for two years. He

(17:42):
is still moving in the direction of zero point energy.
He has talked to damn near everyone he can possibly
talk to when it comes to scientists, at least the
people that will talk to him. You know, he's reached
out to the United States government multiple times.

Speaker 2 (17:56):
He has done tons of FOI request through you know.

Speaker 1 (17:59):
Through all the other basically all the groups that they
have created within the government to talk or handle UFOs.
So a tip, you know, all the other organizations he's
sent in for your requested depending on And so what
more can Ashton do besides continuing on with the zero
point energy? Is this just Ashton's way of breaking into

(18:20):
the political space, because hey, maybe this is the time.
And Ashton himself has said on his podcast on the show, Look,
you know, I something changed me after Charlie Kirk assassination,
and I saw, according to Ashton, a lot of grifters
that were trying to use the Charlie Kirk assassination for
anti Israel talking points or rhetoric.

Speaker 2 (18:39):
Now, the only thing I will say.

Speaker 1 (18:42):
Without getting too much in detail about this, because the
only way I'm going to get into detail about this
is if we have Ashton on, and we will likely
have him on in a very near conversation, because otherwise
I'm not going to sit here and give my bash
ashen or whatever, because I don't know. I would like
to talk to him in person and see what he thinks. Now,
do I agree with everything he's been saying? No, But

(19:02):
then you also have posts like this, so I want
to get to another So Ryan Matta has been a
guy that has been really big into this Charlie Kirk
assassination stuff. He has been all into the Candice Owens
Ian Carroll realm. He is a part of that realm.
I woke up this morning and saw this video and
this was Ryan Matta that posted this, and obviously Ian

(19:24):
Carroll had shared his post and said, hey, everybody should
listen to Ryan Matta because he is talking about what
he his recent message he got about Ashton Forbes.

Speaker 2 (19:34):
I will go ahead and play that right now. So
let's play this.

Speaker 6 (19:40):
Hey, remember that crazy he was talking about disappearing in
the sky. Yeah, well he's threatening to destroy me and
Ian Carroll. Let me sure you the texts that I
just woke up to. This is bizarre r. So he
communicating with somebody over here in your text and he said,
this is Ashton Forbes, say, don't got out. I'm going
to destroy all your friends, including Ian and Ryan. That

(20:01):
must be me and Ian Carroll. And he said but why,
and he said, well, I hope you get the mental
help you need, dude.

Speaker 2 (20:07):
This dude is off his rocker. Man.

Speaker 6 (20:09):
So if anything ever happens to Ian Carroll or myself
we get attacked in any way, shape or form, this
dude should be suspect number Oh No, that really makes
me question all those UFO videos and all. He's fine,
he's just magically this one dude, he gets lucky enough
to get the magic video leaked to him that magically
shows a military like that had come from somebody in
our military, he would have had to leak that video

(20:30):
and he just got that lucky to get it and
become this whistleblower. And he's leading this conspiracy about crafts
and uh bizarre, and now he's so hellbent on attacking
me and Ian who does that? That's disgusting, bro, And
I think it's fucking crazy. And I'm waking up to
death threats. Basically a few hours after Candice Owens breaks
this story wide open and tells us that turning point USA. Yeah,

(20:53):
in forty eight hours prior to his death, Charlie wrote
a letter to all of the higher up Jewish executive
donors and he said that he would pulling his support
for Israel one so.

Speaker 7 (21:02):
They might need my help. Okay, I'm going to state this.
I'm going to challenge USA executiatives to issue very very.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
Clean all right, So there you go.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
That is we're going to get to that clip and
we're going to break the whole thing down, just so
you guys know.

Speaker 4 (21:16):
Yeah, I just want to make a point though.

Speaker 3 (21:18):
When Ashton says I'm going to destroy you and your friends,
he's not talking about death threats.

Speaker 4 (21:23):
He's talking about.

Speaker 3 (21:24):
Debating them, that he will destroy them in a debate,
because that's the way Ashton is. In Ashton's mind, he
feels like he can debate anyone and destroy anyone in
a debate.

Speaker 4 (21:32):
He would never ever.

Speaker 3 (21:35):
Commit a threat against somebody's life, because that is definitely
not Ashton. And I'm going to stand up right now
because as a matter of fact, I don't even even
really know.

Speaker 4 (21:43):
This guy this well.

Speaker 3 (21:45):
I just seen him recently when all this Candace stuff
came out, and I almost feel like this guy is
kind of a little bit of a grifter because he's
jumping onto this Candace Owens and Ian Carroll thing and
putting his name into.

Speaker 8 (21:58):
It because he got a text. So who is the grifter?
I'm just saying, yeah, we don't know. I mean, you
know Ryan Matta. I mean he's been around a while.
You know, this is not the only thing he's talked about.
Although yes, he is.

Speaker 1 (22:09):
Getting a lot of notoriety right now because of this right,
But you know, and and Ashton went on and he's
been He's been on many right, He's talked about Dave Smith,
He's talked about Ryan Matta and Ian of course, obviously
you guys, if you have not heard him on our podcast,
he also talked about that. Uh, you know, he went
in detail about this. But I want to go ahead

(22:30):
and play a clip too. This is him talking about
Dave Smith. Very very quick clip, but I will play
this for you guys so you can see something he
had recently said about Dave Smith.

Speaker 2 (22:40):
Let me get this pulled up.

Speaker 5 (22:43):
I know Dave Smith knows that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk.
Dave Smith knows that. If you're one of Dave Smith's
retarded followers and you don't realize that he knows Tyler
Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. That's why I challenged Dave Smith
to a debate today. I want him to respond and
say that he knows that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk,

(23:06):
because then all his followers are going to turn on
him one hundred percent. They're going to turn on him
and call him a massage show. And that's the reason
why he won't say anything. That's the reason why he's
afraid of me, because these people are afraid to be
the same exact thing with Ian Carroll. You think Ian
Carroll's really that stupid. No, he's not that stupid. Ian
Carroll knows that Charlie Kirk was killed by Tyler Robinson.

(23:29):
He's just lying and grifting on the internet for money.

Speaker 2 (23:32):
It's really that simple.

Speaker 5 (23:33):
And he can't tell the truth because then all his
followers will turn on him.

Speaker 1 (23:39):
Ashton what he says now, Listen, I will be the
first to say I'm not one of those people that
are just fully one hundred percent on board that Tyler
Robinson is the only person that committed this atrocity, committed
the assassination, pulled it off, you know very well, actually
if you look at just assassinations in general, the kill, shot,
the everything, and then also just how dumb this person was.

(24:02):
Supposedly after the fact, when you got away with it,
you could have got away with it except for you
literally did everything not to get away with it. You
were texting your boyfriend, You were texting and messaging supposedly
about this in discord, although Discord denies that you were
taking apart supposedly and then putting together back a gun
and then hiding it somewhere, which you told your boyfriend

(24:23):
in a text message where you were hiding the weapon.

Speaker 4 (24:26):
Oh, and left your clothes with the weapon and.

Speaker 2 (24:28):
Then left your clothes with the weapon.

Speaker 1 (24:30):
But you know, but so there's a lot of people
that obviously when Ashton's saying this, there's a lot of
people who said, you know, is he being paid? Because like,
to completely discredit all theories and all conspiracies around this is.

Speaker 2 (24:42):
Crazy and we should not do that, right.

Speaker 1 (24:45):
I actually had there was someone I was watching on
YouTube the other day, and I completely agree with this.
Keep the conspiracy theories coming, and you'll may tell you why.
Because the moment that we quit question things, the moment
that we stopped speculating, the moment that we stopped talking
about the things like this, which is such a huge
moment in American history. I mean, no, Charlie Kirk is
not JFK, but JFK was massive. We didn't have the

(25:07):
opportunity when JFK was assassinated to talk and conspiracialize and
theorize what.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
May have happened or who may have been involved.

Speaker 1 (25:15):
We didn't have the information at our fingertips like we
do today, because it likely would have been solved a
lot faster if we would have had all the information
back then, if we would have had the public pressure
from social media and from the influencers like we have today,
other than just depending on mainstream media. Because if we
think that mainstream media is telling us the truth about everything,

(25:35):
we know that they literally lied to us damn near
about everything they say. They lied to us about COVID,
they've lied to us about Trump, They've lied to us
about everything. And yet for some reason, we're supposed to
just believe the narrative about Tyler Robinson that he's the
only guy Israel has no involvement, nobody else has any involvement,
and less is liberals and less is to far left.

(25:56):
Then yes, that is the only narrative we're going to
go with. But they're just so much any unanswered questions.
And then Ashton also had another post which I will
also pull up, and this post that Ashton had was
talking about a I think what his actual post said was,
I'm sorry I had to dress down your favorite comedians
and YouTube experts, but I need this world to be

(26:17):
less stupid. The reactions are worse than a crazy ex girlfriend.

Speaker 2 (26:20):
I'm moving on.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
I'm gonna go be with someone else now. Quote that's
what he says, but I want to go ahead and
play this as well. This is what he said about
your favorite comedians or YouTube experts.

Speaker 5 (26:31):
Listen, go look at it, and go look at how
many people are buying into all this stupid like Israel
propaganda nonsense, all the people that are buying into the conspiracies.

Speaker 2 (26:43):
Literally, I had Clint Russell.

Speaker 5 (26:45):
I couldn't be more.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
Disappointed in this guy. I've done that. I've gone on
his podcast twice.

Speaker 5 (26:50):
He's a libertarian, and he's sitting here going that FBI
always lies. Nothing the FBI says is real. I'm like, dude,
what the FBI is not some monel, it's not some
evil entity. It's made up of humans, regular people. And
I've got Clint Russell going the FBI always lies, Like dude,

(27:11):
if this is your mindset, like, no wonder they're not
afraid of the videos coming out. People are literally too
dumb to figure anything out in this world. They can't
even believe when we've got overwhelming evidence, overwhelming evidence of
the guy that shot Tyler or shot Charlie Kirk, Tyler Robinson,

(27:34):
and people are out here like no, everything that they
released is a lie. It's all fake, except for my
online schizo's. Those people are all telling the truth because.

Speaker 2 (27:43):
They're doing internet analysis.

Speaker 5 (27:46):
I'm here to tell you your internet schizo favorite person has
zero credibility and never has. They have less credibility than
the FBI does by a wide margin. And if this
hurts people's feelings out there, because I see the hurt
feelings everywhere. Literally feels like I'm breaking up with a
girl that I just don't want to be with anymore,

(28:07):
and can she just can't get over it? No, Ashton,
please please, look, we can work it out, we can
be together.

Speaker 2 (28:15):
You don't get the message. I don't want to be
with you anymore.

Speaker 5 (28:19):
Sorry, schizo's, Sorry, conspiratards, We're done.

Speaker 1 (28:25):
You.

Speaker 5 (28:25):
You lost the plot. You fell down the rabbit hole.
I tried to teach you, and you.

Speaker 2 (28:32):
Just didn't get the message. You're not taking the hint.

Speaker 5 (28:35):
I'm moving on. I'm gonna go be with someone else now.
I'm gonna find someone that appreciates me for myself, for
who I am.

Speaker 1 (28:46):
I mean, Look, he's funny, there's no question that is hilarious.
But you know, here, here's what I will say is
that I hope, I hope.

Speaker 2 (28:54):
No one is paying Ashton.

Speaker 1 (28:56):
And the reason I say this is because the reason
I really hope that no one's paying Ashton is because
his his going forward with this and kind of his
talking points and what he's saying to his audience is
going to turn I would probably venture to guess a
lot of his audience against him.

Speaker 2 (29:17):
So is you know, is he is.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
This some type of back end operation from the government
to discredit Ashton? Is it a way maybe that someone
came along and said, hey, you know, go along with this,
maybe we'll pay you.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
I'm not saying Ashton's paid.

Speaker 1 (29:31):
I'm just saying I hope he isn't, because if he is,
is not going to do him any favors.

Speaker 2 (29:36):
And that's just the way I look at it.

Speaker 1 (29:37):
And especially if you call people conspiratords or Skitzo's or whatever,
for people that are asking questions about certain things, especially
huge assassinations like Charlie Kirk, I mean, you know, and
especially coming from the guy that was has been behind
and the industry said, yeah, one of the biggest conspiracies

(29:58):
of all time and and also talking about how much
our government lies to us on a regular basis and
how much they have basically hoodwinked us and and and
pulled the veil over our face. This is what you've
been saying for two years, and now all of a sudden,
you're saying that's not at all the case, and the
FBI is actually not a not a bad agency, and
you know, it's just weird. And obviously people are going

(30:19):
to ask those questions, and we're going to bring Ashen
on and we're going to ask him the same questions
because it doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't make
sense to a lot of people. And Ashen is still
a great friend of ours, absolutely, but he really is
a great We got to find out because look, you know,
if you're calling people conspiratards, which by the way, I
don't know if he knows the name of I don't

(30:40):
know if he knows the name of our show, which
is Investigator of Conspiracy podcast. And and by the way,
how many conspiracies have come and have come true? Yeah,
I mean like conspiracies. I mean, yes, there are some
things obviously out there that are just batshit crazy.

Speaker 2 (30:53):
I will give you that but the reality is is
that a lot.

Speaker 1 (30:57):
Of conspiracies are number one, based on politics. Number one,
they are based on things in our government. That's why
back in the day's Sherry, when I was like, you
know the people that are like, why do you guys
got to talk about politics? You guys are a conspiracy podcast.
Why are you always talking about politics? It's like name
like name conspiracies that isn't related to the government, or

(31:18):
name conspiracies that the government doesn't have some involvement covering up.
Because in most cases, all conspiracies come back to the government,
and the government hides that from us for a reason.
And guess what, There's a reason why the government created
Operation Mockingberg. There's a reason why the government heavily influences
and funds social media companies and mainstream media companies because

(31:40):
they want to control the narrative.

Speaker 2 (31:42):
They want to be able to control the conversation.

Speaker 1 (31:44):
And if they are up to no good, or they
are being corrupt, or they're trying to cover something up,
they need media and they need the social media conglomerates
to make sure they're on board for this. There's not
a lot of social media companies, even though the guys
like Instagram and Mark Zuckerberg and whoever that are coming
out and saying, oh, we're going to be less you know,
less censorship, We're gonna be less this.

Speaker 2 (32:05):
Yeah, maybe for everything pro Trump.

Speaker 1 (32:08):
But then the actual conspiracies that really matter, right, like Epstein,
like Israel, like all the other stuff that we're talking about.
Those things, they still censor, those things, they still silence.
That's why we went from thirty million views on our
videos on Instagram in a month to like none because
I posted one of the videos that shows someone sign
language and behind Charlie Kirk, and I literally didn't say,

(32:31):
this is the you know whatever. I just said, why
are people sign languages behind him? Prior to the assassination?
That's all I said. And we got banned on basically everything, blacklisted,
de monetized.

Speaker 2 (32:41):
We weren't making money anyway.

Speaker 1 (32:42):
But you know what I'm saying, So conspiracies matter, and
people talking about conspiracies matter, and you know, there's no
way that we should ever be like in any way,
shape or form. Look, if you're talking about something anti government,
or the government might be doing something behind her back
lying to us, then you're an idiot or you're stupid

(33:03):
or you shouldn't say that. Then you've got to start
asking questions like why are you all of a sudden
so on board with something that we never in a
millionaires saw you doing? And so that's all I'm saying.
So that leads me to what we're actually here for,
which is the Candice Owen's video. Now, this is where
she's got a lot of heat. Now, she's been getting
a lot of heat in all of her videos. But

(33:23):
we're gonna break down this video and see what she
says on her YouTube. If you guys have already seen it, great,
but if not, we're gonna break it down anyway.

Speaker 2 (33:31):
Here give you our thoughts as we go forward, and
the only.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Thing I will say is before we get into it,
go ahead and make sure you follow us on all
of our social media channels. We've been debating back and forth,
like where we put these videos, and for those that
are audio listeners, we will usually release the videos a
couple of days later. But we are also gonna have
video only podcasts, so we're gonna still do the same
amount of audio podcasts, but we're gonna add video podcasts.

(33:56):
So we're gonna be working, you know more hours longer,
longer times. But we want to be able to give
our audience both audio and video. We want to be
able to give you everything instead of just releasing the
same video for the audio that you've already listened to.

Speaker 2 (34:10):
We want to be able to incorporate that as well.

Speaker 1 (34:12):
But right now we've just been trying to decide, like
what platform do we really utilize because I still don't
think YouTube is a censorship free platform at all. I
think they're lying through their teeth. You know, they recently
said that they were going to start restoring accounts.

Speaker 2 (34:24):
Well, Alex Jones wasn't restored.

Speaker 1 (34:26):
Well he was actually briefly and then actually no, sorry,
he wasn't restored.

Speaker 2 (34:31):
He went and created a new account because it's all
right cool.

Speaker 1 (34:35):
There was a couple of congress people that got a
letter from YouTube, and so Alex Jones and Nick Funds
went and created a new account on YouTube. And it
wasn't like twelve hours later they were banned already again.
And so they said it was because that YouTube's policy
says that someone that has been banned is not allowed
to create a new account. But you know what YouTube

(34:56):
was trying to do was they were trying to tell
people in Congress that hey, look, we're going to make
sure that we restore freedom of speech, we do all
these things.

Speaker 2 (35:04):
But the reality is they're just bullshitting that they just
want to get through.

Speaker 1 (35:07):
Trump's term long enough into where they can then go
back to full censorship of who, you know, whoever gets
in office next or whatever the party they're actually paid by,
whoever that may be, and that could be various people.

Speaker 2 (35:20):
But also, we do have a merchandise store. We got
some great fall merchandise.

Speaker 1 (35:24):
We got some hoodies, we got some sweatshirts, we got
some cool stuff out there. We're going to be changing
our designs very soon. But we always have our Investigator logos.
So go check that out investigatorthstore dot com. It'll be
in the description. And so, without further ado, the name
of this video from Candice Owens is dead or alive,
who betrayed Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 2 (35:44):
And so we'll go ahead and play that now.

Speaker 3 (35:48):
And by the way, as we play that, you know,
like Chad said, she is getting a lot of heat,
but she's getting a lot of heat in a positive
and negative way. There are so many people that are
thanking her for the great investigation going on, for sure,
So I think she's getting key in both directions.

Speaker 4 (36:03):
So you know, some of it's good and some of
it's bad.

Speaker 1 (36:06):
What I will say though, is that sometimes when you're
over the target, that is when you get the most flak,
That is when you get the most heat. I'm not
saying she's correct. I'm just saying that they are trying
to destroy her career right now. And you know, you've
got to ask yourself why if it's not true, and
if it's all just bs you know number one, like
why you even care? You know, if someone's lying about you,

(36:27):
you know it, then why even talk about it?

Speaker 9 (36:30):
Right?

Speaker 1 (36:30):
And I did find it interesting that, you know, bb
dat and Yahu had to come out, you know, three
days after the assassination, like we had nothing to do
with Charlie kirk'ssassination. He literally did an entire video talking
about how and why they didn't have anything to.

Speaker 4 (36:42):
Do with it, and read part of Charlie Kirk's letter.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
Yes, so here is the Canas Owens video. Let's check
it out together, guys.

Speaker 7 (36:51):
It took him a little over two weeks, but now
bb net and Yahoo, with maybe a little help, I'm
turning point USA I'm thinking is releasing the.

Speaker 10 (36:58):
Letter, the May Love Life Letter from Charlie Kirk to Israel.

Speaker 7 (37:02):
Just out of nowhere, he just overcome with love for
Israel and he decided to write this love letter to
the Prime Minister about how they could fight harder, how
they commit themselves further to the Israeli cause we're going
to get to that, and we're just going to slaughter
that narrative that Charlie died pro Israel. But first I

(37:23):
want to jump right back into what we uncovered yesterday
to keep you guys focused. I presented to you guys
in short that the gubernatorial candidate Phil Lyman was a bit,
in my opinion, too involved in the investigation of who
assassinated Charlie Kirk. Just he was saying and doing a
little too much, and his energy was weird, and the

(37:45):
energy of Tiffany Barker was weird, and we were clear
that's potentially just because you know, he's a politician, an
aspiring politician, maybe he wants to assert himself as a
leader in Utah this assassination has taken place.

Speaker 10 (38:00):
But I also felt like maybe he potentially knew a
bit more than he was letting on.

Speaker 5 (38:05):
Now.

Speaker 7 (38:06):
The Lyman family in general was everywhere all over this
investigation we introduced, and I said his name was Shane.
I'd like to correct that record. His nephew, Shaner Broderick,
who rather notoriously retraced the footpath of the killer with
his two close friends. They were like, here, here it is.
The converse footprint is right here. They even created a map. Okay,

(38:30):
Shaner even created a map of where exactly the killer walked,
and the media used his map. And of course, the
Liman's car was in the driveway just twenty minutes before I.
Phil Lyman reiterated to the Fox News, which is twenty
minutes before I pulled into the driveway at my aunt's
house and I parked my car, and then twenty minutes

(38:52):
later the killer killer was limping by.

Speaker 10 (38:56):
Now. I'll let you guys know that when our episode.

Speaker 7 (38:58):
Finished yesterday, I had a message or two from Phil Lyman,
I despite the fact that I had reached out to
him hours before we began our show, and he was
understandably upset. He at first was sort of focusing his
energy toward Nick, the person that I told you worked
on his campaign and just wanted to help out in

(39:19):
the investigation. Now, Phil would like me to clarify that
Nick never worked on his campaign, And by the way,
I looked back, and that was actually my mistake, not Nick's.
I thought that when Nick had first introduced Lyman to
me over the phone, that he said, oh, like I am,
you know, I'm working on his campaign. And apparently that
was not accurate. So I take full credit for that.

(39:41):
That was completely Again.

Speaker 2 (39:43):
Some did not realize this. We've had Phil on our
podcast before.

Speaker 3 (39:47):
Yes, okay, wasn't he the guy that they were going
against and he had all the popular vote kind of?

Speaker 1 (39:54):
And yes, yeah, so we've had Phil Lyman on our
podcast before. He is I mean, it's nuts because I
heard about the Phil Lyman thing or liman. I guess
I heard this in the video And this is the
first time I'm actually watching this video in its entirety
with you with you guys.

Speaker 2 (40:09):
So I had heard about the Phil.

Speaker 1 (40:11):
Lyman thing, right, I heard about you know, or I
guess I heard the name Lyman that Candace was talking about.
And the strange thing about it was it didn't connect
in my mind until just then and then they showed
they showed his picture and I was like, oh shit,
we've had him on our podcast, like we know him,
we know him, We've talked to him outside of the podcast,

(40:32):
talked to him on the podcast. He's a friend of
ours and a friend of a friend of ours, like
a very close friend of ours. Not Phil, but a
very close friend of ours, is very close friend to him. Sorry,
and so very interesting that Candice is now saying that
it's weird how interested that Phil is with this Charlie kirkssassination.

Speaker 2 (40:51):
Now what I do remember And if.

Speaker 1 (40:53):
You guys want to go back on our podcast on Spotify,
if you're watching somebody to go back on Spotify.

Speaker 2 (40:58):
But either way, the actual episode.

Speaker 1 (41:01):
We had with Phil Lyman was Trump twenty twenty four
Election Integrity with Phil Lyman, Utah governor candidate, and he
had talked about how that essentially then I believe it
was Spencer Cox and how they were kind of circumventing
him to become governor. They wanted to keep him out
of the governor race, and a lot of the stuff
they did was very dirty. That was the entire reason

(41:22):
we had Phil Lyman on the show. So I do
encourage you guys to go back and listen to that episode.
And what I will do is reach out to Phil,
especially after this episode, and see if he wants to
come on and respond to Candace O onins on our
podcast about this, because I that's wild to me. I
just did not realize that's who she was talking about.

(41:43):
Let's continue listening.

Speaker 10 (41:44):
Thing that I came up with by accident.

Speaker 7 (41:46):
Now, the other things that he was interested in me
clarifying were also not really substantive issues.

Speaker 10 (41:56):
And I want to say that Nick having not.

Speaker 7 (41:59):
Worked on his campaign actually makes it even more odd
that he would stop by his house this past Saturday.

Speaker 5 (42:06):
Well.

Speaker 7 (42:07):
Regarding why, by the way, he stopped by Nick's house
at all on Saturday, he said that it was because
he was helping Nick out early on in the investigation.

Speaker 10 (42:16):
Yes, that is true. I told you guys that.

Speaker 7 (42:18):
And Nick was particularly asking him to determine who owned
a white vehicle that was parked in the neighborhood, which
was nearby where the shooter had walked.

Speaker 10 (42:29):
Nick lives nearby, and everyone.

Speaker 7 (42:31):
Locally had looked at this vehicle and said that it
was remarkably suspicious. And Phil had come back to him
and said, I can help you just figure out more
about this vehicle that was parked. Nick had nothing but
a picture of that, but that was over two weeks ago,
so I have no idea why that would have anything
to do with why he was stopping by Nick's place.

Speaker 10 (42:52):
Obviously, that car is long gone. It's been gone, and
the fact that.

Speaker 7 (42:55):
It appeared and then disappeared is one of the reasons
why Nick wanted somebody to look into it. So I'm
not entirely clear why he needed to stop at Nick's
house to speak to him and why that would be on.

Speaker 10 (43:08):
His list of things to do.

Speaker 7 (43:09):
Now I am told according to a very strong source,
that was what Phil Lyman was doing in town on
Saturday was he was meeting with Tim Ballard. That totally random.
Did not expect to hear that. Tim Ballard, if you
are not familiar with him, is formerly of Operation Underground Railroad,
which is a charity that is dedicated to.

Speaker 10 (43:30):
Helping to stop human sex trafficking.

Speaker 7 (43:34):
I even remember, by the way, when we were all
speaking about that plane transponder that turned off that the
individuals that owned that plane were wearing an Operation Underground
Railroad t shirt. So I wasn't expecting that I am
going to reach out to Tim Ballard. I know him,
I've actually interviewed him, and I used to donate to
that charity because I was so moved by my interview

(43:55):
with him when I was working for Peger University. But
moving on from that, Phil all so dispute something that
was quite strange that Shaner Broaderick.

Speaker 10 (44:03):
Is his nephew. I said, Okay, wait a minute.

Speaker 7 (44:06):
Actually, Shanner Broaderick literally posted that on his Instagram. He said,
my uncle Phil Lyman. But Phil seems like he's trying
to distance himself for some reason from Shaner. He said, Actually,
maybe Shaner's confused. We're just cousins. We're just We're just cousins. Okay, Well,
Shanner must have been very confused, because it was also
posted on his LinkedIn as a connection that Phil Lyman

(44:30):
was his uncle's probably part of the reason, politically speaking,
that he was chosen for an internship with Senator Mike
Lee of Utah. I feel like that was a little
bit of political maneuvering. So I'm not clear why that
he's suddenly saying that it's not his nephew. Anyways, not
up to me. I'm not here to get into the
middle of a family feud. But something interesting happened since

(44:53):
our episode. Shaner completely wiped his LinkedIn page. Doesn't want
to know, doesn't want to know who's connected to he's
also a complete all.

Speaker 1 (45:01):
Right, I get a pause for a second, because obviously
she's still talking about Phil. She's talking about Mike Lee,
which we you know, know somewhat about as well. Won't
go into that, but no, very well, but here's the thing.
So I don't exactly want one hundred percent get where
Candace is going with this Phil Lyman thing number one.

(45:22):
And I literally while she's been talking, I'm texting, right
and so because I want to kind of get to
the bottom in this. In my initial reaction to Candace
starting to sound like that she is trying to somehow.

Speaker 4 (45:40):
Indicate or or implicate, implicate, implicate.

Speaker 1 (45:43):
Phil Lyman in some type of cover up or whatever
this behind the scenes or whatever the case may be.
I'll just tell you this just just based on kind
of what I know, the limited information that I know,
not limited, I guess, But I don't see that happening.
I don't see that being a thing because if anything,
is kind of the reverse or opposite of this. I mean,
if you want to talk about, you know, corruption in Utah,

(46:06):
I don't think it's on behalf of Phil Lyman.

Speaker 2 (46:09):
I think it's on the other side.

Speaker 1 (46:11):
If you want to be honest, I mean, you know,
if you look at Spencer Cox for example, when you know,
at right after Charlie Kirk was assassinated and Spencer Cox
came on and he gave this like moving, motivational speech
that was like an almost presidential type address to some degree.

Speaker 2 (46:29):
It was like a motivational thing.

Speaker 1 (46:30):
It was like something he had really prepared for and
planned on and written down and got a team of
writers to make sure that it hit good and hard,
you know. And then but then also knowing about kind
of some of the politics behind the scenes leading up
to the governor election in Utah, very strange. I just
wanted to point that out because I don't know, it.

Speaker 4 (46:51):
Seemed a little bit crooked to me. I'm just going
to put it out there.

Speaker 1 (46:54):
Yeah, absolutely, So, you know, is Phil is Pteel somehow
involved in this is basically what candese Owen's to say
in here, whatever, let's continue listening.

Speaker 7 (47:04):
Completely wiped his Facebook page entirely, and regarding his Instagram
he's privatized it, but he privatized it and then removed
all of the photos of his investigation into who Charlie
Kirk's killer was. Now that's that does's make any sense
to me. I don't understand that. I can't make sense
of why you would just move to delete everything when

(47:27):
I've reached out to you, as opposed to speaking to
me about where you were, why you shop this video,
and maybe sending.

Speaker 10 (47:32):
Me that video in general. But again that is now
a dead end now.

Speaker 7 (47:36):
I asked Phil Lymon three times via text whether or
not he could help us more importantly identify the two
individuals that were in the photo with his nephew or cousin,
if you will, and he was kind of pretending to
be confused about what photo in particular I was referring to,
despite the fact that I sent it multiple times in

(47:57):
the text chain. And then finally he said he had
no idea who those two individuals were at all. I thought,
that's interesting, But this is luxedly your nephew, cousin. You
guys are all chilling on this block around the same
time he's with these two individuals.

Speaker 10 (48:12):
You've never heard of them, you've never seen them.

Speaker 7 (48:14):
Nothing, because I got to identify that guy.

Speaker 10 (48:17):
In the blue hat.

Speaker 7 (48:18):
Many of you figured out, by the way and wrote
to the tips box exactly what we were interested about
in that person with the blue hat.

Speaker 10 (48:26):
You noticed the same thing that we noticed.

Speaker 7 (48:27):
He kind of resembles, certainly more so than Tyler Robinson does.
The blurred image of the individual that was coming up
the stairs. I couldn't look away from that. I was
going through the photos and I was going, hmm, I
would just like to quickly identify that individual and check
him off and just know where he was, because yeah,

(48:48):
it looks to be about the same height.

Speaker 4 (48:50):
It's weird.

Speaker 10 (48:51):
Oddly.

Speaker 7 (48:52):
This is when I say oddly, I mean this has
never happened in the history of all of our investigations.
No one emailed us to say that they knew either
of those two individuals, neither the blonde that's with Shaner
or the person that is wearing.

Speaker 10 (49:07):
The blue hat that is with Shaner. I said, that's weird.

Speaker 7 (49:11):
Nobody in the whole wide Candice always universe of investigation.
It was making me believe maybe those two individuals are
like I don't know, from overseas, Like maybe they're not.

Speaker 10 (49:26):
Even American.

Speaker 7 (49:28):
And it turns out, yeah, we were able to identify
one of those individuals in the photo and he is Austrian,
so no wonder nobody recognized him.

Speaker 10 (49:37):
I mean, what Austrian? What's this Austrian guy doing? How
did we get here?

Speaker 7 (49:41):
Anyways, his name is Gurnau Omer and we were able
to find that his face matched with photos from a
blog post that was written in German that was basically
entitled Anniversary Hike ten years on Foot to the Sea.
The blog is about a group a thirty year old
who are recreating a hike that they took together when

(50:03):
they were twenty. Now I don't know even if I'm
saying his name right, Gurno Gernatt.

Speaker 10 (50:07):
I guess.

Speaker 7 (50:09):
It is a common name in Austria and there are
a few photos of him that were available.

Speaker 10 (50:17):
We were able to find his face also matched up
in a YouTube video.

Speaker 7 (50:21):
For a company called Bearing Point, where he is seen
with a group of people and is introduced as one
of their software development teams, a member of one of
their software development teams. So let's take a listen to
that clip from YouTube.

Speaker 9 (50:37):
This is the Bearing Point office in Gratz. This is
where Bearing Points key Technology competencies are concentrated. This is
one of our software development teams. Some people are managers
and some are not. It doesn't matter. It's all one team.

Speaker 7 (50:55):
Very recently, he moved to Utah. According to his LinkedIn
hope doesn't get White. I'd love to get in touch
with him. In May of twenty twenty four, he moved
to Utah to become a software engineer for JP Morgan
and Chase And I guess the story goes that he
became best friends with Shaner Broderick.

Speaker 10 (51:17):
I don't know.

Speaker 7 (51:19):
We'll find out what about the other guy, right, So,
yesterday we were kind of poking fun at the narrative
that Phil Lyman seemed to be trying to spend, suggesting
that quote unquote Gothic girls might have been suspicious, that
they maybe could have been responsible or aware at least
that the shooting was going to occur.

Speaker 10 (51:39):
That was a part of his story.

Speaker 7 (51:40):
So I was Gothic girls and they seem unphased in
all of the chaos, you know, And I thought that
was an interesting way to describe someone as Gothic. Gratefully,
Phil Lyman did send us footage of him after the
shots rang out and I am saying shots plural for
a reason because we will show you that video. But

(52:03):
first I want to recap what specifically Phil said publicly
about where he was when the shots rang out, because
I vaguely remembered him painting a picture that he was outside.
That certainly seems to be what he told both Alex
Jones and News Nation that he was outside when the
shot rang out. Let's take a listen to what he
said on Alex Jones just yesterday.

Speaker 11 (52:24):
Someone comes in and says, yeah, we've got video. He
came off the roof, he walked up, he came up
here to the parking lot, got in the car with
an individual, and they and they drove away. Well that's
not the story that came so that he escaped another round.

Speaker 4 (52:38):
And there are people who are coordinating this thing.

Speaker 11 (52:41):
I do not believe that that thirty six that they
showed recovered in the bushes was ever on the roof.
I think it was in the bushes to start with.
And now I'm not saying that Tyler Robinson wasn't on
the roof. I'm not saying he didn't pull a trigger.
I know I was in very very close proximity. So
another interesting thing. Like you say, I left the front
of the stage. I wanted to meet some of my

(53:02):
friends and bring him down front. So I was clear
at the east end and I heard this loud boom.
I heard this loud bang, and I turned around. I'm
looking like, what was that?

Speaker 2 (53:09):
What was that?

Speaker 11 (53:11):
And pretty soume, some people started, you know, running, Everyone
was trying to process, and I thought, this is a
gunshot and there's going to be more of them.

Speaker 2 (53:18):
I thought it could turn into a mass shooting. So
I go to the people closest to me.

Speaker 11 (53:23):
Everyone's ducking down behind the concrete retaining walls, and some
of them were still kind of oblivious. But there were
two people that were standing there, two girls, very goth,
very black, you know, And then I just walked. I
stepped up to the site of them and I said,
did that not happen right here?

Speaker 2 (53:39):
Did you hear that?

Speaker 1 (53:40):
Was that right here?

Speaker 2 (53:40):
And they said yeah, I was just right over there.

Speaker 11 (53:42):
So they're confirming, yeah, the shooter or wherever that sound
came from, is right here.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
The thing that didn't really dawn on me is that
they were not running, they were.

Speaker 11 (53:50):
Not fright, and in fact, as I stepped up, I
heard one of the girls, and they were talking to
each other and they're looking at these kids, looking at
the scene down below of all these people fleeing for
their lives, and she says, go f yourselves.

Speaker 2 (54:02):
And like I say, I was not processing. I was
trying to figure out what was going on. I thought
that this is a separate conversation.

Speaker 11 (54:08):
I don't know what it is. In hindsight, as I've
watched that over and over, it's like these people were
not afraid.

Speaker 7 (54:16):
Okay, And on News Nation, I want you to listen
carefully because he at first says that he was about
to walk into the building and the shot rang out,
but then he says he ran out of the building
after the shot rang out.

Speaker 10 (54:27):
So let's take a listen to that.

Speaker 2 (54:29):
I walked up top.

Speaker 11 (54:30):
I had to go meet some people, so I said,
So I was down there when we started. When we
started talking, I thought, I'm going to go up top
and meet some of the people. Started up clear up
on top, and I was just coming around the corner
walking into one of the buildings and I heard a
loud bang that I thought was right behind me, and
I turned around, looked at the girl that was there,
and she was kind of looking stunned, like what was that?
And I'm looking at her and then see a little
bit of commotion. I realized, right then it's a gunshot.

(54:52):
So so I ran out the people running in the building,
I ran out to see who it was. I'm thinking,
this is there's a lot of kids out here, and
then pretty you know, a few minutes later than the
police were running saying did anybody see? Did anybody see?
I think he was on the roof above me, I
really is the only thing I could figure because it's
like he has to it had to have been very

(55:16):
very close to where I'm standing, and in hindsight, I
think it was probably above me on the roof.

Speaker 7 (55:21):
Okay, So a couple of those statements are what I
would describe as little lies. Well, they're just not true
because of twelve twenty three, according to his metadata, because
he sent to me Bill Lyman was inside of the building,
and he must have then immediately according to our timeline
hit record, and he didn't run, He calmly walked out

(55:41):
of Sarrenson building.

Speaker 10 (55:43):
Help him, saying that right the Sarrenson building.

Speaker 7 (55:45):
And he wasn't the only one that was walking calmly
and I'm not, by the way, none of these people
are suspicious to me, walking calmly because they're inside the building,
not really sure what they heard, perhaps and they're all
kind of walking calmly out. And I'm going to show
you that footage and to be clear, or you're going
to see two girls that are simply wearing black. By
no stretch of an imagination would I part of these

(56:07):
girls as gothic. Actually think one of them is actually
a guy, but they're wearing black. That dark bakeup, there's
just black. And he asks them. What I can hear
audibly is he asked them what was that? So I
don't know how certain he was it could have been
a shooting, But I'm gonna let you watch it first
and then we're gonna try to clean up the audio. Now,

(56:27):
if you're listening to this on a podcast and you're
not be able to watch this, you might want to
turn this down.

Speaker 10 (56:32):
Because it is visual. Take a look. You can just
sort of see everyone up top.

Speaker 7 (56:49):
A couple of people were actually out there are ducking.
He was on the inside. I said, this was the
twelfteen and three, so he was inside, walked out and
then he's going to start a conversation with two people
that are.

Speaker 4 (57:00):
Just wearing black, and.

Speaker 7 (57:11):
And then you see he continues if he do, goes
on for like three minutes and just he just sort
of walks down and he engages in a conversation with
those two girls and they answer him, doesn't do There's
nothing here that seems to me to be controversial. When
he hears them say something about f you, it's before
he has a conversation with him.

Speaker 10 (57:27):
It does happen.

Speaker 7 (57:28):
Uh, take a listen. Trying to isolate this audio for
you guys. Those those are two girls talking about Actually
one's a guy.

Speaker 4 (57:51):
You see when I came here.

Speaker 7 (57:54):
Yeah, so he says, did you see where that came from?
It seems like a normal conversation, kind of weird for me.
And there's a reason why I'm saying that to hone
in on these two individuals and to say like gothic
and to pretend that they were doing something that looked abnormal,
given the fact that in the longer video everyone up

(58:14):
top is quite calm, because I don't think they're really
entirely sure what is happening, and some of them are
ducking because maybe they saw it because they were outside.
So I wanted to get to the bottom, as I
said earlier, of who that second person was in.

Speaker 10 (58:28):
The photo with his nephew, cousin, whatever you want to
call him.

Speaker 7 (58:32):
And we got just one hit and it was honestly,
it was from Belfast, North Ireland.

Speaker 12 (58:39):
No less.

Speaker 7 (58:39):
Somebody sent us an email and he said, look, I
conducted an interview, an internet wide search of the person's face,
and I only got one hit using technology, and the
hit was in Provo, Utah. And he wrote to me
that it was quite a coincidence because not only is
the person in Provo for this one hit for the space,

(58:59):
but also he's featured on a website pertaining to bees.
And he's like, didn't you just do a big saying
that you had this weird thing about bees and you
thought that, you know, there was something else going on,
And my goodness, you guys. I almost jumped when I
learned that that website he was referring to, Buzzard and Bees,
is a gothic underground in Provo. Okay, so this is

(59:22):
the website. It's a gothic underground of all things in Provo.
The website Buzzard and Bees, and speaking about a gothic
prom that is where that person's face comes up, except
he's wearing makeup to make them well look a little
more gothic. Take a look at this. I'm going to
show you the side by side of this individual, and
I am certain. I can't say one hundred percent okay,

(59:47):
because we need to find this person's name.

Speaker 10 (59:50):
But this is a match.

Speaker 7 (59:51):
Okay, the ears, the chin, just to everything about this
individual is a match. But he is as of yet identified.

Speaker 1 (01:00:00):
All Right, I gotta say something real quick, because I mean,
this is one of those things with canis Owan's that
you know, it is tough.

Speaker 2 (01:00:07):
It's tough because.

Speaker 1 (01:00:10):
You have candisons now trying to implicate someone else and
I'm you know, and she's trying to say, hey, you know,
the person in the pictures that we have seen, based
on surveillance footage, looks to be that maybe this person
is related to Phil Lymon, or Phil Lymon has a
connection to the actual person that is in the clips.

Speaker 2 (01:00:33):
And what I will say is, like.

Speaker 1 (01:00:36):
Known a little bit about Phil and his friends and
his group and the people that kind of around him.

Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
I just just just based on hearing this is it.
It sounds ridiculous to me.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
I understand that Kansas is trying to pull at all
these straws and figure out this and this and that.
Did Phil have a different account maybe based on info
Wars and then also news Nation about where he was
what he thought so on maybe, But also there's a
lot of people to have different accounts during you know,
remembering or trying.

Speaker 2 (01:01:08):
To recall what they were doing, where they were at
all that stuff. I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:01:11):
But also you got to think about where they were upstairs.
It's kind of an outside inside place. So if you
said I'm outside or you say I'm inside, it could
be both because it is kind of an inside outside.

Speaker 4 (01:01:23):
Area right there.

Speaker 2 (01:01:24):
Yeah, it's weird, but I mean, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:01:26):
I guess what she's doing, I'm sorry, Chad, is that
she's trying to implicate the guy in the blue cap
as being the.

Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
Shooter possibly or you know, yeah, the guy that's connected
with Phil, maybe a nephew, you know, because SHOs.

Speaker 3 (01:01:40):
And everything else, because you know, in other pictures. People
have looked at the pictures that the FBI sent out
against Tyler Robinson's pictures and they say, the jaw line
doesn't look the same, the ears don't look the same.

Speaker 4 (01:01:55):
That it's not the same guy.

Speaker 1 (01:01:56):
Yeah, And the thing for me is like Phil being
someone that is willing to go out there on podcast
Info Wars, our podcast everybody and talk about whatever it
is that you want to talk about it all in
all cases, including by the way that he sent Candae Owens,
you know, his metadata showing where he was when he

(01:02:17):
was there, Like, why would he do that if.

Speaker 2 (01:02:18):
He felt like he was implicating or implicated in this?

Speaker 1 (01:02:22):
And this is where when people go down these rabbit
holes and start trying to investigate and then implicating other
people on certain things, you got to be very careful
that you do.

Speaker 2 (01:02:32):
And as I said, I.

Speaker 1 (01:02:34):
Mean, if you guys go back to our episode with
Phil Lyman, if you just go to Spotify, you go
to our Investigator Earth Conspiracy podcast and at the top
you'll see a search bar. Just type in Phil P
H I, L, Lineman, L Y M A N and
you type them in. We were talking about, you know,
the corruption in Utah, how elections could be stolen, how

(01:02:54):
people are corrupt, especially his race, and what they did
and how they did it, you know, And so so
are you telling me that like someone that that basically
got screwed over from being governor in Utah, is somehow
implicating in or implicated in this?

Speaker 5 (01:03:11):
Now?

Speaker 2 (01:03:11):
Is Phil pro Israel? Yes?

Speaker 6 (01:03:13):
He is?

Speaker 2 (01:03:13):
Uh And I don't have to say that.

Speaker 1 (01:03:15):
He's pro Israel because whatever you can look up statements
that he's had about you know, he is you know,
pro the response of Israel in Gaza, so on and
so forth. But does that make him, you know, implicated,
especially if you are Candie Owans and you think that
somehow Israel has something to do with this assassination.

Speaker 2 (01:03:34):
No, it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (01:03:35):
And you know, I what I will say is we're
going to try to get Phil on the show to
respond to this. I would love for Phil to come
on the podcast to respond to Candis Owans. And even
if we have to play this exact segment back to
him and get him to react and respond, we will
do that because you know, you guys will be able
to hear it for yourself, and you guys will be

(01:03:55):
able to listen to what Candas is saying as we
can then maybe explain now it Phil wants to go
on Candace before he does us, or if he doesn't
even want to talk about this, right, you also have
to understand the other concept is, you know, if someone
as big as Candace Owens is starting to call out
and implicate your nephew or somewhat looking like the shooter
and all this, like, yeah, you're gonna do what you

(01:04:18):
can do, but at some point you also got to
be very careful because there are a lot of crazies
out there, and you know, how much do you respond,
how much do you get involved with the conspiracy theories
or the people that are calling out all these things?
I don't know, and that's that's a question we'll have
to ask Phil. But I just wanted to stop in

(01:04:39):
the middle of this because she's going to get into
deeper stuff right now.

Speaker 2 (01:04:42):
This is about Phil crazy.

Speaker 1 (01:04:45):
That I did not realize and connect who she was
even talking about when I saw Lyman on the thing,
and then is Phil Lyman?

Speaker 2 (01:04:52):
Either way, Let's listen.

Speaker 7 (01:04:53):
To a little more of what she has to say
as a unidentified pardon as a Gothic person and he
is all so as of yet unidentified as the close
friend of shaneer Broderick who cannot be found anywhere else
or people are not familiar with this person, so I'm
thinking maybe he also came from overseas, now quickly regarding

(01:05:15):
our question pertaining to Mike Mitchell, right, I was saying
that it was pretty odd and obvious that they were
trying to protect this detective Mike Mitchell. We also learned
that he's a boy Scout leader in the LDS church.
But usually if you have a long tenure as a
police officer, you're just featured in a lot of articles.

(01:05:37):
And then we received some leads that I think have
helped to clarify exactly what sort of a detective he
was and maybe why he was not featured in a
lot of articles because he was, as it appears to
be an undercover detective. By all accounts, he was an
online detective. Apparently, if this is the correct Mike Mitchell,

(01:06:00):
and given the timeline of when he becomes undercopt detective,
I have a strong hunch that it is the right
individual because he says, you know, he was on the
force for twenty five years.

Speaker 10 (01:06:10):
This individual began his career in nineteen ninety nine.

Speaker 7 (01:06:13):
His job, Detective Mike Mitchell, was to create messages online
to entrap pedophiles, Okay, by pretending that he was under age.
You guys know you've heard about these sorts of stings.
You pretend that you're underage as an officer and see
people that try to hook up with you, and then
you make an arrest. And so we can take a
look at this article from November of nineteen ninety nine.

(01:06:36):
It says police surf internet to snag pedophiles, and it
tells us Mike Mitchell sits at a desk, tapping on
a computer keyboard and becomes a boy.

Speaker 10 (01:06:46):
He's chatting with someone.

Speaker 7 (01:06:47):
Now his words are full of typos and misspellings and
childlike phrases. Mike Mitchell is not a boy. He is
a police detective hunting for a pedophile. But the hunted
doesn't know that it's Mitchell. A detective with the Salt
Lake County Sheriff's Office has been investigating child sex crimes
on the internet for about a year.

Speaker 10 (01:07:05):
I don't think people realize how big it is.

Speaker 7 (01:07:07):
He tells them, Okay, so that's interesting to me. Okay,
And we can't then go, okay, let's make a jump here.
Just because he's creating messages online, first and foremost doesn't
necessarily mean that he's the person that authored the fake
bed messages. And I'm implying that, but I do actually
thought it was quite interesting because when we covered George Zin,
who was the decoy boy that day, who then we

(01:07:29):
find out is into pedophilia right, and he gets arrested
because he has children being sexual abuse on his phone.

Speaker 10 (01:07:40):
Absolutely despicable person.

Speaker 7 (01:07:42):
It really made us wonder again I said this on
a previous episode, whether or not he had been blackmailed
in some capacity to play the decoy boy and to
give the shooter time to get away. I just find
that to be interesting. A lot of stuff happening right now, guys,
and we are definitively getting closer to what took place

(01:08:03):
on that day, and we have a lot of leads
that are coming in, and I want to say that
I want to refocus your attention and now open this
up international league. Is I have a hunch on who
that goth kid is. Okay, somebody attended this goth prom
in Provo, Utah. Somebody oversees perhaps recognizes that person, Like

(01:08:25):
I said I would, I would venture a guest that
he is not from Utah because I've never seen no
hits come in somebody saying I went to high school
with him, and yeah, that's what I want you to
focus your attention on tips at cannie owns dot com. Again,
remind you, guys, please do not send us because we're
such a small team, Please do not send us TikTok
videos and saying you should watch this or you know,

(01:08:46):
look at this theory. Reserve that to simply tagging our
accounts when you are on those specific apps, and we
will pick up from there, all right, And.

Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
I want to say something else too.

Speaker 1 (01:08:57):
It's like, you know, look, we're going to do our
best to bring Phil on the show to respond to this.
I'm already literally texting just to see if we can
get him on to respond to Canvas. And the strange
thing about this is, like I understand like the George
Zen thing, right, George Zen was the guy that was yelling,
you know, kill me, kill me, all this stuff during

(01:09:20):
the time that Charlie Kirk was shot.

Speaker 2 (01:09:22):
So was he someone that was a distractor?

Speaker 1 (01:09:25):
Was he someone that was taking the attention off of
the actual shooter to be able to flee long enough
for everyone was looking at this guy, George Zen.

Speaker 2 (01:09:34):
There was the first images and videos we saw coming
out during that time. George Zen, this is the shooter,
this is the guy.

Speaker 1 (01:09:41):
There was also someone else that was doing some weird
stuff as well that law enforcement drew their attention to.
But you know, that is a good theory because George
Zen did at one point in time, he did have
a connection with nine to eleven. Even nine eleven he
was in various videos. You know, is this guy some
type of paid asset? Is he a paid actor or

(01:10:05):
whatever the case is.

Speaker 3 (01:10:06):
As I was researching George when he first came out
as the first person arrested, and even when the cops
were saying, hey, listen, we don't even know if he's
the guy because everybody's cussing him out and he wouldn't walk,
they're dragging him down the street. But come to find out,
he's been to a lot of political events where he's
been arrested before for the same kind of actions that
he did at Charlie Kirk's event.

Speaker 2 (01:10:27):
Yeah, yeah, it's not surprising.

Speaker 1 (01:10:28):
I mean, you know, when you talk about these political
or I guess you can say provocateurs or distractionary assets,
which is what intelligence agencies use, is what CIA uses,
what MASAD uses as what six. You know, if they
have things going on, if they have an operation going on,
they're going to have various assets on the ground. And

(01:10:52):
you know, going back to Jason Hanson again on our
podcast two or three episodes ago talking about useful idiots,
what is useful? Well, probably George Zin. He was a
little crazy. But how many times can we use this guy?

Speaker 10 (01:11:05):
Right?

Speaker 1 (01:11:05):
How many times can we get in the show up
at these events for our benefit. I'm not saying ci
did this. I'm not saying Sad did it. I'm just
saying that I don't think George Zen creating this distraction
during the time that Charlie Kirk was assassinated is a coincidence.

Speaker 2 (01:11:21):
It's just not.

Speaker 1 (01:11:22):
That is not a coincidence in my opinion. And then
you also had someone else which no one really is
talking about, that other person that was also causing a distraction.

Speaker 2 (01:11:30):
At this time.

Speaker 1 (01:11:31):
I don't know why, but they're not so anyways, let's
get into some more of what Kandice is saying.

Speaker 10 (01:11:37):
You got it so well, let's get into this. I mean,
the attacks have not stopped.

Speaker 7 (01:11:42):
The attacks that are coming at me are good though,
because I am just feeling more and more energized by them.
I understand exactly what is going on. The people fighting
for Charlie Kirk's legacy. I gotta say this, you know
what I am starting to think, And let me know
if you think this is crazy. But I'm starting to
think that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was something akin

(01:12:05):
to a regicide, right, the assassination of a king to
install a new ruler who the king would have never
approved of. Right, maybe people around him counseling the king,
people who perhaps portrayed him.

Speaker 10 (01:12:19):
Because there are just too many things that I am
finding out that are not adding up to me.

Speaker 7 (01:12:25):
Okay, there are also, I do want to say this
too many first times leading up to this event.

Speaker 10 (01:12:31):
Okay.

Speaker 7 (01:12:33):
One person who emailed me said, Hey, I've been supplying
bulletproof vests to Charity for all of these campus tours,
and suddenly last semester, the last spring, the last campus tour,
they canceled. They canceled my contract with them. They did
not want to renew. When I asked them why, they
told me that Charlie wanted to go a different direction

(01:12:54):
by getting an army vest instead, like a metal armyvess.
I believe is what he says. And he said this
made no sense, he made it understand it. Okay, So
Charlie decided that they decided to use a new company,
even though I don't think he was actually wearing a
bullet best on that day.

Speaker 10 (01:13:11):
So what happened there, I'm not sure.

Speaker 7 (01:13:14):
Something else that is really bothering me just because I
have done these campus tours is the question of why
Charlie was set to do two events in Utah a mere.

Speaker 10 (01:13:27):
Twenty days apart.

Speaker 7 (01:13:28):
Okay, he's supposed to do UVU and then today was
scheduled to do just twenty days later USU. Now those
two campuses are just under two hours apart if you're driving,
Why on earth would he schedule these events apart. It's
not how Turning Point USA normally decides on their events.
If you're going to do two stops in one state,

(01:13:51):
they make it happen back to back because it doesn't
make sense from a fuel perspective, from a traveling perspective
for you to go in and out of one state. Plus,
they only have a limited number of events, right, so
they want to make sure they can go all over
the United States and see as many students as possible
during every tour.

Speaker 4 (01:14:08):
This is how it works.

Speaker 7 (01:14:09):
I know how it works because I came from turning
point Usaka. I have toured with them every year with
the exception of this year since I started working for Charlie,
So that just struck me as very odd. Okay, we've
also received or maybe I should say maybe not odd,
just something new. Maybe we've also received a lot of

(01:14:30):
tips that the hospital that Charlie was taken to is
not the closest hospital and it also would not have
been the number one choice hospital for someone that was
suffering from that sort of a wound, like it was
a Trauma three center. He was taken to a smaller
regional hospital that was a little farther away and was

(01:14:51):
further away and was also less equipped for the trauma
that he suffered that he was taken to Timpanogo's regional hospital.
And also something new is that that hospital had just
announced that they had a brand new CEO and head
surgeon named Andrew Zenger.

Speaker 10 (01:15:08):
A lot of new stuff happening.

Speaker 7 (01:15:10):
And to be clear, typically the states dictate the protocol
and you're required to after you have a certain number
of attendees at an event, you are required to have
an ambulance on standby. And I don't know Utah state law,
but I also found that that weird that there wouldn't
have been an ambulance on standby. Again, correct me if
I'm wrong, but seemed a.

Speaker 10 (01:15:32):
Typical to me.

Speaker 5 (01:15:33):
Now.

Speaker 7 (01:15:33):
In terms of other things that were new, they announced
on that same day that Andrew Zenger was announced as
a new CEO. That was also the day that they
announced Charlie's tour. They announced five dates and two of
them were in Utah, dispersed throughout the month, and it
is also interesting to know that the Utah FBI also

(01:15:56):
got a brand a new set of employees the state
FBI departments. Cash Battel went ahead and fired not only
the chief of the Utah Borough but also some other people.
You can see it's in the Daily Mail article they
recount this. After Charlie's death, cash Betel questions grow as
it's revealed he gutted the Utah FBI leadership before Charlie
Crouch's assassination. That is true, he fired the chief among

(01:16:20):
other people, and replaced her with Robert Bowles in August.
I think Robert Bowles actually it was his first week
when Charlie got shot. And he's somebody who has been
in DC for decades, so it seems to me to
be an unusual placement to them, want to re up
your entire life, assuming you have wife and kids and
move to Utah.

Speaker 10 (01:16:39):
But whatever, Again, everything just feels a little too.

Speaker 1 (01:16:43):
Brand, all right, So Candace to answer her question, what
does Utah say about regulation and guidance on EMS that
should be on standby for big events and Utah.

Speaker 2 (01:16:54):
Special Event Medical Guidelines.

Speaker 1 (01:16:55):
The Utah State EMS Office publishes Special Event Medical Guidelines
that require event organizers to prepare a medical plan. That
plan should include things like names and contacts for medical
services vendors, names and certifications of medical providers, locations of
first aid stations, communication plans. If advanced life support staffing
is required, the provider must be a licensed provider under

(01:17:16):
Utah's EMS code. It's more of a guideline standard rather
than a statute that automatically kicks in at a certain
crowd size. So they do not have a law that
says if you have a certain crowd size that you
must have an EMS on standby.

Speaker 2 (01:17:30):
That's just not the way it is.

Speaker 1 (01:17:31):
Utah's Administrative Rule are four two six says that this
rule governs ambulance provider licensing and mutual aid obligations when
service areas overlap, but it is not imposed a requirement
on event sponsors to include an ambulance at certain attendance thresholds.
So local county regulations on mass gatherings, extraordinary gatherings, blah
blah blah have rules addressed in extraordinary gatherings events. For example,

(01:17:54):
Salt Lake City has a temporary mass gathering regulation that
addresses risk and mitigation, though it doesn't appear in the
document to set a fixed a tennis number which ambulance
coverage is mandatory. So just to provide I guess some insight,
Utah does not have that law. Does not mean that
if you're Charlie Kirker whoever it is, that you have
to have an ambulance on a standby.

Speaker 4 (01:18:15):
But would you want one on standby if you're somebody
like Charlie kirk Well, you would.

Speaker 2 (01:18:20):
I mean, obviously you do.

Speaker 1 (01:18:22):
But you know, in hindsight, Charlie, I don't think ever
really truly felt like when he walked on college campuses
that he was going to be assassinated.

Speaker 2 (01:18:30):
You know, I think that's the difference.

Speaker 1 (01:18:32):
So, but just to clarify Cannas's point, No, you do
not have by law Utah state law that an ambulance
is required on a campus or anywhere for a gathering
over a certain amount of people.

Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
That's just not a thing. The other thing is what
she's talking about about the hospital.

Speaker 1 (01:18:51):
If that's true, and they took him to a different hospital,
they took him instead of level one, level three trauma center,
whatever it is, they weren't equipped to handle the injury
that they needed to handle. You know, Yes, that is weird, right,
I mean, you should obviously take him, especially if there
is a hospital that is, you know, a level one

(01:19:11):
trauma center and is obviously closer than somewhere else, you
would take him there, right, But also at the same time,
you have this guy that just got shot in the neck,
who's bringing up the directions, who's telling who to go where?

Speaker 2 (01:19:24):
Why? You know, why did they go to this hospital
rather than the other. We don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:19:29):
But what Candas is trying to get here or I
guess get to here is the conspiracy side. You know,
do you take him to another hospital because maybe you
have people in that hospital that are going to do
the things that you need them to do or not
do based on medical examination. Where the bullet is the
wound the report writing so on and so forth right,

(01:19:50):
and she's saying that, hey, they got a new CEO here.

Speaker 2 (01:19:52):
Who's the CEO tied to? Is there anyone that's tied
to this?

Speaker 1 (01:19:56):
And you know when people hear stuff like this, when
Candace Owns is saying stuff like that, they're saying, oh
my god, she's bashit crazy because like, why would anyone
go to that far length sort extent of trying to
cover up a assassination or whatever. I don't know, it
doesn't sound believable to me, likely as and overlap, but
you know who knows, right, You just never know.

Speaker 4 (01:20:18):
Well, I just want to mention too.

Speaker 3 (01:20:20):
When this happened, the fastest way to get him to
the hospital was to put him in the suv that
was right behind him. It was his security and his
best friend. They shove him into the car. They can't
even shut the door because his legs are hanging out
of the car on the way to the hospital, and

(01:20:40):
they went to the closest hospital possible, saying that was
what the interview stated, that's what his best friend said.
And like I said, it was his security and one
of his best friends. And he came out and he
recounted what happened. He said, they were doing CPR in
the car, they were doing everything possible, but he was
so long and so lengthy that they couldn't even shut

(01:21:01):
the door.

Speaker 1 (01:21:02):
Yeah, and look, I mean, if anybody saw the video
of Charlie Kirk, I mean, I don't think it doesn't
matter if you're doing CBR or if you go to
a far hospital or a close hospital.

Speaker 2 (01:21:10):
I don't think well.

Speaker 3 (01:21:11):
And he also mentioned that he said that they already
felt like he was dead on arrival, but they were
going to do anything they could to try to keep
him alive until he got to the hospital. And as
a matter of fact, if you know, they're not lying
at the hospital, they did get a heartbeat from yeah,
which is crazy. When he was at the hospital.

Speaker 2 (01:21:29):
That doesn't even make sense to me.

Speaker 1 (01:21:30):
Right, they bring him in that one of the doctors,
I don't know if it's the same doctor, by the way,
that says that Charlie must have bones of steel because
it stopped this bullet and it did all this crazy stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:21:41):
Yeah, the magic well no, it's not even a magic bull.

Speaker 1 (01:21:43):
That's just the bones of steel, right, And so you
know they're trying to say that well, Charlie Kirk was
just his bones were so strong. And then you know,
also to that same sentiment, the same statement, they also
said that Charlie Kirk was so healthy, must have been
the only reason that we got a pulse back when
he got to the hospital for a short time. But

(01:22:05):
it just that doesn't make a lot of sense. Obviously
if you saw the amount of blood that was coming out,
you know, which is very graphic and it's a it's
a video I don't ever want to see again.

Speaker 2 (01:22:15):
I remember seeing it when it happened. I was just
I was distraught by that.

Speaker 5 (01:22:19):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:22:19):
We did a podcast immediately after that. I was very
distraught on that. I think it affected a lot of people.
But I don't I don't even understand. Number one, the
theory of like he has bones of stell and it's
going to stop a thirty all six bullet. That's that's
just complete BS in my opinion. We went over it
with what AI said about that on a previous podcast,
you guys want to go back and listen. But then

(01:22:39):
also the doctor's saying he must have been just so
healthy that somehow, even though likely that all the blood
was drained from his body we got a pulse.

Speaker 2 (01:22:48):
But yeah, so I the theories just don't add up,
I guess.

Speaker 1 (01:22:51):
And so you know, with the bones of steel, the
fact that they got a heart beat back although a
lot of his blood was gone, you know, and I'm
not saying all of his blood was gone, because you know,
once his heart quits pomping, that's when mostly the blood
is going to stop.

Speaker 2 (01:23:07):
You know, you're not going to lose as much blood.
Then when your heart's pumping, that's when you're losing most.

Speaker 1 (01:23:11):
Of your blood, especially if your carotid artery is pumping
all that blood directly from the heart up into the brain.
Now that's why you saw that that very graphic image
that we saw. But anyways, here's some more of Candace.

Speaker 5 (01:23:23):
New to me.

Speaker 7 (01:23:25):
Then I speak to the individual I told you guys
that I recognized, and I've taken down the cameras minute
what was it, minute four after Charlie was shot the
back camera of all the ones when you take the
front camera.

Speaker 10 (01:23:35):
I don't know.

Speaker 7 (01:23:36):
Again, I'm not here to read into how people might
act in an emergency event, but I thought it was
weird that he was there in general, actually, that he
was behind Charlie the entire time. I've never seen that.
He's never been behind me at an event. He's never
been lingering around me at an event.

Speaker 10 (01:23:52):
And I asked about that.

Speaker 7 (01:23:53):
I asked about just his presence behind Charlie and plus
the mysterious phone call that he was seeing me in
like minute three after Charlie was assassinated, and he he
told me explicitly that they were trying something new that day,
like it was something new. Charlie is super ambitious and
on the av thing. They were trying something new and

(01:24:15):
they wanted to be able to feed it back instantly
to Arizona. None of it makes sense to me because
these events are typically live streamed. But again, something new, Okay,
so let's stick with that theme. Do you want to
know something else that was brand new leading up to
this event? Charlie's perspective on Israel. Okay, So let me

(01:24:36):
say this so you can hear it. Charlie Kirk's perspective
on Israel was not starting to shift.

Speaker 10 (01:24:43):
It had shifted entirely. Okay.

Speaker 7 (01:24:46):
There are no ifs and there are no ads, and
there are no butts about it. Israel knew that turning point.
USA knew. That's because Charlie was explicit. So my question
is why isn't turning point USA making any statements and
shutting down this repeat attempt by Israel to lie and
to pretend that towards the end, Charlie was just authoring

(01:25:08):
love letters to Israel, giving.

Speaker 10 (01:25:10):
Them a perspective of here's how we can win the property.
Here's what you guys need to do. You need to
work with this hellal whatever it is.

Speaker 7 (01:25:18):
Yet the same people that are calling me in to
Semitic you need to work with those people harder.

Speaker 10 (01:25:21):
And he was just putting it on paper. Was it
an email?

Speaker 7 (01:25:25):
What was that that they were sharing? The New York Post,
the Israeli Post right? What were they sharing there?

Speaker 10 (01:25:29):
He wrote of his deep love for Israel, nothing else
to do? In May?

Speaker 7 (01:25:32):
Were if his deep love for Israel? To a letter
to Netanyahoo and Yaho said they were close. But in
the letter Charlie puts his number, apparently ya who didn't
have his number, And we're supposed to believe decent that
as an email. By the way, somebody clarify it was
an email they were sharing or did he send it in.

Speaker 10 (01:25:51):
The mail to him? Could somebody share that please? I'm
assuming it was an email, Can.

Speaker 7 (01:25:58):
Someone share in the timestamp on that just kind of
like authenticate that email, because I'm very aware of what's
going on, Okay, And I don't know how the executives
over at Turning Point USA sleep at night.

Speaker 10 (01:26:13):
Okay.

Speaker 7 (01:26:13):
I don't know how you can present yourselves as a
Christian organization and not be dedicating yourself to the truth,
no matter what the cost is.

Speaker 10 (01:26:21):
You tell the truth. That's it, Okay. You don't hie
hide it, you don't try to obsicate it, you don't.

Speaker 7 (01:26:26):
Try to say, well wait until, wait until the memorial events,
before we start looking into who murdered him. You tell
the truth, and you tell it immediately. And I don't
think they're capable of doing that. And I have an
idea as to why that is. I think the same
people that were pressuring Charlie are pressuring them. In fact,
I know that for a fact, so they might need
my help. Okay, I'm going to state this, and I'm

(01:26:47):
going to challenge Turning Point USA executives to issue a
very clean statement saying that I am lying if.

Speaker 10 (01:26:53):
This is not true.

Speaker 7 (01:26:55):
About forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informs
people at Turning Points as well Jewish donors and a
rabbi that he had no choice but to abandon the
pro Israel cause out right. Okay, Charlie was done. He
said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore
by the Jewish donors. Can you guys answer, did he

(01:27:16):
express that? Did he also express that he wanted to
bring me Candace Owens back because he was standing.

Speaker 10 (01:27:23):
Up for himself?

Speaker 7 (01:27:23):
And then did he just forty eight hours later conveniently
catch a bullet to the throat before our on stage
reunion could happen.

Speaker 10 (01:27:33):
It's a yes or rena. Okay, Let's stop this ditching.
Let's stop the dodging.

Speaker 7 (01:27:37):
Let's like explicitly, I want to hear from Turning Point
USA that I'm lying about that.

Speaker 1 (01:27:41):
Huge revelations here in huge accusations one and listen, you
have to regardless of everybody attacking Candae Owens, if what
she is saying turns out to be true, that Charlie
Kirk forty eight hours before his assassination, that he abandoned
all support for Israel because of the pressure, because of

(01:28:03):
the backlash, because of the demorlation of his character, and
so you might say, well, well, where's the proof of that,
Where's the proof that Charlie felt demoralized, Where's the proof
that Israel ever attacked him. Charlie said it himself. He
said it himself on multiple podcasts. He said it himself
in the months leading up to the assassination. Now, I'm

(01:28:25):
not saying here that Israel did this. I'm just playing
the devil's advocate for was it conspirators?

Speaker 2 (01:28:32):
Is what were called?

Speaker 1 (01:28:32):
Or not or the other I don't know. I'm playing
devil's advocate for Ashton. Let me put it that way.
And so you have this, you have Charlie Kirk going
on Megan Kelly. You have Charlie Kirk talking specifically about
you know, look, you know it's one thing with my
support for Israel and how much I have done for
Israel to where you pressure me and you do this

(01:28:54):
stuff and you try to attack my character and the
thing that I am most foundational on, like this is
a problem and I do not like this. And he
was very clear about this. He went on Meghan Kelly.
Meghan Kelly's not some little podcast or a little thing.
I mean that video got tons of use. Actually that
video was taken down on some social media platforms, and
the only time we really started to see that video

(01:29:16):
was after Charlie Kirk was assassinated. And so is all
of what Candice Owens is saying complete bullshit. Like if
it comes out that it is true that forty eight
hours before he was assassinated that he pulled all support
for Israel, then maybe it's just a coincidence, right, Maybe
this is just some big coincidence that you know, you know,

(01:29:41):
the whole Israel thing was happening, and then you know,
going back to the first part of our episode where
we talked about, you know, someone I believe it was
someone that President Trump fired from his team.

Speaker 4 (01:29:54):
A pr pr whoever.

Speaker 2 (01:29:57):
Trump fired this person?

Speaker 1 (01:29:59):
And when he this person, from what we're hearing is
that Israel hired him to go out and find pro
or not even pro, but just people that are not
necessarily they got big followers, their influencers, but they want
to push the pro Zionism, the pro Israel stance. Now,
for those that are listening and for those that think
that we're just trying to get on board with the

(01:30:20):
Israel thing, and especially new listeners, if you've never listened
to our podcast. Then we are literally the opposite of
just going on jumping on board with a with a
anti Israel thing. I have been obviously more so than Sherry.
Sherry comes from a Jewish household. We've talked about this before,
her dad or brother. She's defended Israel many times. You know,

(01:30:44):
it's it's we're not We're not We're not that, We're
not that thing. We're not that influencer that gets our
audience based on anti Israel propaganda or anti Israel rhetoric.

Speaker 2 (01:30:57):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:30:58):
We talk about everything, and it has been a very
very hard topic for Sharon and I because of just
the background, our history, are bringing up our upbringing. I
guess you can say so. It's been very hard for us.
It's been very hard on our marriage. It's been very
hard to discuss the Israel Gaza situation. It's been very
hard for all of that. But and then and then

(01:31:21):
we'll hear, you know, even after this, I'm sure we'll
get people that comment or email us or whatever that says,
oh you're anti Israel, Oh you are anti Israel. I
cannot believe you're anti Israel. And a lot of these people,
by the way, that are going to email us are Christians.
There are people that are, you know, among the Christian faith,
and they're going to say you are anti Semitic or
that you are anti jew. But what we have to understand,

(01:31:43):
we have to define this very clearly. This is not
an anti jew talking point. We're not saying that Jewish
people kill Charlie Kirk. Okay, we're not even speculating that
Jewish people will kill Charlie Kirk because, in my opinion,
like if Israel, the nation, the country did have anything
to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination, which we don't know, right,

(01:32:07):
we're literally speculating, but we have no idea. But if
they did, does that mean that if the United States
went out and assass or you know, killed innocent people,
which by the way, we've done many times in Afghanistan, Iraq,
you name it. I mean, just name the country, we've
probably done it. But does that mean that the Christians
in America killed those people?

Speaker 2 (01:32:27):
No, it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (01:32:29):
But you know, and that's why Tucker Carlson, for example,
which he's been under attack, he's kind of backed off
a little bit. He's not as hardcore as Canace Sowans
is right now, with the Israel narrative on Charlie kirk'ssassination.

Speaker 2 (01:32:39):
But you know, what Tucker says is like, we need
regime change in Israel.

Speaker 1 (01:32:45):
We need be being at Yahoo to get the hell
out of there because he's not leading the people in
the correct way. A lot of people believe that he
is prolonging the war in Gaza to stay in power.
He's literally been in office for what twelve or fourteen
years or something, maybe longer I think has been longer.
He's been involved in Israel for a very long time.
And and as Candace also makes a good point here,

(01:33:08):
you know, did did Bibe have Charlie Kirk's number or not?

Speaker 12 (01:33:12):
Right?

Speaker 1 (01:33:12):
Because that's that's different. Is this email an actual email
or not? Is there's no timestamps on, It's not like
a screenshot of an email. It's just literally a statement
that is that is text that has Charlie Kirk's you know, kind.

Speaker 2 (01:33:26):
Of letterhead or whatever name above it. Do we know
that that's real? We don't know. But there's a lot
of things that's just not adden up.

Speaker 1 (01:33:33):
And if what Candace is saying right now is true,
If what Candas is saying right now is true, that
he literally abandoned all support for Israel forty eight hours
prior to assassination. And we find out that to be
one hundred percent fact, then we got a lot more
talking to do. We have a lot more figuring out
to do.

Speaker 3 (01:33:52):
Can I ask you a quick question that I think
would clear all of this up, would be Candace is
asking people to come up with evidence to prove her wrong.

Speaker 4 (01:34:03):
Why doesn't she come out with evidence that she has
to prove them wrong.

Speaker 3 (01:34:08):
If she has all this evidence in her pocket, in
her back pocket, then give us the evidence, show us
where you think it's Israel? And why what evidence do
you have to prove instead of doing the opposite and saying, listen.

Speaker 4 (01:34:21):
You have to prove this to me.

Speaker 3 (01:34:23):
No, why don't you come up with your proof and
show us what your proof is. And another thing that
I have been thinking about. If Israel, let's just say
Israel did do this and they assassinated Charlie Kirk and
they are the best intelligency agency in the.

Speaker 4 (01:34:38):
World, masad is do you not think they would have
done a better job than this?

Speaker 1 (01:34:43):
No? Not necessarily, because if Tyler Robinson is not the guy,
or if he's a Patsy or whatever, or they got
the useful idiot.

Speaker 4 (01:34:50):
They may have done the perfect Okay, but go back
to my other point.

Speaker 3 (01:34:53):
If Kandace has evidence, why is she sitting on the evidence.
Why doesn't she show the world? Listen, She's saying, I
have all this evidence, I have proof, I have people
that I'm talking to, I have really legitimate people that
I know, and they are credible.

Speaker 4 (01:35:11):
Then come out with the evidence.

Speaker 2 (01:35:13):
Well, I think I think it's coming Sherry, to be honest.

Speaker 4 (01:35:16):
I think that's just what I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (01:35:17):
I feel like she is trying to make them come
off with evidence and if and to prove her point.
But if you want to prove your own point, then
come up with your own evidence.

Speaker 2 (01:35:30):
Okay. Well here here's the thing.

Speaker 1 (01:35:32):
So what your question is right now, we're going to
get to as soon as canis is done because I
think there is potentially some evidence that shows maybe this
is true.

Speaker 4 (01:35:40):
I could and like I said, I will apologize to
you or anybody else.

Speaker 2 (01:35:45):
It's not me.

Speaker 4 (01:35:46):
I say that.

Speaker 3 (01:35:47):
I don't think Israel's behind it. I still don't with
all of this that she's coming out with. I just
I don't think it's credible. I just don't get it,
and maybe I do. I am, I am lawyer, I
am loyal to I'm not getting paid. I wish I
was getting paid seven thousand dollars an episode. That would
be really nice to put in my pocket. But you know,

(01:36:07):
I do have loyalty to Israel. And you know, it's
like it's almost like somebody's accusing my little brother of
something they didn't do, or you know, I just want
the evidence.

Speaker 2 (01:36:19):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:36:19):
Well, okay, but listen, regardless, I mean, the loyalty to
Israel and all that stuff. Just to me, I'm not
even going to go in that. It just makes no
sense to me. I mean, I literally live in America,
and I'm not loyal to America.

Speaker 4 (01:36:32):
To America too, but I'm going to put in America first.

Speaker 3 (01:36:34):
But I am still also loyal to Israel and I
will be until I am proven otherwise.

Speaker 4 (01:36:40):
Okay, so far, there is no no decisive proof. I think.
I think there's all these little rabbit holes everybody's going through.

Speaker 3 (01:36:49):
Yes, I don't think Tyler Robinson was the only gunman.
I think there was other agencies.

Speaker 2 (01:36:56):
That were people involved or whatever else, and it.

Speaker 4 (01:36:57):
Could be Israel. And like I said if it was Israel,
I'll be the first to apologize.

Speaker 1 (01:37:02):
Well, that's what I'm saying though, is like, you know
we I'm an American, so are you, by the way,
and so would.

Speaker 4 (01:37:08):
That man say that?

Speaker 2 (01:37:11):
No, but we're both Americans, yes, and so America. So
for eight years we've we've.

Speaker 1 (01:37:16):
Talked on this podcast about you know, we got to
hold our government accountable. We have to because they're corrupt,
and there are many governments corrupt. That doesn't mean because
your brother and dad were Jewish that Israel, cam right,
But I.

Speaker 3 (01:37:28):
Still want evidence from action in America. I'm not just
going to accuse America of doing something unless I don't
want evidence.

Speaker 4 (01:37:36):
Yeah, well, you know I need the facts to back
it up.

Speaker 2 (01:37:38):
Okay, Well let's listen to the facts.

Speaker 4 (01:37:40):
Then back the facts up.

Speaker 2 (01:37:42):
Okay, let's listen to some more of what candis is.

Speaker 10 (01:37:44):
I want you to say, no, No, it was just.

Speaker 7 (01:37:49):
You know, he was feeling a little bit of pressure. No,
I want you to literally answer what I have just said.
It either happened or it didn't. I'm either making it
all up or it happened exactly as I'm saying. And
while we're at it, may I ask what is the
name of the Jewish donor who sponsored the Hampton's weekend? Okay,
And to Pastor Rob McCoy, were there any LLCs that

(01:38:14):
you or your son were being paid through that sat
outside of Turning Point. I'm asking that question genuinely.

Speaker 10 (01:38:24):
Yeah. I'm putting the fire here right at the feet
of Churning Point because I am disgusted. I am genuinely disgusted.

Speaker 7 (01:38:33):
I am looking around and wondering whether Charlie's entire life
was the Truman Show. None of you guys are behaving
in the way that you should be behaving. Okay, there
was no way you are letting these lives fly unless,
as I am hearing, unless it is true.

Speaker 1 (01:38:48):
I got to stop for a second too, because something
I was going to also mention is that with all
of this conspiracy around Israel and Charlie Kirk and Candice
Owens and huge influence, that let's just be honest. If
Benjamin Nette Yahoo has to come out and issue a
statement saying that they had nothing to do with Charlie

(01:39:09):
Kirk's assassination, and yet Turning Point USA themselves, the organization
that Charlie Kirk built and created, has yet to come
out with a statement that is negating or saying that
Candace Owens is lying, or saying that what she's saying
is untrue, or that any of this stuff. But yet
Benjamin Nette Yahoo, the leader of the Israeli State Israel

(01:39:33):
had to come out with a statement three days later.
But yet Turning Point in USA has yet to issue
any statement whatsoever on this.

Speaker 4 (01:39:40):
But who why do they have to prove anything to
Candace Owens?

Speaker 1 (01:39:44):
Okay, then why it's not just Candace Owen Sherry Like
everybody knows, everybody knows about the conspiracy of Israel, and
especially with as concerned as Israel is about the either
pro Israel or anti Israel narrative, Turning Point USA would
be should be the first organization that comes out to

(01:40:04):
dispel the rumors, dispel the narrative, because they are the
ones that are being implicated for the influence and for
the funding and for what Charlie Kirk said. It's not
like they don't know the leaders in Turning Point. It's
not like they don't they can't read through his emails
now or his text messages or any of this stuff.
Because I can promise you this, there is someone there

(01:40:25):
are people that are in the higher up in Turning
Point USA that are reaching out to people right now, well,
and they are starting to be Whistleblower is saying, we
know that what Cannis Owans is saying is not a lie,
and we're about to come out with it.

Speaker 4 (01:40:35):
That's what Cannas is saying.

Speaker 3 (01:40:37):
She's saying that she has very close contacts. And you'll
see this coming up by the idiot.

Speaker 2 (01:40:42):
Canis Owens is not just some random chick.

Speaker 1 (01:40:44):
She literally was a huge part of Turning Point USA
with Charlie Kirk for a very long time.

Speaker 4 (01:40:50):
Yeah, but he had to go separate ways with her.

Speaker 2 (01:40:53):
Why is that? Because? You let me tell you. When
he had to start somewhat distancing himself was when.

Speaker 4 (01:40:59):
Israel thing is Israel thing, which and this separated with
Ben Shapiro, wasn't it.

Speaker 2 (01:41:04):
Kind of yes, that that was That was somewhat.

Speaker 1 (01:41:06):
But even after the men Shapiro separation, even after Canisans
started calling out Israel, uh, the mainstream media and Turning
Point USA and or whoever they all wanted to say, well,
Kenisans is not like no one's Charlie hasn't even talked
to her, She's not even been a part of an
event since then, you know that's a lie though, because
Canisan's proved it. It was like four times since then

(01:41:27):
that she was part of Turning Point USA events. So
Turning Point USA, there were certain big political people that
are always on podcasts said that she had nothing to
do with Charlie Kirk. She didn't go on anything PbD. Yeah, PbD, PbD,
And that was a lie and so obviously a lie.
And so she proved that to be a lie at

(01:41:47):
the very least. And listen, I'm just you know, by
the way.

Speaker 4 (01:41:52):
Evidence that will clear everything.

Speaker 2 (01:41:55):
I think that's coming.

Speaker 1 (01:41:56):
But listen, you also have to understand that when she
has sore verus that are reaching out to her from
Turning Point USA. When I say that she's not just
a random podcaster, she literally was a huge part of
Turning Point USA. She almost knows damn near everyone that
is in Turning Point USA. So don't think that she
doesn't have people reaching out to her from Turning Point USA,
that she knows that the only reason she's risking her

(01:42:19):
entire career right now on this is not because people
from the internet are sending her shit. It is people
within Turning Point USA that are reaching out to her
and saying, you're right on this, this is what's happening,
here's the deal, and we're going to play that as
soon as it is.

Speaker 2 (01:42:35):
Over, which is just in a few minutes. But turning
point USA should reach.

Speaker 1 (01:42:38):
They should, they absolutely should come out with a statement
if Candae is wrong, and especially after this episode.

Speaker 2 (01:42:46):
By the way, this is not the today's episode. This
was yesterday's episode.

Speaker 1 (01:42:51):
But if she's wrong on this turningpoint, USA need to
be in a room right now if she's wrong, saying
we need to write a statement, we need to release it,
or need to go on podcasts, because they're doing podcasts
on Charlie Kirk Show, like almost every day. They're bringing
all these different people in, including Erica herself, which is
so excited about what's going on.

Speaker 4 (01:43:09):
And what's coming.

Speaker 3 (01:43:11):
And I did find that that was weird. Now all
of a sudden, they're showing their daughter's face, they're showing
their children's face. Charlie Kirk never wanted their children's face
to be shown before, and now they're on basically live tvah,
which is odd.

Speaker 2 (01:43:27):
But my point is that we have to look at
all theories right and and the.

Speaker 3 (01:43:32):
Trying to be neutral on it is very hard. And
I'll just admit that it's hard to be neutral in
this and I am trying to have a neutral eye.

Speaker 2 (01:43:41):
I'll just but the biggest theory right now is the
Israel thing. So we have to talk about it. I mean,
it's just what we can't.

Speaker 1 (01:43:48):
We can't just keep avoiding talking about what Candice is
saying and what everybody's saying. Because this If you go
to X, which is the biggest social media platform right
now period, and.

Speaker 2 (01:43:58):
That is dominating X. It is dominating the conversation.

Speaker 4 (01:44:02):
Everyone on X is turning against Israel, right and left.

Speaker 10 (01:44:06):
Crew that there was a big, big, big payday that
was on the line. And if Charlie.

Speaker 7 (01:44:12):
Radically stated but he was done with Israel, If Charlie
said he had no choice but to abandon the pro
Israel cause because of and I quote Jewish.

Speaker 10 (01:44:22):
Donors, the behavior of Jewish donors.

Speaker 7 (01:44:25):
If he said that yes or no, well then I
don't know, maybe maybe some people didn't want to take
that risk. That he was kind of what become Candae,
Owens and Ducker Carlson at turning point USA, with all
of those presences, so much presence across college campuses.

Speaker 10 (01:44:45):
Maybe they didn't want to take a chance.

Speaker 7 (01:44:47):
You see, I'm just one person, so it's easy to
just try to cancel my life and lie on me
every second of every day. But during Point USA, I
think got a little bit bigger than Charlie, and I'm
no longer to allow this lie in this narratives. So
answer the questions yes or no, and I'm going to
again challenge you to lie, and if you do lie,
I'm going to expose the lies and I'm going to
start dropping videos.

Speaker 10 (01:45:08):
Actually, So that's where I'm at.

Speaker 7 (01:45:11):
Enough of the gains, Enough with trying to allow Israel
to wrangle a narrative that you.

Speaker 4 (01:45:15):
Know is not true.

Speaker 7 (01:45:16):
Charlie did not die pro Israel. He'd not die for Israel.
He did not martyr himself as a friend of Israel.
In fact, the friends of Israel were pressuring him really badly,
and he was done and he finally stuck for himself.

Speaker 10 (01:45:28):
And I'm proud of that. And I will say this.

Speaker 7 (01:45:29):
You know what, somewhere Charlie is watching, okay, and I
hope he knows that we are reunited.

Speaker 10 (01:45:35):
Okay, We're on stage.

Speaker 7 (01:45:36):
Right now, and the Jewish donors are very angry about it,
extremely angry about it, but it feels good to know
that in the end truth is going to win.

Speaker 10 (01:45:44):
So accept my challenge or don't.

Speaker 2 (01:45:46):
All right, there you go. So that's what Candice Owen's
had to say. You guys, can you know think what
you want?

Speaker 9 (01:45:54):
Do?

Speaker 1 (01:45:54):
You have a couple of other clips and this specifically
has to do with some of what Candace is saying. Now,
Ryan Matta had shared this. A lot of people have
shared this, and this is from a guy named Ian,
not Ian Carroll. But Candas Owens is not lying about
Turning Point USA. He says, I have a proof right here.
I know having this info and sharing it comes with
a potential price, and so I want to play this clip.

Speaker 3 (01:46:19):
This is what Ian has to say, And this is saying,
actually somebody that is with Turning Point.

Speaker 1 (01:46:26):
Yes, So this is what he has to say. And
he's getting messages from people that are high up in
Turning Point USA. Candace is also, by the way, receiving
these messages. She is yet to share these messages because
what I think.

Speaker 2 (01:46:40):
In my opinion, what I think Cannas is doing is
that she is building and building and building her case.

Speaker 1 (01:46:47):
She is I don't think she's just continuing to go
out on the limb and just speculate out of nowhere.
She is getting as many people in Turning Point USA
to reach out to her to get evidence, to get
all this stuff before she actually shows it, and she's
going to get attacked.

Speaker 2 (01:47:02):
She's going to get caught a liar.

Speaker 1 (01:47:05):
As I've already said, my biggest thing is why has
Turning Point USA not issued any statement on any of
this rhetoric at all? Whatsoever you have to at this point,
and especially considering what Canus just said that you know,
he disavowed his loyalty to Israel.

Speaker 2 (01:47:20):
Completely, Well, they should have easy proof of that.

Speaker 1 (01:47:23):
As I said before, there's no way that Turning Point
USA does not have access to his emails. Obviously they
do because they just shared the supposed email or whatever
it was with Benjaminett Yahoo. You know, I'm sure they
have access to all of his text mass just everything.
They have access to everything. The only reason maybe they
wouldn't share that is because if going forward, Turning Point

(01:47:46):
USA is.

Speaker 2 (01:47:46):
Going to now be more pro Israel, then they're not
ever going to share it.

Speaker 1 (01:47:51):
And if they do issue a statement, they're going to
try to potentially demonize canas Owans. What I will say though,
is that it's going to be a very interesting time
going forward because if what Candace is saying is true,
there is going to be huge, I guess, unravelings within
Turning Point USA with the people that are in Turning

(01:48:11):
Point USA, especially people that are whistleblowers, people that are
coming out and speaking.

Speaker 2 (01:48:15):
They're gonna have to get rid of those people.

Speaker 1 (01:48:16):
They're gonna have to do something about those people, and
there's gonna be infighting. This could destroy Turning Point USA
if this is not handled correctly. And so I want
to get to this post. I'm gonna go ahead and
share it. You don't have to see it, even though
if you're on video you'll be able to see it.

Speaker 2 (01:48:33):
But this is Ian and this is what.

Speaker 1 (01:48:37):
He is sharing saying that Candace is not lying about
Turning Point USA.

Speaker 9 (01:48:43):
Here you go.

Speaker 2 (01:48:43):
She didn't see this, all.

Speaker 1 (01:48:51):
Right, So what this message actually says here is so
what I know is when it comes to actual Turning
Point USA staff up to even director level, a lot
of people are on the same page.

Speaker 2 (01:49:03):
People want the truth. People sorry.

Speaker 1 (01:49:06):
The problem is that the board and the typical successful
investors and business mentors to the team. For instance, if
you had an investor advisory early on into official Patriot
gear and your company thought there was something suspicious about them,
it's hard to get answers because they aren't part of

(01:49:27):
the day to day So that's the bad news. It's
hard to get a lot of answers. The good news, however,
is with a lot of turningpoint USA staff being on
the same page as people like you and Candace and Ian,
people at the top of the company are able to
or able to give Candace some of those internal memos

(01:49:47):
she's been talking about and hearing about these conversations that
have been going on. There's memos she's been seeing that
have only gone out to a few director level people.
So it shows the actual staff, even higher ups want
the answers too. So that is what they're saying here

(01:50:09):
about this, and I'm sorry, and then it goes it
says time will tell more. No one knows who the
high up person is in the company that's been the
source for everything Cannas is getting. I think it's best
that that way, though, but more people are coming out
and being more open about wanting to know what the
f is actually going on. Already made internal pushes to

(01:50:31):
drop the israel BS weeks ago. So hearing what Kandas
is saying today is actually insane.

Speaker 2 (01:50:36):
There you go, Yes, so.

Speaker 12 (01:50:43):
Cannas saint lyon guys, I know for a fact. And
so listening to everybody who is falling into this trap
of you know, attacking anybody and everybody that's asking questions
about this and calling them conspiracy theorist, which is really
funny because it's coming from people who are typically conspiracy theories,
typically people that ask all the questions. But if you
are doing that, right, why why are you doing that?

(01:51:08):
We all know that these narratives they're spinning out, that
they're putting out don't make any sense. They don't make
any sense at all. And we all know that there
is like we don't know who killed him, why it
was done, or how it was done. None of us
really know. Like, if you're actually believing what these people
are telling us, you're cooked, okay, because none of this

(01:51:31):
makes sense. I mean they're literally telling us to look
at the wall that is purple and say and we
say it's purple, and they say no, no, no, no,
look closer, it's it's yellow.

Speaker 2 (01:51:42):
What are you talking about? What are you talking about?

Speaker 10 (01:51:48):
Okay?

Speaker 12 (01:51:48):
So if you're one of those people, why are you, like,
why do you not want to get to the bottom
of it? How do we best honor Charlie's death and legacy?
Then figuring out who the hell killed him and why
and how? And the fact that stuff like this is out,
and stuff like what Candas is saying is out and

(01:52:08):
stuff like what Ian Carroll and all these other people
that are digging into this and figuring out what's going on.

Speaker 2 (01:52:13):
Because by the way, this is a real source. Okay,
but this is this is a real text message.

Speaker 12 (01:52:19):
You don't believe it? If dude, if you want like,
I don't care.

Speaker 4 (01:52:21):
It's real.

Speaker 5 (01:52:24):
Breach.

Speaker 12 (01:52:30):
And there is absolutely something going on in that organization.
There was something going on prior to his assassination, and
there's absolutely something going on right now and they do
not want us to know. And how do we best
honor Charlie? We fight to figure out what the hell
it is they don't want us to know.

Speaker 2 (01:52:52):
I hope that helps. Talking about the text messages that
Candace is getting.

Speaker 4 (01:52:58):
From is in turning point.

Speaker 1 (01:53:01):
It's not Ian Carroll, no, no, no, but it's not
just Ian Now that there are multiple higher ups that
are talking to Candae and these are higher ups in
Turning Point USA saying look, we got donors, We got
a lot of people that are not letting us get
out what we want to say. And I think that's
the reason why you don't have a message from Turning

(01:53:21):
Point USA. You do not have a response from Turning
Point USA, because you have a lot of people on
one side that says, look, we are not going with
this narrative of whatever. And so officially the board members
at the very top. For those that don't understand kind
of how organizations like this work, you have board. You
have a board, and then you have executives, and then
you have people underneath that you have influencers.

Speaker 2 (01:53:42):
All of this.

Speaker 1 (01:53:43):
The board usually are the people that are appointed or
at least I guess kind of voted in. Those are
the people that handle the donorships. Those are the people
that handle all of the money that comes in and
whose money comes in. And then those are also the
people that try to influence the conversation or the way
forward for the company in the Point USA. And so
from what Candace has been receiving and others that are

(01:54:04):
out there also that are highly connected to Turning Point USA.

Speaker 2 (01:54:08):
They're saying that Candace is getting these messages.

Speaker 1 (01:54:11):
The board though, however, is not talking at all to
anybody underneath the board, even to the higher up executives,
and they're being very quiet. They're trying to figure out
a game plan of how and how and why they're
going to go forward. I think there's a reason also,
by the way, why you announced that Erica Kirk is
the new CEO of Turning Point USA.

Speaker 2 (01:54:34):
She's going to have a very tough time depending on what.

Speaker 1 (01:54:36):
You see or how you see Erica Kirk, she's going
to have a tough time figuring this out because the
board members are have appointed her for a reason, right,
those are the people that appointed Erica Kirk.

Speaker 3 (01:54:48):
Well, I thought it was Charlie Kirk appointed her upon
his dad.

Speaker 2 (01:54:52):
No, no, no, I don't think so. I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:54:54):
I don't know, because there was speculation. I don't think
they ever knew who was going to be the CEO
if Charlie Kirk died. I think that the board is
the one that put Erica Kirk in charge. And so
you know, and there's a lot of weird stuff. I mean,
I'm not saying ergar Kirk is implicated at all or
any of that stuff. But you know, there's a lot
of conspiracies about it. I mean, you know, not very

(01:55:17):
long after she is cheering on the Orgon Ducks, although yes,
that is Charlie Kirk's team, but you know, she was
making posts about Orgon Ducks and go Oregon and all
this stuff. She went on to podcast, that Charlie Kirk podcast,
and she seemed to be pretty I don't know, just
not as maybe a lot of people are saying, not
as upset as maybe you'd want to be. She was
talking about a future Turning Point USA, what their plans are,

(01:55:38):
how they're going to move forward, all these events planned.

Speaker 2 (01:55:41):
All this stuff.

Speaker 4 (01:55:42):
Well, she also said that Charlie had he was so
into work, that he had so much out there that
they have so much to put out there already.

Speaker 1 (01:55:51):
Yeah, like forty episodes of stuff and all this stuff.
But there's just so much conspiracy here on this. And
to be honest with you guys, I don't know what
the truth is. I don't but what I will say
is that Turning Point USA should very quickly issue a statement.
And if you don't want to issue a statement, then fine,
But I think that's just going to hurt Turning Point
USA if you don't issue some kind of statement, especially

(01:56:14):
with a narrative out there. There's a lot of people,
I mean, yes, there are loud voices out there right
now that are saying that if you even question Charlie
Kirk's assassination, then you are a conspiracy theorist. Then you
are crazy and you're desecrating Charlie Kirk's legacy. But what
we do need to know and if proof does come
out that Charlie Kirk did abandon all of his support
for Israel forty eight hours prior, we'll find out hopefully, hopefully.

Speaker 2 (01:56:38):
We will find that out.

Speaker 1 (01:56:40):
And that shouldn't be hard to prove or disprove, especially
from someone in Turning Point USA, Like, let's look at that.
Let's see the text or email or whatever however he
disavowals is real.

Speaker 3 (01:56:50):
But are you going to just take somebody's word that
they have credible sources or do you want to know
who the sources are?

Speaker 2 (01:56:58):
No, I mean we got to know the truth. I
mean no, I'm definitely not just going to take people's word.

Speaker 1 (01:57:03):
That's why we really not talked a lot about the
Israel thing, because you know, I don't know whether to
think Candace is crazy or not crazy right now, I
don't know. But what I will say is that she
is risking it her entire career basically based on this.
And if there's someone that I'm going to believe about
who probably has access to people in Turning Point USA,

(01:57:25):
is Candie Owans.

Speaker 2 (01:57:27):
I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:57:28):
And also if I look back as well about anything
that Candie Owans has ever done, I don't think she's
ever completely bullshitted and led people astray. I've always respected
Candis owens work. She's always been a great journalist, She's
always been a great influencer and commentator. She's always been
someone that people trusted. And it isn't until now that

(01:57:51):
all of a sudden that allegedly Charlie Kirk hates Candie
Owens and you know, he disavowed her. They said the
same same thing about Tucker Crossing. And you know what
we found out about Tucker Crosson, Well, Tucker Crosson showed
the receipts.

Speaker 2 (01:58:07):
He actually did. He showed the receipts because you remember.

Speaker 4 (01:58:11):
When the receipts for what what are you talking about?

Speaker 1 (01:58:14):
So they were trying to say also that like, you know,
Tucker Crosson is crazy, and you know he was going
on the Israel thing too about Charlie Kirk and maybe
there's a connection there, and so everyone was like, oh
my god, you know, Tucker Crosson's crazy, he's an anti
semi and all this stuff. But then when you find
out that Charlie Kirk literally messaged him, and not just
messaged him, but made sure that in messaging to Tucker Crosson,

(01:58:36):
he said, I want to make sure that you understand
that when you come on you know, these events, that
I want you to talk about the Gaza situation, I
want you to talk about the Israel backlash.

Speaker 2 (01:58:47):
I want you to talk about all those things. And
I don't want you to be afraid to do this.

Speaker 1 (01:58:50):
And it was it was then that the Israel donors
were hardcore pushing against Charlie Kirk, and Charlie Kirk talked
about this on video, saying I don't want you to
have Tucker Crossing at a Turning Point USA event at all.

Speaker 3 (01:59:04):
Can I ask you a question, what was Charlie Kirk's
main mission? He was to talk to people about America. Yeah, America,
and that had opposing views of him. So of course
he's going to tell Tucker to talk about whatever he
wants to. That's what he wants, and that's what he
believed in. He went out and he found the people
that had opposing the views and he brought them to

(01:59:27):
have conversations. So just because Tucker believed that there's an
Israel connection doesn't necessarily say, oh, well, that's because Charlie
thought that.

Speaker 2 (01:59:38):
I know, I understand. But that was one of the
things that Charlie got a ton of hell for, like
a ton of health.

Speaker 4 (01:59:46):
Stood by though no, but stood by talking.

Speaker 1 (01:59:48):
He got the hell different views, but he got hell
from Israel and the donors that they basically said, you
don't dare bring on Tucker crossing to another turning point
USA event. And it was absolutely and not only that,
you know, Charlie Kirk made sure to message Tucker cross
and say make sure that we talk about this. And

(02:00:11):
so leading up into this assassination, yes, Charlie Kirk was
starting to really talk.

Speaker 2 (02:00:15):
Out about Israel.

Speaker 1 (02:00:17):
If it's true that forty eight hours prior to his
assassination that he disavowed Israel and he completely was you know, whatever,
I don't know if that's true.

Speaker 2 (02:00:25):
But if Candie Owans is claiming that, someone's got to
show proof.

Speaker 1 (02:00:29):
But if I, if I the very least know that
that is true, I will definitely say that on the show.
I want to let people attack me and then when
the time is right, I will reveal the proof. Right
And so hopefully Candie Owans is that smart and I
don't think she's dumb to the point where she's just
gonna make these crazy, outlandish accusations and then just be

(02:00:51):
destroyed time and time again, because that's going to kill
her career. But guys, that's going to do it for
this episode. Until next time, we love you. Peace out,
peace out.