August 17, 2026 • 40 mins
How have people been hypnotized into believing conspiracy theories around Charlie Kirk's m*rder? To find the answer, we discuss the debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson.
Episode powered by: Surfshark.
Online security starts with Surfshark. Use code "RPA" at checkout for four extra months of SurfShark.
Join the FamBam by becoming a Red Pilled America backstage subscriber. Visit https://www.RedPilledAmerica.com and click join in the top menu!
Support the show: https://redpilledamerica.com/support/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
This is Red Pilled America. You're listening to Red Pilled
(00:25):
America's fam Boogie. Join the fam Bam. Is there a
storytelling show like Red Pilled America in the United States?
Of course there isn't, and that's because it is hard
to produce storytelling shows. Go to Red Pilled America. Click
join in the top of the menu. You are here
with us at fam Boogie. We're talking about several topics
(00:46):
and we wanted to shift this Candace Owens versus Andrew
Wilson debate to part two because our audience is kind
of mixed on hearing about Candace Owens. Some of them
are like, Okay, you know, we've heard enough about her already,
don't talk about her and what have you. And then
there's the people that want to hear about it.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I think it's split down the middle. I think it's
about fifty to fifty.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
I get surprised that there is people that still support
her because this debate she was exposed for having no
evidence for her claims. So let's get into this first.
Let's do it first. I will say this, this guy,
Andrew Wilson, he's known for his debates. He likes to
(01:30):
debate kind of feminists and a lot of women, it
seems like, but he does go up against men as
well too. He's a good debater, but he can't.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Is he the guy that cannot open a peanut butter jar?
He's the guy who we're talking about.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
And open up a jar. He was on the What's
What's Whatever? Podcast? I think it's called, and he was
debating this woman and he's telling her about basically all
these things about being a man and and you know,
going against like, you know, her feminist ideas, and then
somehow a jar ends up in front of him and
he can't open it, you.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Know, And I have a big, big problem with that.
I cannot like him.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
It was one of those it was just it was perfect. So,
but he is a pretty good debater. He's good at
kind of someone makes a claim and then him barreling
down that claim, and you could see a lot of
times he doesn't even necessarily have an answer to the claim,
but he has a good method of just kind of
(02:27):
drilling down on a certain issue and a certain claim
that somebody makes. So he challenges Candace Owens. I believe
it was on the Joe Rogan podcast. Relatively recently, he
was saying some stuff about Candace pushing out all these
conspiracy theories about the Charlie Kirk murder, and he said
that he wanted a debater. He makes a three hundred
(02:49):
thousand dollars offer to her, and so there's some back
and forth. It goes up as high as five hundred
thousand and then goes back down to three hundred thousand
and what have you. And so I'm watching this debate
happen back and forth about the debate, and this isn't
good because she's in legal issues right now and basically,
(03:09):
by giving her three hundred thousand dollars, you are helping
fund her legal fight.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
And so she took the money.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
She took the money, and she her conditions.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Would she take the money if what she's saying is
so honest and true and she has to make integrity, she's.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
You know, she's she's claiming that he's kay.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
I mean, it shows it shows exactly who she is.
It's the money grab. She's all about the money.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Imagine taking money to debate about one of your quote
unquote alleged best friends, to argue about his assassination, and
you take a three hundred thousand dollars payout exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
I mean, if your best friend, if you really believed
that your best friend was you know, murdered, and that
there's this huge conspiracy theory to cover up the real killers.
You know, if you really really wanted justice, you you
would be making that those arguments and engaging in that
fight for free.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Yeah, and she's claiming I think that Andrew Wilson is
kind of heel biting on her and trying to, you know,
rise off of her clouds. But Andrew's definitely been making
some waves of the course of this last year. Guy's
been on Joe Rogan multiple times. He is not some
like just kind of run of the mill online debater guy.
(04:27):
He is somebody with a platform and with a following
and so, but I do feel like it's a net
negative for various reasons. One, it helps her with her
legal problems. That's three hundred thousand dollars cash that she
gets to, you know, divert towards her legal problems and
her legal both of her lawsuits. Her audience is not
(04:50):
going to be convinced one way or the other because
her audience is a conspiracy Leyden audience. They like conspiracy theories,
and so it doesn't whether she shows evidence or not.
She could just go by feels. And that's pretty much
the way that a lot of her audience lives their lives.
(05:11):
And so I think in that way where also it's
not a win. The thing where I think it might
be a positive is there are some kind of normies
that might not be paying attention, that aren't her kind
of cult audience that hears this and sees this, and
sees that she has no evidence. For example, that Israel
killed Charlie Kirk or that France killed Charlie Kirk. She
(05:35):
had no evidence for those things. And I'm actually watching
the debate was kind of frustrating because they didn't touch
on a lot of the topics that I thought they
should have got to.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Are they kind of soft on her?
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Well, here's the issue. They were in her house. Yeah, Okay,
So she wouldn't do the debate. She claims because she's pregnant.
She didn't want to travel. She's pregnant again with the
fifth kid. I guess it's five. I don't know how
many kids she has, Wow, but she's pregnant again. She
claims that she didn't want to travel although there's video
out there showing that she was pregnant before and went
(06:09):
onto Bill Maher's podcast, and you know, she said that
you couldn't smoke Andrew Wilson. And then there's also video
of her at the Bill Maher podcast where he's smoking
a cigar while she's pregnant. So so there was that.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
But that's in her best interest. Yes, you know, she's
a grifter and she's grifting off her friends murder.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
She's grifting off her friend's murder, and I just I
think her. The thing that is good though about the debate,
if you're going to try to find a silver lining
and something like this, is that it did expose the
fact that she's her arguments in her investigation is not
evidence based. So let's go through some of these times.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
I want to see, I want to see and hear
some videos.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Okay, So this one I thought was the moment of
the debate. There is no person on YouTube, or in
conservative media or in all of media that has spent
more time quote unquote investigating this. Charlie Kirk, then Candace Owans.
She has done months and months and months of shows,
(07:10):
you know, throwing out every crazy theory out there from
maroon sweatshirts that killed him, to Candace, to to France
killed him, to to get to her, to Egyptian planes,
to what have you. But now this evidence starts to
get introduced into this case, and here she is does
(07:32):
not know this very important text that Tyler sent to
his boyfriend, and it was this is what the text reads,
it was me look at the pictures from the surveillance footage.
So he's basically making the argument that he's going to
show up in the surveillance footage to the person he's
(07:53):
text it was me, it was me, okay, So he
basically says this.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Someone put him up to it.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Now they're having this conversation Candace own and Andrew Wilson
about why is it that he is convinced that it
is Tyler Robinson in the surveillance footage. And Andrew Wilson
basically says, well, because he texted multiple things. There's a
lot of different reasons, but one of the reasons is
(08:23):
is he said, I'm in the surveillance video and she said, well,
I've never seen that text. I don't remember seeing that text.
This is somebody that claims to be investigating this case
and she doesn't even know that this man said that
he was going to be in the surveillance video. By
the way, you guys might remember this, very early on
(08:43):
in her quote unquote investigation, she said that Tyler Robinson
was never at UVU.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
According to my source, Tyler has never even stepped foot
on UVU campus.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
He's never even stepped foot onto that campus.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
That's not even something that she She was basically, infinitively
say peddling. Yes, she was peddling that lie. And it's
a lie because she can't know whether he's been on
the UVU campus ever or not. She's not God, she
doesn't have that kind of information, but she peddles this
lie that he was never there. Now she's faced with
this confession from Tyler Robinson, and this is how was
(09:23):
her response to it when she discovered that this text
was out there.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
How are you able to infer off of blurry staircase
images that that is Tyler Robinson.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
Yeah, So in that particular case, what you do is
you take that evidence, you combine it with other evidence.
So it's not just that Tyler Robinson is seen in
the staircase.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Why are you calling him Tyler Robinson in the staircase.
That's what I want to get to.
Speaker 5 (09:45):
Yeah, because I mean, we'll just use this.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
If you don't agree that that's Tyler Robinson, then you
would just have to humor me.
Speaker 5 (09:51):
I think it is. So I'm using the name.
Speaker 6 (09:52):
But why do you think it is? Because you make everybody.
Speaker 5 (09:55):
Trying to explain to you.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
Okay, So if you're asking for my inference, why I
think it's Tyler Robinson's because a Tyler Robinson said in
his text message you you'll be able to see me
on security footage at the campus. Said it in his
own messages. On top of that, Twigs, Yes, you can
pull them up if you want to fact check that
he did say.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
I actually think I really did miss that. I'm not
saying you're wrong. I just I don't remember him saying
you're going to see me in.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
By the way, Twiggs himself said that he has me
on the staircase, that he had some maybe a tiny
bit of doubt, but it sure looked like Tyler Robinson
inside of the.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Twiggs is the boyfriend of Tyler Robinson was the transgender boyfriend.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
It's various surveillance footage that he saw, and so there's multiply.
There's multiple reasons why it is that I believe that
that's Tyler Robinson, not just because of blurry footage.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
I do not ever remember him tweeting that's me and
my steric, I mean texted texting that that's me in
the staircase.
Speaker 6 (10:55):
I think that.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
I say, I didn't say that. I said he I
literally didn't. What I said is that he texted over
you'll be able to see me in footage at the
at EUVU And I'm paraphrasing, but that's.
Speaker 5 (11:08):
What he said.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
Yeah, could we get a fact check on that?
Speaker 5 (11:10):
First?
Speaker 7 (11:11):
Go to what Candae is asking about Skylar. I think
you have it if we can put that up on
the screen.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
Think that's Patrick bet David, who's the moderator of this debate,
and they have up on the screen the text from
Tyler Robinson to his boyfriend.
Speaker 6 (11:23):
It was me, look at the pictures from mister Baillan footage.
It was me.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Okay, I literally said to you, I said, I didn't
remember this, and I'm happy to have a fact check
on that. Okay, I thought I didn't call for the
FactCheck saying you're wrong. I literally said, I don't remember that.
Speaker 5 (11:34):
From I'm saying, I'm trying to be concise.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
So there he is twice saying in a text that
it was me. This woman, this scumbag woman, is fighting
to get this man free. The preponderance of evidence that
we have seen so far is that Tyler Robinson killed
Charlie Kirk. He literally tells his boyfriend in texts. See
(11:58):
And this is the thing with the conspiracy theorists. They
will say, Okay, well, how do we know that was
from him? Highly know that text wasn't planted. Oh, they
didn't give over the cell phone. Yeah, well, they extracted
the data from the cell phone and they gave it
to the defense. They will find any little thing to
keep their conspiracy theory going. And this scumbag is now
(12:21):
trying to argue on behalf of Charlie Kirk's murderer, even
with a text with him saying that he was there
and he's in the surveillance video, when she's clearly saying
before that he was never there. Her sources should completely
go out the door, because she said she had a
source in the family that said that he was never there.
And now we're seeing him send texts to his boyfriend
(12:45):
that he's in the surveillance video, and then I was there,
I'm serious, it's me, it's.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Me, you know what. I have a really I have
a big problem with this entire debate. I find it
to be disgusting because the gut Andrew he's giddy here,
he's excited. He paid three hundred thousand dollars to get
on a platform with Candace Owens, and they are benefiting
(13:12):
from from the murder of Charlie Kirk and they are
trying to get publicity. I think it's disgusting. I think
the three of them are freaking pigs. They are the
scum of the earth, not just Candace, but these other
two because they are making a mockery of this man's murder.
(13:32):
It is sick.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
It is sick, and I'm watching this that we you know,
to be honest, we debated whether we should even talk
about this.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
It's really it's upsetting me. It's pissing me off.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
We talked about it. We're like, you know what, no,
we don't want to do it. And then I remember
that we get some some emails from a couple of
our listeners saying, oh, you know, Candace is just asking
questions and and oh you know Candas is just you know,
not you know, believing in the fed slop and what
have you. And I'm like, we have to we have
to address this because I know you're listening right now,
(14:06):
and I know that you watch this debate and if
you think that she provided any evidence. This is what
Candice does and these conspiracy theorists do, is they dwell
in the one percent. You could have ninety nine percent
assurance that something is the case, something is true, but
then there is that one percent where you know, you
(14:28):
want to leave a little bit of a window open
because I can't say with certainty that this person was
there because I wasn't there and saw them with my
own eyes. Okay, So they dwell in the one percent,
and they live in that one percent because they know
that there's a group of people out there that will
eat up all these conspiracies and want to be in
(14:51):
that one percent because they have this victim ideology running
through their veins and they want to blame somebody else,
this large cabal out there for their problems. That's my oppressor.
And so they dwell on this one percent. And so
she just she knows that she knows that people live
in that space blurry photo of him. That's the one percent.
(15:12):
Forget the fact that he's wearing the same clothes that
he's wearing in a non blurry video off of campus
that same day, or the same car that he has
he's driving. Oh well, you can't see the driver's license.
Are you can't see the license played on it? Yeah,
but it's literally the make of the car that he owns.
And he is in text saying that he did it,
(15:33):
admitting to shooting him, saying that he's in the surveillance video.
His rifle is there, he has DNA on the roof,
he has DNA on tools that he used for the rifle.
His DNA is on the rifle. He texts that he
left the rifle in the forest. His parents are basically
see this and say, oh, that looks like Grandpa's rifle,
(15:56):
goes to him and texts him, asks him where's the
rifle and to send them a picture of it. She
claims that Tyler Robinson is a patsy and then provides
zero evidence that Tyler Robinson is a patsy. She just
throws that out there. She claims that the French and
the Israelis assassinated this man then provides no evidence. Just
(16:21):
it doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel right that Benjamin
nettyaw who puts some information out there after his death.
This just doesn't feel right. Feelings are not what gets
somebody convicted. It's evidence and facts, and there is so
much evidence pointing in towards this guy. That was I
think the moment of this debate was where you have
(16:43):
somebody that claims to know everything about this She claims
that he was never on campus, and here he is
in a text message saying that he's in the surveillance video,
and it just it destroys her credibility. It destroys the
fact that she doesn't even know that this text exists,
shows that she's not doing the kind of research into
(17:04):
this case that she needs to be doing. So there's
that that was one. There was another point where she basically,
even after seeing this these texts okay and knowing that
they exist, even after everything that I just said is
out there in the public domain now and is part
of this case, she still claims that there is zero
(17:27):
percent chance that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk just out
of curiosity.
Speaker 7 (17:33):
Are you between zero two hundred what is likely? That
you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Them based on the evidence right now, I don't know.
I'd say seventy five eighty five percent.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
Candice zero percent, zero percent.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
I me at zero with what we've seen in terms
of the evidence, I'm at zero percent, zero percent.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Why is the other guy at seventy five to eighty five.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
I think he's being charitable. I think you know, at
the end of the day, the case hasn't happened yet.
They haven't actually walked these exhibits. It's you know, into
the case. They haven't you know, they haven't given like
everything to the public. So seventy five to eighty five
percent I think is being.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
Sure there are a joke these people are.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
They're not serious, You're but you were right in there
in your critique of this is that they are grifters.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
They're all grifters.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
They're all grifters, and including this Andrew Wilson guy, like
he did not he's giving this woman money at a
time where she obviously needs it to fight these lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
And well, I think he got the money from his audience.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
I know he started to do a kind of gives
and go campaign I only saw. Last time I saw,
it was only like about seventy thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Here's the thing, because he's not going out or hard. No,
it's all very like nicey, nice smile, smile, like here
we are, we're doing the show. We're doing it. Like
they're giddy. It's disgusting.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Well, here's the thing. That was also another thing that
was I agree with you on that. It's disgusting.
Speaker 5 (19:01):
They're giddy.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
They're realizing that everyone's going to talk about them. And
here's the thing, because we have to. We have to
talk about these things when they get put out, because
it's just the nature of being in a democracy or
being in a free speech nation is where when these
ideas get out there, you need to debate them. And
unfortunately we have to face this and we have to
(19:24):
deal with Candice Owens because many of us, including us,
have led her in the door into the conservative media movement.
She has a huge following of conservatives or people that
actually claim to be conservatives that aren't, and so we
need to deal with these these instances when they come out,
including now she is backing off of claiming that Erica
(19:46):
was somehow involved in Charlie Kirk's murder, and we're going to.
Speaker 5 (19:51):
Get to that right after the break.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Every site you visit, every search you type, every public
Wi Fi network you connect to leaves a record, and
that record gets collected, packaged, and sold surf Shark with that.
You probably know of them from the VPN, which encryps
your entire connection under a strict, independently audited no logs
policy and also let you get around GEO restrictions while
(20:14):
traveling or streaming. They've built a full security suite around it.
The AD and Tracker Blocker shuts down the profiling that
follows you around from site to site, and surf Shark
Alert watches your email, your passwords, even your credit card
turning up in a breach, and tells you the moment
it happens. Secure your entire digital life with surf Shark,
(20:34):
It's completely risk free with a thirty day money back guarantee.
Go do surfshark dot com slash RPA or use code
RPA at checkout for four extra months of surf shark again.
That's surf shark dot Com slash RPA, code RPA. You're
listening to Redpilled America's Famboogie Join the fambam. Go to
(20:58):
Redpilled America dot com and click join in the top
of the menu. We need you guys, support. Support what
you love, it goes away and we have to keep
the lights on to do the storytelling show. Need your
guys support.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
We really do you guys.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
And so this whole thing, you know, you hit the
nail on the head earlier that all three of these
guys are grifters and she's taking three hundred thousand dollars.
They're both giddy because they're, you know, doing this debate.
You have Candace Owens doing reads as she's getting three
hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
She's doing live ad at.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
How much money has she made on the Charlie Kirk assassination.
I would say millions of dollars she's made on the
Charlie Kirk assassination from ads and what have you. And
this three hundred thousand dollars for one debate is a
perfect sign of that.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Yeah, I mean, basically, it's like one hundred thousand dollars
an hour.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
There was a moment that I thought was pretty poignant.
Candace has been suggesting and at one point literally saying
that Erica Kirk was complicit in Charlie Kirk's murder. Now,
that is an actionable thing. You can get your butt
(22:13):
sued for something like that. And she's made that claim
in the past, saying that she needs to get dragged
in and questioned what have you. Well, here she is
being directly asked about whether she thinks that Charlie that
still thinks that TPUSA and Erica Kirk are complicit in
(22:34):
Charlie Kirk's assassination. And this was Candice Owen's response.
Speaker 4 (22:38):
I want to just directly ask you is do you
actually believe that anybody in TPUSA or Erica Kirk or
Erica actually participated, had for knowledge of, or facilitated the
murder of Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
I'm not going to get myself into a legal pickle here.
Everything I've said is on my podcast. I think I
think firmly that if I was the investigating officers, I
would I would see them all and I would ask questions.
Speaker 6 (23:07):
I would at this base.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
Okay, a medical does that mean that you do think so?
Speaker 3 (23:12):
I think it was not a sufficient investigation into what
is what we know to be true of eighty percent
of homicides. It's usually conducted by someone, you know, right,
and the fact that that that.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Is what is she talking about talking about?
Speaker 1 (23:27):
I mean, she's like making a connection. He was killed
in public.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
She's so serious.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
There's somebody on a roof that shot this man. I mean,
it's like, what what is she talking about?
Speaker 2 (23:39):
That's what she does. That's what she does.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
I mean, this isn't like it happened in some closed room,
you know, at his home with you know, we don't
know who the potential killer is. We didn't even know
it was was Tyler Robinson for like what was it
like forty eight hours or so afterwards until they finally
they finally were able to track him down. I mean,
if he was such a patsy, don't you think that
they would be ready with that pat he right away,
(24:04):
you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (24:05):
I don't know she went on.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
That was never even considered. That the like I said earlier,
the backpack was returned.
Speaker 5 (24:11):
You that was never considered.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
Because they gave back the backpack as just one example,
they gave back the backpack, They gave back.
Speaker 5 (24:19):
The That doesn't show a conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
Well, I mean, it shows that the police trusted everybody
and didn't just hold things up.
Speaker 5 (24:26):
For a second. They ruled them out as suspects that quickly.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
I'm not comfortable that investigation. It's a pretty big organization.
There's a one hundred million dollar incentive.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
People, this is one hundred million dollar incentive.
Speaker 6 (24:37):
What I'm saying is his organization like it had grown too.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
I think it was one hundred hundreds per year, Yeah,
per year, if that's something you want to pack if.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
By the way, by the way, Patrick Bette David is
clearly team Candice because every time she's unsure of herself
and she's like, well eah, she looks over it at
at Patrick Bett David like right right.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
The thing that frustrates me the most about this it's
the logic is so retarded. Okay, So you're telling me
that TPUSA and Erica Kirk decided to have this man
assassinated in front of what a couple thousand people on
video in four k Why wouldn't they just, like I
(25:16):
don't know, find a way to do it outside of
the public linelight. I mean, why would they do it
in public with in front of everybody? The logic here
is so ridiculous. She is one of the biggest grifters.
We said this within weeks of her investigation. She is
the worst thing that's happened to conservative media. She is
(25:40):
one of the most disgusting individuals that has ever graced
the airwaves. And she goes on with this this argument,
and she starts to completely backpedal from her previous accusations
towards Erica Kirk.
Speaker 5 (25:57):
Team wants to play video.
Speaker 7 (25:58):
If you don't mind, there's a video they want to
play of. Candace said, it to impossible to not believe
Erica is complicit if you guys want to play that video.
Speaker 8 (26:09):
And so right now their guys are going out and
they're going to look for evidence, and then by May,
which is fortunately around the corner, then she'll see what
they found. So what the f is that performance? How
could you sit up there and say, I, yes, I
want one hundred percent believe Tyler Robinson did it. That
right there is why it is impossible for me to
(26:31):
think that Erica Kirk is not complicit.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
Somehow, those two thoughts actually don't even follow. How would
it be the case that even if Erica Kirk did
believe that Tyler Robinson was one hundred percent responsible for
the death of Charlie Kirk, let's just say she believed
it with every fiber of her being believed all the evidence,
because she did.
Speaker 5 (26:48):
She just actually did.
Speaker 4 (26:50):
Would it then follow that somehow she's complicit in his death?
Speaker 6 (26:54):
I didn't take implicit in death. You added those two words.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
See see how she plays these word games. See how
she throws out there that Erica Kirk is complicit, complicit
in what she plays these word games.
Speaker 5 (27:06):
Okay, it's what's she complicit in?
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Yes, so swing this narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty.
So you're chopping up clips. Like I said, you didn't
have the confidence when I start popping it out. We
are showing a clip of her on Barry Weiss, which
I can't remember the date that she did that interview,
and Erica when she is asked, are you you know?
Do you do you feel with one hundred percent certainty
that Tyler Robinson did did this?
Speaker 6 (27:27):
And she says I do. Then again, context matters.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
I sit down with Erica for four hours under the
assumption that she had some evidence, right like like, I'm like,
I actually, this is why I did not engage in
any Like Erica, everyone's questioning what she's wearing and all
of this stuff. I was like, I'm gonna wait here
because I don't know, just it feels weird to think that,
do I did? I think that some of her mannerisms
were weird and stuff like that. Yeah, but that's not
(27:52):
You can't convict somebody and weird mannerisms. And then when
I sat down with her, and I was expecting for
her to say, well, I'm obviously the victim on the
case and we got to see the shot, you know,
take in or this or that, whatever, it is great,
you know, that's why she's being that's why she has
that much confidence two months ago, and when I sat
down with her, it was nothing.
Speaker 6 (28:14):
It was nothing. Okay, so this is a conversation.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Would that make her complicit?
Speaker 6 (28:18):
Complicit?
Speaker 3 (28:19):
And again you said complicit in the death of Charlie
clas Yeah, well, if you let me finish my sentence,
I could tell you that. But my point being is
that then you take a look at this and you go, okay,
well this is weird. Why would you have this confidence?
And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, okay, great,
I want to go out there and defend you.
Speaker 9 (28:36):
Now.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
I want people to know that you can't say this
stuff publicly, but you know, more things, and she just
blanks and then she says, well, I'm going to call
the lawyer. And she called the lawyer again. All of
us is on my show, so out of context clips.
It's not going to work because I know what I
say on my show. So we call her lawyer, and
her lawyer says to us, she calls him on the
phone part of me and it's me, her and justin
strife and he's I'm like, okay, great, what do you
(28:57):
guys have He goes, well, we don't have anything yet.
That's not we're not that phase yet. And I'm like, well,
what do you mean don't have anything? And he says, well,
don't you know how it works. It's a probable cause hearing.
So basically, the state says that they're going to bring
this forward, and now our people go out and they
look for the evidence to assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty.
Speaker 6 (29:17):
And so I asked her directly, her lawyer directly the
phones in between us.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
I'm like, wait, so, just so I'm clear, you haven't
seen anything that the public hasn't seen.
Speaker 6 (29:26):
And he says no. So I'm going back in my
head and I'm going okay.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
So why is Erica saying with such a degree of
certain its like she was sent out to convince the
public and people bit by the way. I remember even
Megan Kelly was like, you know, let's wait, she's going
to have access to things.
Speaker 6 (29:41):
I did think she had accessings that we didn't have.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
Why expressed that confidence to the public as opposed to
just being like, we don't know yet.
Speaker 6 (29:48):
I feel confident he's probably he's involved.
Speaker 9 (29:50):
They made it rest.
Speaker 5 (29:50):
I don't understand how would any of this make her complicit?
Speaker 6 (29:53):
And what well, I've already told you she was.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
She's complicit in trying to fool the public in the
thinking is just some open and shut.
Speaker 4 (29:59):
She's trying to fool the public into this if she
believes that.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
Charlie, that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk.
Speaker 4 (30:07):
If she believes that, how would that be complicit in
anything I do? Are you saying that you think she
doesn't believe it.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
I don't believe that at that stage she sat down
with Barry Wise that that's what she believes now, but
that's my opinion, right.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
So this is a disaster for Candace. I didn't think
it was possible for her to look any more stupid.
But my gosh, she looks like a fool.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
She's saying that she's complicit in fooling the public that
Tyler Robinson was the murder. I don't know. Maybe it's
because jd Vance got involved with the investigation that we
had cash bitol in the FBI, that we had basically
the entire Trump organization focused on finding this guy's killer.
(30:52):
Find this man their friend, their friend's killer. Okay, they
find the guy in about what was it, forty eight hours,
however long it was, and they convey that to Erica
Kirk that they got her.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
We have our guy.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Okay. She wants to basically change what she was saying earlier.
She was insinuating or suggesting that Erica Kirk was complicit
in his murder.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Yeah, you know why because it made for good television.
It made for good content that she could capitalize on
and line her pockets with.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
One hundred percent. And now she gives out this word
salad because she knows she's in legal jeopardy by saying
Erica Kirk is complicit. He keeps saying it to her,
what do you mean complicit? What do you mean complicit? Oh?
In fooling the public. Well, that wasn't the context that
you were delivering that complicit in, okay, and you're completely
(31:46):
erasing the rest of the context, the fact that the
Trump administration was involved in this man hunt, the fact
that Cash Pittol, the fact that Charlie Kirk's friends, his
close friends, were literally involved in the man hunt. Okay.
So this is where she just plays stupid and she
(32:07):
has so many people fooled because I'm looking in some
of these responses and I'm seeing seeing these people say, oh, well,
you guys are just eating the fed slop, the fed slap.
They're just completely buying this meme, this catchphrase. It's like
that seven thousand dollars catchphrase for if you say anything
positive about Israel, you're being paid seven thousand dollars by Israel.
(32:29):
So there was one other thought that one other spot
that I thought was kind of interesting was the fact
when she was asked, do you have any evidence for
Israel and France being involved in his assassination? This was
something she spent weeks on. She even actually tried to
connect the assassination to herself, claiming that Frank was involved
(32:55):
in Charlie Kirk's murder to take basically heat off of
them in the case that she has with the Macrones.
And this was her response towards whether she had any
evidence that these two countries had killed Charlie Kirk in.
Speaker 3 (33:10):
France and Israel are involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination.
Speaker 6 (33:13):
And I'm going to put that out there with full confidence.
Speaker 5 (33:17):
So you think you with full confidence? You think that yeah?
I think.
Speaker 6 (33:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
I mean the person that gave me that thing that
I reported said that French foreign legion were on the
ground that day. Again, this would be this would be
at a professional limitation for me to then go and
probe that information that I handed over.
Speaker 6 (33:35):
I can't do that.
Speaker 5 (33:35):
I'm not the gene positive evidence.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
I don't.
Speaker 6 (33:39):
Can you just stop?
Speaker 3 (33:39):
It's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying
positive evidence. I've just asked me what I think. I
just tell you, yes, I think they are at all blame. No,
I said, here's what, here's what I think.
Speaker 5 (33:50):
I have every right to ask you about your claim.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
In the statement, I literally just said, I think and
I am allowed to think you have positive evidence. I
have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think.
Speaker 4 (34:03):
I agree you're allowed to think. Nobody's disputing whether or
not think where I'm asking is it?
Speaker 3 (34:08):
But you what is your issue with this? Is I
think that Israel is involved. That's what That's not just
what you said.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
You said that it's with full confidence, yes, And I
think that if you had full confidence when you think.
But if you if I said, for instance, I think
I'm going to be late to work right with full confidence,
I would say my evidence for that is that I'm
twenty minutes away and I need to be there five Andrew,
That's how you would know whether or not you have.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
Let me finish. Let me finish it, Let me finish.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
If it was the case that I said I have
full confidence I'm going to be late to work, I
would say my evidence that I'm going to be is
that work is twenty minutes away, right, and I have
to be there in five, So I have full confidence.
That's why I would think that. So I'm asking if
you think that Israel and France were involved in the
assassination of Charlie Kirk and you say with full confidence,
I'm just asking for the evidence or at least walk
(35:02):
me through the mindset of why it is that you
can think that, which I actually.
Speaker 3 (35:05):
Don't have to walk you through why I think I
can also, I can give you something that I think
with full confidence. I think with full confidence that you know,
you lost the substance of this debate and now you're
moving toward things that I have said that I think,
which I can do.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
I'm allowed to sink to this debate.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
It's like she does not even understand the English language
and logic. You cannot say that you have full confidence
unless you have something to base that on other than
I just hate the Jews, I hate Israel, and this
is going to better my argument against the Macrones. I mean,
she doesn't have any any thing concrete. You cannot have
(35:39):
confidence unless you have something to base that confidence on.
So the fact that she just stands there and just says, oh, well,
you know, I think that this is going to I
can think and I think that they are. No, you
said you have full confidence. What is that full confidence
based on? That Israel killed him, that the French killed him,
that this was basically a multi international assassination of this man.
(36:02):
How do you you base that full confidence?
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Yeah, walk me through it.
Speaker 1 (36:06):
Walk me through it. And then she moves on, Oh,
you lost the substance of debate.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
That's where she goes, and that's so I'm so embarrassed.
The secondhand embarrassment that I'm feeling for her right now
is unbearable.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
This is my feeling what's happening here. She knew that
this was going to be humiliating to her because she
knows she's spewing nonsense that she's constantly contradicting herself. She's
been on record saying that Tyler Robinson has never been
to the UVU campus, and there is texts of him
saying that's me and the surveillance cameras at UVU. Basically,
(36:41):
she has to go through this because she needed the
three hundred thousand dollars. She needs it to think she
needs the three hundred I don't think she has as
much money as people think.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
I don't think I agree with you on that, But
I think that she will do anything for fame and
to be in the public in the public eye like this.
I think she loves it. I think she thrives on it.
I think that she thinks that she's one hundred percent right.
She's a total and complete narcissist.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
She's lost total credibility. If there's any shred of credibility left,
she has lost it. She is delving in the one percent,
and there is which is what I mean. That is
is that you could be ninety nine percent confident of something,
but if you have one percent of kind of doubt,
(37:29):
just to kind of leave a little bit of doubt there,
that's where she delves in, is in that one percent.
She uses the gay boyfriends of Tyler Robinson his statement
that oh, you know, I'm not one hundred percent sure
that it's him, but it does look like him, and
that's the kind of clothes that he wears, and that
looks like him. But because there it was kind of
grainy in certain areas, he couldn't say with confidence that
(37:49):
that wasn't him. But you know what, he's also basing
that on. He couldn't base with full confidence that that
was him because of the granularity of things. But he
is confident because he got texts from the man that
told him that he did it. He got text from
the man saying that I'm on the surveillance video. He
got text from the man saying that he was carving
into the bullets, that he was going to kill this
(38:12):
man and the reason why he killed this man. That
is why he can speak with high confidence that that
is him on camera. This woman is one of the
most despicable, disgusting human beings that I have ever seen.
She is cashing in on the assassination of her quote
unquote friend. He was clearly not her friend. He was
(38:36):
clearly an enemy. She's jealous. She wanted to be appointed
into TPUSA after his assassination. She felt an ownership of TPUSA.
TPUSA ended up bailing her out with her the debt
that she was acquiring under Blexit. The thing was losing money.
They bailed her out of that. She met her husband
(38:57):
through TPUSA. She feels like she's helped put them on
the map during the Kanye West kind of big moment,
and now she's taking it out on him. She's taking
it out on the entire organization because of that. She's disgusting.
I deplore you if you listening, if you're listening to
her and buying into her her what she's spewing out
(39:19):
there into the public, you are poisoning your mind. That's
it for this installment of Famboogie. Our next episode of
Red Pilled America is coming out within this next week.
Keep an eye out for it. We're going to be
investigating the scientists out there. I think you're gonna like
the episode. Until next time, I hope everybody enjoy the
(39:42):
rest of your day. Support Red Pilled America. Go to
Redpilled America dot com and click Join in the top
of the menu.
Speaker 9 (39:49):
Thanks everybody, buy everyone.
Speaker 5 (40:04):
Take six steps
This is Red Pilled America. You're listening to Red Pilled
(00:25):
America's fam Boogie. Join the fam Bam. Is there a
storytelling show like Red Pilled America in the United States?
Of course there isn't, and that's because it is hard
to produce storytelling shows. Go to Red Pilled America. Click
join in the top of the menu. You are here
with us at fam Boogie. We're talking about several topics
(00:46):
and we wanted to shift this Candace Owens versus Andrew
Wilson debate to part two because our audience is kind
of mixed on hearing about Candace Owens. Some of them
are like, Okay, you know, we've heard enough about her already,
don't talk about her and what have you. And then
there's the people that want to hear about it.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
I think it's split down the middle. I think it's
about fifty to fifty.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
I get surprised that there is people that still support
her because this debate she was exposed for having no
evidence for her claims. So let's get into this first.
Let's do it first. I will say this, this guy,
Andrew Wilson, he's known for his debates. He likes to
(01:30):
debate kind of feminists and a lot of women, it
seems like, but he does go up against men as
well too. He's a good debater, but he can't.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Is he the guy that cannot open a peanut butter jar?
He's the guy who we're talking about.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
And open up a jar. He was on the What's
What's Whatever? Podcast? I think it's called, and he was
debating this woman and he's telling her about basically all
these things about being a man and and you know,
going against like, you know, her feminist ideas, and then
somehow a jar ends up in front of him and
he can't open it, you.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Know, And I have a big, big problem with that.
I cannot like him.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
It was one of those it was just it was perfect. So,
but he is a pretty good debater. He's good at
kind of someone makes a claim and then him barreling
down that claim, and you could see a lot of
times he doesn't even necessarily have an answer to the claim,
but he has a good method of just kind of
(02:27):
drilling down on a certain issue and a certain claim
that somebody makes. So he challenges Candace Owens. I believe
it was on the Joe Rogan podcast. Relatively recently, he
was saying some stuff about Candace pushing out all these
conspiracy theories about the Charlie Kirk murder, and he said
that he wanted a debater. He makes a three hundred
(02:49):
thousand dollars offer to her, and so there's some back
and forth. It goes up as high as five hundred
thousand and then goes back down to three hundred thousand
and what have you. And so I'm watching this debate
happen back and forth about the debate, and this isn't
good because she's in legal issues right now and basically,
(03:09):
by giving her three hundred thousand dollars, you are helping
fund her legal fight.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
And so she took the money.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
She took the money, and she her conditions.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Would she take the money if what she's saying is
so honest and true and she has to make integrity, she's.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
You know, she's she's claiming that he's kay.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
I mean, it shows it shows exactly who she is.
It's the money grab. She's all about the money.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Imagine taking money to debate about one of your quote
unquote alleged best friends, to argue about his assassination, and
you take a three hundred thousand dollars payout exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
I mean, if your best friend, if you really believed
that your best friend was you know, murdered, and that
there's this huge conspiracy theory to cover up the real killers.
You know, if you really really wanted justice, you you
would be making that those arguments and engaging in that
fight for free.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
Yeah, and she's claiming I think that Andrew Wilson is
kind of heel biting on her and trying to, you know,
rise off of her clouds. But Andrew's definitely been making
some waves of the course of this last year. Guy's
been on Joe Rogan multiple times. He is not some
like just kind of run of the mill online debater guy.
(04:27):
He is somebody with a platform and with a following
and so, but I do feel like it's a net
negative for various reasons. One, it helps her with her
legal problems. That's three hundred thousand dollars cash that she
gets to, you know, divert towards her legal problems and
her legal both of her lawsuits. Her audience is not
(04:50):
going to be convinced one way or the other because
her audience is a conspiracy Leyden audience. They like conspiracy theories,
and so it doesn't whether she shows evidence or not.
She could just go by feels. And that's pretty much
the way that a lot of her audience lives their lives.
(05:11):
And so I think in that way where also it's
not a win. The thing where I think it might
be a positive is there are some kind of normies
that might not be paying attention, that aren't her kind
of cult audience that hears this and sees this, and
sees that she has no evidence. For example, that Israel
killed Charlie Kirk or that France killed Charlie Kirk. She
(05:35):
had no evidence for those things. And I'm actually watching
the debate was kind of frustrating because they didn't touch
on a lot of the topics that I thought they
should have got to.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Are they kind of soft on her?
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Well, here's the issue. They were in her house. Yeah, Okay,
So she wouldn't do the debate. She claims because she's pregnant.
She didn't want to travel. She's pregnant again with the
fifth kid. I guess it's five. I don't know how
many kids she has, Wow, but she's pregnant again. She
claims that she didn't want to travel although there's video
out there showing that she was pregnant before and went
(06:09):
onto Bill Maher's podcast, and you know, she said that
you couldn't smoke Andrew Wilson. And then there's also video
of her at the Bill Maher podcast where he's smoking
a cigar while she's pregnant. So so there was that.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
But that's in her best interest. Yes, you know, she's
a grifter and she's grifting off her friends murder.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
She's grifting off her friend's murder, and I just I
think her. The thing that is good though about the debate,
if you're going to try to find a silver lining
and something like this, is that it did expose the
fact that she's her arguments in her investigation is not
evidence based. So let's go through some of these times.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
I want to see, I want to see and hear
some videos.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Okay, So this one I thought was the moment of
the debate. There is no person on YouTube, or in
conservative media or in all of media that has spent
more time quote unquote investigating this. Charlie Kirk, then Candace Owans.
She has done months and months and months of shows,
(07:10):
you know, throwing out every crazy theory out there from
maroon sweatshirts that killed him, to Candace, to to France
killed him, to to get to her, to Egyptian planes,
to what have you. But now this evidence starts to
get introduced into this case, and here she is does
(07:32):
not know this very important text that Tyler sent to
his boyfriend, and it was this is what the text reads,
it was me look at the pictures from the surveillance footage.
So he's basically making the argument that he's going to
show up in the surveillance footage to the person he's
(07:53):
text it was me, it was me, okay, So he
basically says this.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Someone put him up to it.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Now they're having this conversation Candace own and Andrew Wilson
about why is it that he is convinced that it
is Tyler Robinson in the surveillance footage. And Andrew Wilson
basically says, well, because he texted multiple things. There's a
lot of different reasons, but one of the reasons is
(08:23):
is he said, I'm in the surveillance video and she said, well,
I've never seen that text. I don't remember seeing that text.
This is somebody that claims to be investigating this case
and she doesn't even know that this man said that
he was going to be in the surveillance video. By
the way, you guys might remember this, very early on
(08:43):
in her quote unquote investigation, she said that Tyler Robinson
was never at UVU.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
According to my source, Tyler has never even stepped foot
on UVU campus.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
He's never even stepped foot onto that campus.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
That's not even something that she She was basically, infinitively
say peddling. Yes, she was peddling that lie. And it's
a lie because she can't know whether he's been on
the UVU campus ever or not. She's not God, she
doesn't have that kind of information, but she peddles this
lie that he was never there. Now she's faced with
this confession from Tyler Robinson, and this is how was
(09:23):
her response to it when she discovered that this text
was out there.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
How are you able to infer off of blurry staircase
images that that is Tyler Robinson.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
Yeah, So in that particular case, what you do is
you take that evidence, you combine it with other evidence.
So it's not just that Tyler Robinson is seen in
the staircase.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Why are you calling him Tyler Robinson in the staircase.
That's what I want to get to.
Speaker 5 (09:45):
Yeah, because I mean, we'll just use this.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
If you don't agree that that's Tyler Robinson, then you
would just have to humor me.
Speaker 5 (09:51):
I think it is. So I'm using the name.
Speaker 6 (09:52):
But why do you think it is? Because you make everybody.
Speaker 5 (09:55):
Trying to explain to you.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
Okay, So if you're asking for my inference, why I
think it's Tyler Robinson's because a Tyler Robinson said in
his text message you you'll be able to see me
on security footage at the campus. Said it in his
own messages. On top of that, Twigs, Yes, you can
pull them up if you want to fact check that
he did say.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
I actually think I really did miss that. I'm not
saying you're wrong. I just I don't remember him saying
you're going to see me in.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
By the way, Twiggs himself said that he has me
on the staircase, that he had some maybe a tiny
bit of doubt, but it sure looked like Tyler Robinson
inside of the.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Twiggs is the boyfriend of Tyler Robinson was the transgender boyfriend.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
It's various surveillance footage that he saw, and so there's multiply.
There's multiple reasons why it is that I believe that
that's Tyler Robinson, not just because of blurry footage.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
I do not ever remember him tweeting that's me and
my steric, I mean texted texting that that's me in
the staircase.
Speaker 6 (10:55):
I think that.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
I say, I didn't say that. I said he I
literally didn't. What I said is that he texted over
you'll be able to see me in footage at the
at EUVU And I'm paraphrasing, but that's.
Speaker 5 (11:08):
What he said.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
Yeah, could we get a fact check on that?
Speaker 5 (11:10):
First?
Speaker 7 (11:11):
Go to what Candae is asking about Skylar. I think
you have it if we can put that up on
the screen.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
Think that's Patrick bet David, who's the moderator of this debate,
and they have up on the screen the text from
Tyler Robinson to his boyfriend.
Speaker 6 (11:23):
It was me, look at the pictures from mister Baillan footage.
It was me.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Okay, I literally said to you, I said, I didn't
remember this, and I'm happy to have a fact check
on that. Okay, I thought I didn't call for the
FactCheck saying you're wrong. I literally said, I don't remember that.
Speaker 5 (11:34):
From I'm saying, I'm trying to be concise.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
So there he is twice saying in a text that
it was me. This woman, this scumbag woman, is fighting
to get this man free. The preponderance of evidence that
we have seen so far is that Tyler Robinson killed
Charlie Kirk. He literally tells his boyfriend in texts. See
(11:58):
And this is the thing with the conspiracy theorists. They
will say, Okay, well, how do we know that was
from him? Highly know that text wasn't planted. Oh, they
didn't give over the cell phone. Yeah, well, they extracted
the data from the cell phone and they gave it
to the defense. They will find any little thing to
keep their conspiracy theory going. And this scumbag is now
(12:21):
trying to argue on behalf of Charlie Kirk's murderer, even
with a text with him saying that he was there
and he's in the surveillance video, when she's clearly saying
before that he was never there. Her sources should completely
go out the door, because she said she had a
source in the family that said that he was never there.
And now we're seeing him send texts to his boyfriend
(12:45):
that he's in the surveillance video, and then I was there,
I'm serious, it's me, it's.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Me, you know what. I have a really I have
a big problem with this entire debate. I find it
to be disgusting because the gut Andrew he's giddy here,
he's excited. He paid three hundred thousand dollars to get
on a platform with Candace Owens, and they are benefiting
(13:12):
from from the murder of Charlie Kirk and they are
trying to get publicity. I think it's disgusting. I think
the three of them are freaking pigs. They are the
scum of the earth, not just Candace, but these other
two because they are making a mockery of this man's murder.
(13:32):
It is sick.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
It is sick, and I'm watching this that we you know,
to be honest, we debated whether we should even talk
about this.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
It's really it's upsetting me. It's pissing me off.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
We talked about it. We're like, you know what, no,
we don't want to do it. And then I remember
that we get some some emails from a couple of
our listeners saying, oh, you know, Candace is just asking
questions and and oh you know Candas is just you know,
not you know, believing in the fed slop and what
have you. And I'm like, we have to we have
to address this because I know you're listening right now,
(14:06):
and I know that you watch this debate and if
you think that she provided any evidence. This is what
Candice does and these conspiracy theorists do, is they dwell
in the one percent. You could have ninety nine percent
assurance that something is the case, something is true, but
then there is that one percent where you know, you
(14:28):
want to leave a little bit of a window open
because I can't say with certainty that this person was
there because I wasn't there and saw them with my
own eyes. Okay, So they dwell in the one percent,
and they live in that one percent because they know
that there's a group of people out there that will
eat up all these conspiracies and want to be in
(14:51):
that one percent because they have this victim ideology running
through their veins and they want to blame somebody else,
this large cabal out there for their problems. That's my oppressor.
And so they dwell on this one percent. And so
she just she knows that she knows that people live
in that space blurry photo of him. That's the one percent.
(15:12):
Forget the fact that he's wearing the same clothes that
he's wearing in a non blurry video off of campus
that same day, or the same car that he has
he's driving. Oh well, you can't see the driver's license.
Are you can't see the license played on it? Yeah,
but it's literally the make of the car that he owns.
And he is in text saying that he did it,
(15:33):
admitting to shooting him, saying that he's in the surveillance video.
His rifle is there, he has DNA on the roof,
he has DNA on tools that he used for the rifle.
His DNA is on the rifle. He texts that he
left the rifle in the forest. His parents are basically
see this and say, oh, that looks like Grandpa's rifle,
(15:56):
goes to him and texts him, asks him where's the
rifle and to send them a picture of it. She
claims that Tyler Robinson is a patsy and then provides
zero evidence that Tyler Robinson is a patsy. She just
throws that out there. She claims that the French and
the Israelis assassinated this man then provides no evidence. Just
(16:21):
it doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel right that Benjamin
nettyaw who puts some information out there after his death.
This just doesn't feel right. Feelings are not what gets
somebody convicted. It's evidence and facts, and there is so
much evidence pointing in towards this guy. That was I
think the moment of this debate was where you have
(16:43):
somebody that claims to know everything about this She claims
that he was never on campus, and here he is
in a text message saying that he's in the surveillance video,
and it just it destroys her credibility. It destroys the
fact that she doesn't even know that this text exists,
shows that she's not doing the kind of research into
(17:04):
this case that she needs to be doing. So there's
that that was one. There was another point where she basically,
even after seeing this these texts okay and knowing that
they exist, even after everything that I just said is
out there in the public domain now and is part
of this case, she still claims that there is zero
(17:27):
percent chance that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk just out
of curiosity.
Speaker 7 (17:33):
Are you between zero two hundred what is likely? That
you think Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk and killed.
Speaker 4 (17:38):
Them based on the evidence right now, I don't know.
I'd say seventy five eighty five percent.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
Candice zero percent, zero percent.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
I me at zero with what we've seen in terms
of the evidence, I'm at zero percent, zero percent.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Why is the other guy at seventy five to eighty five.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
I think he's being charitable. I think you know, at
the end of the day, the case hasn't happened yet.
They haven't actually walked these exhibits. It's you know, into
the case. They haven't you know, they haven't given like
everything to the public. So seventy five to eighty five
percent I think is being.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
Sure there are a joke these people are.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
They're not serious, You're but you were right in there
in your critique of this is that they are grifters.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
They're all grifters.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
They're all grifters, and including this Andrew Wilson guy, like
he did not he's giving this woman money at a
time where she obviously needs it to fight these lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
And well, I think he got the money from his audience.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
I know he started to do a kind of gives
and go campaign I only saw. Last time I saw,
it was only like about seventy thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Here's the thing, because he's not going out or hard. No,
it's all very like nicey, nice smile, smile, like here
we are, we're doing the show. We're doing it. Like
they're giddy. It's disgusting.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Well, here's the thing. That was also another thing that
was I agree with you on that. It's disgusting.
Speaker 5 (19:01):
They're giddy.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
They're realizing that everyone's going to talk about them. And
here's the thing, because we have to. We have to
talk about these things when they get put out, because
it's just the nature of being in a democracy or
being in a free speech nation is where when these
ideas get out there, you need to debate them. And
unfortunately we have to face this and we have to
(19:24):
deal with Candice Owens because many of us, including us,
have led her in the door into the conservative media movement.
She has a huge following of conservatives or people that
actually claim to be conservatives that aren't, and so we
need to deal with these these instances when they come out,
including now she is backing off of claiming that Erica
(19:46):
was somehow involved in Charlie Kirk's murder, and we're going to.
Speaker 5 (19:51):
Get to that right after the break.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Every site you visit, every search you type, every public
Wi Fi network you connect to leaves a record, and
that record gets collected, packaged, and sold surf Shark with that.
You probably know of them from the VPN, which encryps
your entire connection under a strict, independently audited no logs
policy and also let you get around GEO restrictions while
(20:14):
traveling or streaming. They've built a full security suite around it.
The AD and Tracker Blocker shuts down the profiling that
follows you around from site to site, and surf Shark
Alert watches your email, your passwords, even your credit card
turning up in a breach, and tells you the moment
it happens. Secure your entire digital life with surf Shark,
(20:34):
It's completely risk free with a thirty day money back guarantee.
Go do surfshark dot com slash RPA or use code
RPA at checkout for four extra months of surf shark again.
That's surf shark dot Com slash RPA, code RPA. You're
listening to Redpilled America's Famboogie Join the fambam. Go to
(20:58):
Redpilled America dot com and click join in the top
of the menu. We need you guys, support. Support what
you love, it goes away and we have to keep
the lights on to do the storytelling show. Need your
guys support.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
We really do you guys.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
And so this whole thing, you know, you hit the
nail on the head earlier that all three of these
guys are grifters and she's taking three hundred thousand dollars.
They're both giddy because they're, you know, doing this debate.
You have Candace Owens doing reads as she's getting three
hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
She's doing live ad at.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
How much money has she made on the Charlie Kirk assassination.
I would say millions of dollars she's made on the
Charlie Kirk assassination from ads and what have you. And
this three hundred thousand dollars for one debate is a
perfect sign of that.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Yeah, I mean, basically, it's like one hundred thousand dollars
an hour.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
There was a moment that I thought was pretty poignant.
Candace has been suggesting and at one point literally saying
that Erica Kirk was complicit in Charlie Kirk's murder. Now,
that is an actionable thing. You can get your butt
(22:13):
sued for something like that. And she's made that claim
in the past, saying that she needs to get dragged
in and questioned what have you. Well, here she is
being directly asked about whether she thinks that Charlie that
still thinks that TPUSA and Erica Kirk are complicit in
(22:34):
Charlie Kirk's assassination. And this was Candice Owen's response.
Speaker 4 (22:38):
I want to just directly ask you is do you
actually believe that anybody in TPUSA or Erica Kirk or
Erica actually participated, had for knowledge of, or facilitated the
murder of Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
I'm not going to get myself into a legal pickle here.
Everything I've said is on my podcast. I think I
think firmly that if I was the investigating officers, I
would I would see them all and I would ask questions.
Speaker 6 (23:07):
I would at this base.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
Okay, a medical does that mean that you do think so?
Speaker 3 (23:12):
I think it was not a sufficient investigation into what
is what we know to be true of eighty percent
of homicides. It's usually conducted by someone, you know, right,
and the fact that that that.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Is what is she talking about talking about?
Speaker 1 (23:27):
I mean, she's like making a connection. He was killed
in public.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
She's so serious.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
There's somebody on a roof that shot this man. I mean,
it's like, what what is she talking about?
Speaker 2 (23:39):
That's what she does. That's what she does.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
I mean, this isn't like it happened in some closed room,
you know, at his home with you know, we don't
know who the potential killer is. We didn't even know
it was was Tyler Robinson for like what was it
like forty eight hours or so afterwards until they finally
they finally were able to track him down. I mean,
if he was such a patsy, don't you think that
they would be ready with that pat he right away,
(24:04):
you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (24:05):
I don't know she went on.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
That was never even considered. That the like I said earlier,
the backpack was returned.
Speaker 5 (24:11):
You that was never considered.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
Because they gave back the backpack as just one example,
they gave back the backpack, They gave back.
Speaker 5 (24:19):
The That doesn't show a conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
Well, I mean, it shows that the police trusted everybody
and didn't just hold things up.
Speaker 5 (24:26):
For a second. They ruled them out as suspects that quickly.
Speaker 3 (24:30):
I'm not comfortable that investigation. It's a pretty big organization.
There's a one hundred million dollar incentive.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
People, this is one hundred million dollar incentive.
Speaker 6 (24:37):
What I'm saying is his organization like it had grown too.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
I think it was one hundred hundreds per year, Yeah,
per year, if that's something you want to pack if.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
By the way, by the way, Patrick Bette David is
clearly team Candice because every time she's unsure of herself
and she's like, well eah, she looks over it at
at Patrick Bett David like right right.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
The thing that frustrates me the most about this it's
the logic is so retarded. Okay, So you're telling me
that TPUSA and Erica Kirk decided to have this man
assassinated in front of what a couple thousand people on
video in four k Why wouldn't they just, like I
(25:16):
don't know, find a way to do it outside of
the public linelight. I mean, why would they do it
in public with in front of everybody? The logic here
is so ridiculous. She is one of the biggest grifters.
We said this within weeks of her investigation. She is
the worst thing that's happened to conservative media. She is
(25:40):
one of the most disgusting individuals that has ever graced
the airwaves. And she goes on with this this argument,
and she starts to completely backpedal from her previous accusations
towards Erica Kirk.
Speaker 5 (25:57):
Team wants to play video.
Speaker 7 (25:58):
If you don't mind, there's a video they want to
play of. Candace said, it to impossible to not believe
Erica is complicit if you guys want to play that video.
Speaker 8 (26:09):
And so right now their guys are going out and
they're going to look for evidence, and then by May,
which is fortunately around the corner, then she'll see what
they found. So what the f is that performance? How
could you sit up there and say, I, yes, I
want one hundred percent believe Tyler Robinson did it. That
right there is why it is impossible for me to
(26:31):
think that Erica Kirk is not complicit.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
Somehow, those two thoughts actually don't even follow. How would
it be the case that even if Erica Kirk did
believe that Tyler Robinson was one hundred percent responsible for
the death of Charlie Kirk, let's just say she believed
it with every fiber of her being believed all the evidence,
because she did.
Speaker 5 (26:48):
She just actually did.
Speaker 4 (26:50):
Would it then follow that somehow she's complicit in his death?
Speaker 6 (26:54):
I didn't take implicit in death. You added those two words.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
See see how she plays these word games. See how
she throws out there that Erica Kirk is complicit, complicit
in what she plays these word games.
Speaker 5 (27:06):
Okay, it's what's she complicit in?
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Yes, so swing this narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty.
So you're chopping up clips. Like I said, you didn't
have the confidence when I start popping it out. We
are showing a clip of her on Barry Weiss, which
I can't remember the date that she did that interview,
and Erica when she is asked, are you you know?
Do you do you feel with one hundred percent certainty
that Tyler Robinson did did this?
Speaker 6 (27:27):
And she says I do. Then again, context matters.
Speaker 3 (27:30):
I sit down with Erica for four hours under the
assumption that she had some evidence, right like like, I'm like,
I actually, this is why I did not engage in
any Like Erica, everyone's questioning what she's wearing and all
of this stuff. I was like, I'm gonna wait here
because I don't know, just it feels weird to think that,
do I did? I think that some of her mannerisms
were weird and stuff like that. Yeah, but that's not
(27:52):
You can't convict somebody and weird mannerisms. And then when
I sat down with her, and I was expecting for
her to say, well, I'm obviously the victim on the
case and we got to see the shot, you know,
take in or this or that, whatever, it is great,
you know, that's why she's being that's why she has
that much confidence two months ago, and when I sat
down with her, it was nothing.
Speaker 6 (28:14):
It was nothing. Okay, so this is a conversation.
Speaker 5 (28:16):
Would that make her complicit?
Speaker 6 (28:18):
Complicit?
Speaker 3 (28:19):
And again you said complicit in the death of Charlie
clas Yeah, well, if you let me finish my sentence,
I could tell you that. But my point being is
that then you take a look at this and you go, okay,
well this is weird. Why would you have this confidence?
And then when you sit across from somebody and you say, okay, great,
I want to go out there and defend you.
Speaker 9 (28:36):
Now.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
I want people to know that you can't say this
stuff publicly, but you know, more things, and she just
blanks and then she says, well, I'm going to call
the lawyer. And she called the lawyer again. All of
us is on my show, so out of context clips.
It's not going to work because I know what I
say on my show. So we call her lawyer, and
her lawyer says to us, she calls him on the
phone part of me and it's me, her and justin
strife and he's I'm like, okay, great, what do you
(28:57):
guys have He goes, well, we don't have anything yet.
That's not we're not that phase yet. And I'm like, well,
what do you mean don't have anything? And he says, well,
don't you know how it works. It's a probable cause hearing.
So basically, the state says that they're going to bring
this forward, and now our people go out and they
look for the evidence to assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty.
Speaker 6 (29:17):
And so I asked her directly, her lawyer directly the
phones in between us.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
I'm like, wait, so, just so I'm clear, you haven't
seen anything that the public hasn't seen.
Speaker 6 (29:26):
And he says no. So I'm going back in my
head and I'm going okay.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
So why is Erica saying with such a degree of
certain its like she was sent out to convince the
public and people bit by the way. I remember even
Megan Kelly was like, you know, let's wait, she's going
to have access to things.
Speaker 6 (29:41):
I did think she had accessings that we didn't have.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
Why expressed that confidence to the public as opposed to
just being like, we don't know yet.
Speaker 6 (29:48):
I feel confident he's probably he's involved.
Speaker 9 (29:50):
They made it rest.
Speaker 5 (29:50):
I don't understand how would any of this make her complicit?
Speaker 6 (29:53):
And what well, I've already told you she was.
Speaker 3 (29:55):
She's complicit in trying to fool the public in the
thinking is just some open and shut.
Speaker 4 (29:59):
She's trying to fool the public into this if she
believes that.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
Charlie, that Tyler Robinson killed Kirk.
Speaker 4 (30:07):
If she believes that, how would that be complicit in
anything I do? Are you saying that you think she
doesn't believe it.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
I don't believe that at that stage she sat down
with Barry Wise that that's what she believes now, but
that's my opinion, right.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
So this is a disaster for Candace. I didn't think
it was possible for her to look any more stupid.
But my gosh, she looks like a fool.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
She's saying that she's complicit in fooling the public that
Tyler Robinson was the murder. I don't know. Maybe it's
because jd Vance got involved with the investigation that we
had cash bitol in the FBI, that we had basically
the entire Trump organization focused on finding this guy's killer.
(30:52):
Find this man their friend, their friend's killer. Okay, they
find the guy in about what was it, forty eight hours,
however long it was, and they convey that to Erica
Kirk that they got her.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
We have our guy.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Okay. She wants to basically change what she was saying earlier.
She was insinuating or suggesting that Erica Kirk was complicit
in his murder.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Yeah, you know why because it made for good television.
It made for good content that she could capitalize on
and line her pockets with.
Speaker 1 (31:26):
One hundred percent. And now she gives out this word
salad because she knows she's in legal jeopardy by saying
Erica Kirk is complicit. He keeps saying it to her,
what do you mean complicit? What do you mean complicit? Oh?
In fooling the public. Well, that wasn't the context that
you were delivering that complicit in, okay, and you're completely
(31:46):
erasing the rest of the context, the fact that the
Trump administration was involved in this man hunt, the fact
that Cash Pittol, the fact that Charlie Kirk's friends, his
close friends, were literally involved in the man hunt. Okay.
So this is where she just plays stupid and she
(32:07):
has so many people fooled because I'm looking in some
of these responses and I'm seeing seeing these people say, oh, well,
you guys are just eating the fed slop, the fed slap.
They're just completely buying this meme, this catchphrase. It's like
that seven thousand dollars catchphrase for if you say anything
positive about Israel, you're being paid seven thousand dollars by Israel.
(32:29):
So there was one other thought that one other spot
that I thought was kind of interesting was the fact
when she was asked, do you have any evidence for
Israel and France being involved in his assassination? This was
something she spent weeks on. She even actually tried to
connect the assassination to herself, claiming that Frank was involved
(32:55):
in Charlie Kirk's murder to take basically heat off of
them in the case that she has with the Macrones.
And this was her response towards whether she had any
evidence that these two countries had killed Charlie Kirk in.
Speaker 3 (33:10):
France and Israel are involved in Charlie Kirk's assassination.
Speaker 6 (33:13):
And I'm going to put that out there with full confidence.
Speaker 5 (33:17):
So you think you with full confidence? You think that yeah?
I think.
Speaker 6 (33:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
I mean the person that gave me that thing that
I reported said that French foreign legion were on the
ground that day. Again, this would be this would be
at a professional limitation for me to then go and
probe that information that I handed over.
Speaker 6 (33:35):
I can't do that.
Speaker 5 (33:35):
I'm not the gene positive evidence.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
I don't.
Speaker 6 (33:39):
Can you just stop?
Speaker 3 (33:39):
It's actually just like annoying to hear you keep saying
positive evidence. I've just asked me what I think. I
just tell you, yes, I think they are at all blame. No,
I said, here's what, here's what I think.
Speaker 5 (33:50):
I have every right to ask you about your claim.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
In the statement, I literally just said, I think and
I am allowed to think you have positive evidence. I
have tons of positive evidence that I'm allowed to think.
Speaker 4 (34:03):
I agree you're allowed to think. Nobody's disputing whether or
not think where I'm asking is it?
Speaker 3 (34:08):
But you what is your issue with this? Is I
think that Israel is involved. That's what That's not just
what you said.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
You said that it's with full confidence, yes, And I
think that if you had full confidence when you think.
But if you if I said, for instance, I think
I'm going to be late to work right with full confidence,
I would say my evidence for that is that I'm
twenty minutes away and I need to be there five Andrew,
That's how you would know whether or not you have.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
Let me finish. Let me finish it, Let me finish.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
If it was the case that I said I have
full confidence I'm going to be late to work, I
would say my evidence that I'm going to be is
that work is twenty minutes away, right, and I have
to be there in five, So I have full confidence.
That's why I would think that. So I'm asking if
you think that Israel and France were involved in the
assassination of Charlie Kirk and you say with full confidence,
I'm just asking for the evidence or at least walk
(35:02):
me through the mindset of why it is that you
can think that, which I actually.
Speaker 3 (35:05):
Don't have to walk you through why I think I
can also, I can give you something that I think
with full confidence. I think with full confidence that you know,
you lost the substance of this debate and now you're
moving toward things that I have said that I think,
which I can do.
Speaker 5 (35:17):
I'm allowed to sink to this debate.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
It's like she does not even understand the English language
and logic. You cannot say that you have full confidence
unless you have something to base that on other than
I just hate the Jews, I hate Israel, and this
is going to better my argument against the Macrones. I mean,
she doesn't have any any thing concrete. You cannot have
(35:39):
confidence unless you have something to base that confidence on.
So the fact that she just stands there and just says, oh, well,
you know, I think that this is going to I
can think and I think that they are. No, you
said you have full confidence. What is that full confidence
based on? That Israel killed him, that the French killed him,
that this was basically a multi international assassination of this man.
(36:02):
How do you you base that full confidence?
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Yeah, walk me through it.
Speaker 1 (36:06):
Walk me through it. And then she moves on, Oh,
you lost the substance of debate.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
That's where she goes, and that's so I'm so embarrassed.
The secondhand embarrassment that I'm feeling for her right now
is unbearable.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
This is my feeling what's happening here. She knew that
this was going to be humiliating to her because she
knows she's spewing nonsense that she's constantly contradicting herself. She's
been on record saying that Tyler Robinson has never been
to the UVU campus, and there is texts of him
saying that's me and the surveillance cameras at UVU. Basically,
(36:41):
she has to go through this because she needed the
three hundred thousand dollars. She needs it to think she
needs the three hundred I don't think she has as
much money as people think.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
I don't think I agree with you on that, But
I think that she will do anything for fame and
to be in the public in the public eye like this.
I think she loves it. I think she thrives on it.
I think that she thinks that she's one hundred percent right.
She's a total and complete narcissist.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
She's lost total credibility. If there's any shred of credibility left,
she has lost it. She is delving in the one percent,
and there is which is what I mean. That is
is that you could be ninety nine percent confident of something,
but if you have one percent of kind of doubt,
(37:29):
just to kind of leave a little bit of doubt there,
that's where she delves in, is in that one percent.
She uses the gay boyfriends of Tyler Robinson his statement
that oh, you know, I'm not one hundred percent sure
that it's him, but it does look like him, and
that's the kind of clothes that he wears, and that
looks like him. But because there it was kind of
grainy in certain areas, he couldn't say with confidence that
(37:49):
that wasn't him. But you know what, he's also basing
that on. He couldn't base with full confidence that that
was him because of the granularity of things. But he
is confident because he got texts from the man that
told him that he did it. He got text from
the man saying that I'm on the surveillance video. He
got text from the man saying that he was carving
into the bullets, that he was going to kill this
(38:12):
man and the reason why he killed this man. That
is why he can speak with high confidence that that
is him on camera. This woman is one of the
most despicable, disgusting human beings that I have ever seen.
She is cashing in on the assassination of her quote
unquote friend. He was clearly not her friend. He was
(38:36):
clearly an enemy. She's jealous. She wanted to be appointed
into TPUSA after his assassination. She felt an ownership of TPUSA.
TPUSA ended up bailing her out with her the debt
that she was acquiring under Blexit. The thing was losing money.
They bailed her out of that. She met her husband
(38:57):
through TPUSA. She feels like she's helped put them on
the map during the Kanye West kind of big moment,
and now she's taking it out on him. She's taking
it out on the entire organization because of that. She's disgusting.
I deplore you if you listening, if you're listening to
her and buying into her her what she's spewing out
(39:19):
there into the public, you are poisoning your mind. That's
it for this installment of Famboogie. Our next episode of
Red Pilled America is coming out within this next week.
Keep an eye out for it. We're going to be
investigating the scientists out there. I think you're gonna like
the episode. Until next time, I hope everybody enjoy the
(39:42):
rest of your day. Support Red Pilled America. Go to
Redpilled America dot com and click Join in the top
of the menu.
Speaker 9 (39:49):
Thanks everybody, buy everyone.
Speaker 5 (40:04):
Take six steps
Hosts And Creators
Adryana Cortez
Patrick Courrielche
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.