Latest / Papa Gut / Former Army Sniper, Andrew "Thin Pickle" Wilson, Begs For 300k To Get Neck Blasted By Candace Owens

Transcript

Former Army Sniper, Andrew "Thin Pickle" Wilson, Begs For 300k To Get Neck Blasted By Candace Owens · Papa Gut

0:00
All right guys, listen, let's get this going.
0:02
I mean, this is a long debate. They did debate for like 4
0:04
hours. So we got to, we got to get, we
0:06
got to get the, the. Clock is ticking.
0:08
You know what I'm saying? Anyway, this isn't really
0:10
anything to do with the video. This is just Andrew Wilson
0:13
somewhat recently saying has nothing to do with Erica Kirk.
0:16
She's a terrible leader and a fem con like the rest of TP USA
0:19
and a moron. The principal here is, is what
0:21
I'm speaking to. That's him talking about his
0:22
boss by the way. Like, you know, he got hired by
0:24
a Turning Point USA to teach them how to debate because they
0:28
are getting absolutely blasted. So I thought that was kind of
0:30
funny. Anyway, Andrew Wilson's been
0:32
begging Candace Owens for a debate.
0:35
Before we get into the debate part, I kind of want to watch, I
0:38
want to watch his little like E begging money because he said
0:41
he'd put up $300,000 for it, which he obviously doesn't have.
0:44
Me neither, You know, even though she debates usually for
0:48
free and now it's on her platform and she's making money
0:50
on the donations and she's making money on pretty much
0:51
everything. And so he he begged just to get
0:53
on to this debate. That's incredible.
0:57
We love to see it. Somebody gave $100.
1:01
Wow, incredible. So before we get into it, we're
1:04
going to watch this little E begging video.
1:06
It's going to be a lot of fun. Wilson's getting absolutely
1:08
destroyed. I mean, this guy's obviously a
1:09
bad person. You guys already know.
1:10
When I had a conversation with him, he has this like one take
1:12
that always gets me. I have no idea why nobody pushes
1:14
back on it, but it's like women should be thankful men don't,
1:16
you know, assault them. Actually, we'll say that's
1:19
crazy. And then Turning Point USA hired
1:21
them. So good job guys, but I guess
1:23
nobody really cares about that in the conservative sphere, but
1:25
cool. So yeah, let's get this going.
1:26
Let's watch it. Yeah, let's watch this.
1:29
But yeah, 300K for debate. Yep, that's how much he's
1:31
putting up. So I guess he's putting up to
1:32
$130,000 with his own money. So let's get this going really
1:36
quick though. You guys know the memberships,
1:37
It's the same on Patreon and YouTube.
1:40
The small gut gives you access to the members only aspect of
1:43
the Discord. The medium gut gives you access
1:44
to all this members only content.
1:46
The EDP React is in here, it's just not showing.
1:48
It's on Patreon and YouTube. Just so you guys know, starting
1:51
September, it's in two weeks, I'm going to change a little bit
1:55
of the YouTube side. You're going to have to have a
1:58
medium gut to start watching the live streams after they go down.
2:01
Just letting you guys know I'm going to increase be increasing
2:03
that. So for the people who like to
2:05
watch the lives after I'm offline there, you know, now you
2:07
know, then we got our podcast, my wife Robin Dan in the
2:10
description and we got some stickers in the description.
2:12
Cameo might be coming. So yeah, man, let's get this
2:14
going. Let's start with this baby.
2:16
Let's go. Let me give everyone an update
2:20
of exactly where we are. A few weeks ago, Brian Atlas, a
2:23
friend of mine who runs the Whatever podcast, offered up
2:26
$100,000 for Candace Owens to debate with me about the Charlie
2:29
Kirk on his platform. Oh, this is actually kind of
2:31
funny because like, she refused to do it on that platform that
2:33
took away a significant amount of the revenue that he would
2:36
have wanted to give Candace. He eventually raised it to
2:39
$150,000, which I said I would match it if we could actually
2:42
debate on neutral ground. I expressed this story recently.
2:45
How would how would the whatever podcast be neutral ground?
2:48
Hey guys, my friend. OK, great.
2:51
They on the Joe Rogan podcast Candace and her fans reactions
2:54
were volatile to say the least. OK, she issued a strange counter
2:58
that I needed to pay her $500,000 and that TPUSA needed
3:02
to quote claim me. That's fair.
3:06
They they hire you to be their debate coach.
3:08
Now I. Don't work for TPUSA so.
3:10
Yes, he does. Wait, what?
3:11
I couldn't grant that concession as.
3:13
He does. He's their debate coach.
3:15
Maybe they hired him for a little bit, but he was their
3:17
debate coach because they're getting washed so hard.
3:19
All I'm here, so 1. Andrew likes to lie all the
3:21
time. There's actually a thing going
3:23
around where he's lied about being in the military.
3:25
Here's a beautiful thing. What's that?
3:26
When were you in the Army? I was in the Army for a very
3:28
limited amount of time years and years ago, yeah.
3:31
How long was that? Very limited amount of time if
3:32
you. Don't mind me asking, it was it
3:34
wasn't very about a year. Sounds.
3:35
He sounds honest there. Yeah.
3:36
So did you serve Andrew? I did not, no.
3:40
Yeah. So did you serve Andrew?
3:43
Oh, OK. I did not.
3:44
Oh. OK, wow, great stuff.
3:47
So that's Andrew Wilson. Here's also Andrew Wilson.
3:50
Actually, these are just so silly.
3:51
It's just so funny though, to watch this guy.
3:54
Here's another one. All of the downsides of Donald
3:56
Trump impales in the middle. Is 1, so I don't know.
4:02
First of all, do you know every single person were those
4:04
schoolgirls? It's institutionalized in the
4:08
Iranian just a no, no, we're the, we're the 200 schoolgirls.
4:10
We want to make sure that they're alive so they get.
4:14
By what? By who?
4:14
You pretty sure this is the part that you were talking about?
4:18
Was it force doctrine and that you said that women should be,
4:20
to some extent, like, apologetic or happy that men don't rap
4:22
them? That doesn't really seem like.
4:24
Oh, Lord, that's insane. Oh, Lord, what an insane thing
4:26
to say women should be. This is what he says.
4:28
Women should be thankful that men don't.
4:30
That sounds like you want to rap women.
4:33
Hey, you should be thankful. I don't hate you right now.
4:34
What do you think I want to do right now?
4:35
Oh, OK. Oh Lord, I.
4:38
Don't understand? Notice how he can't stop smoking
4:40
cigarettes? What's?
4:42
Wouldn't that also be some kind of reality?
4:44
Now all you would say is no here.
4:46
Yeah, no, the ideal. No, it's the opposite, the ideal
4:48
from feminists. So feminists operate under a.
4:51
So you notice how he's just going to start talking.
4:53
He's just going to keep. This is what Andrew Wilson does.
4:55
He supports that idea. Here's the real question,
4:58
though. At what age should these women
5:00
start to be thankful that Mendel raped them?
5:02
Andrew Wilson, this is this is the kind of person that TPUSA
5:09
had hired for like a debate coach, by the way.
5:10
Like this guy thinks that rape is funny or something.
5:13
He doesn't take it seriously, you know what I mean?
5:16
I we should all be thankful that he smokes so many cigarettes,
5:18
that his testosterone is like through the fucking the ground.
5:20
That's what we should be thankful for, you know, or that
5:23
he's too weak to really do anything about it.
5:24
I mean, like we've already kind of established that, you know,
5:28
his wife's got 3 fucking baby daddies.
5:30
I don't really know so. Worldview and that that
5:33
worldview that they operate under is very secular and
5:36
seriously agnostic towards God. Do you agree with that?
5:38
OK, so anyway, this is just what he does.
5:40
He rambles on like fucking moron.
5:42
So yeah, I mean, Andrew, are you the one that wants to rape the
5:45
kids? I don't know.
5:45
But that aside, no, of course not.
5:48
But there's going to be deaths inside of a war.
5:50
OK, so it is a war. Yeah, I didn't say it wasn't a
5:53
war. I'm not going to approval.
5:55
Yeah, so Andrew's OK with kids getting bombed for no reason, by
5:58
the way. He just, I guess, loves Trump a
5:59
lot. Let's continue.
6:01
Wow, perfect face. Here it.
6:03
Would have been a lie. She followed with an offer of me
6:06
paying $300,000 to debate her at her home on the topic of if
6:09
Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk and if he was a federal
6:12
Patsy or not. Obviously this gives massive
6:15
advantages to Owens, but I'm never one to back down from a
6:19
debate challenge, even if I think the terms are
6:21
fundamentally unfair. Unfair.
6:23
I'm a victim. We entered into negotiation.
6:25
You know what the most unfair part about it was for him?
6:27
Because I was talking to privately.
6:28
He's like, she won't let me smoke cigarettes in her house.
6:30
How am I going to get through a four hour debate without 10
6:32
packs of cigarettes? Fuck.
6:34
Asians and during those negotiations, Joe?
6:36
Also she doesn't live near a reservation so we can't even get
6:38
like fucking cheap, you know, cartoons from there.
6:41
Rogan contacted us both asking to host her debate.
6:44
This is perhaps something you guys don't know.
6:46
Wow, thanks. Man, obviously I thought that
6:49
changed everything as that would guarantee the biggest platform
6:52
for both of us to make our case on neutral ground.
6:55
Unsurprisingly to me, Candace Owens declined.
6:58
Why would she take it? What's the point?
6:59
What does she really have the gain out of this?
7:01
Like somehow she's a bigger, more credible content creator
7:04
than you. Candace Owens is insane and
7:06
pushes conspiracy theories. I think she actually believes
7:08
what she's saying. That's the difference.
7:10
Andrew Wilson is like a little Weasley Fuck, that's the
7:14
difference. No control What's?
7:16
With the lighting, he wants to seem like cool, ominous and
7:18
like, like, oh, I'm mysterious. She insisted it be at her home
7:23
still, even after Rogan said he would come in on his off day to
7:26
do the debate. And I would still give her the
7:28
$300,000. You would think if she was
7:30
actually trying to change the minds of normies and reach a new
7:33
audience, that's where she would go.
7:35
But sadly no. Why would she like and like
7:38
obviously so obviously first of all, the way that they were
7:41
talking about Candace on Rogan, like Rogan was not not that he
7:43
doesn't like her, but it was like negative.
7:45
Second of all, him and Rogan are like weirdly buddy buddy.
7:47
It's actually pathetic. Rogan has a fucking moron TBI
7:51
and Wilson obviously thinks rape is funny or something.
7:53
I guess he enjoys rape. So like why would Candace Owens
7:56
go on the platform? Like it's not really a neutral
7:59
ground. It's more favorable to Wilson.
8:00
Like why would you even platform Wilson?
8:03
Like Rogan's a moron. That's not really a neutral
8:07
round. Plus again, if I was her, I
8:08
would have made it as difficult as possible too.
8:11
And he's he's, he's literally cooking for it.
8:13
He wants it so bad he's willing to do it on her house.
8:15
Who gives a shit? After many rounds of
8:19
negotiations and a new moderator stepping in who assures us it'll
8:22
be fair, we came to an agreement.
8:24
I went ahead and sent the $300,000 and it has been
8:27
confirmed by her staff and to us that it has been sent.
8:31
I am going to clear the air on a few things.
8:33
I don't care I wasn't some Charlie Kirk fanboy.
8:36
In fact, I had my and still have my disagreements with him.
8:39
He doesn't like Charlie Kirk, is what he's trying to say.
8:42
But I always. He also called Nick Fuentes like
8:43
a pedophile and said that Nick Fuentes tried to dox him in his
8:46
house. And then when Fuentes said he
8:47
hopes that Wilson wins the debate, the little cuck boy here
8:52
was like oh thank you Nicholas and here we go.
8:55
Nicolas J Fuentes protected a pedophile.
8:56
All groupers are complicit in all of them doxing life
9:01
ruination, honeypot sussy, sussy squad.
9:03
This is nuts. Deezer, if went to center
9:04
circle, by the way, you could have blah, blah, blah, blah,
9:06
blah, blah. What's your evidence group or
9:08
swap people this blatant false report.
9:10
I choked, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
9:11
Right. So, yeah.
9:12
And then, oh, this is I guess a clip of him saying I have no
9:16
interest, but then he's like on there saying thanks man.
9:19
Thanks for the kind words, Nick Fuentes.
9:20
I appreciate them. Cock, cock, cock.
9:23
Wilson's a cock. This guy, this guy's a pedal.
9:26
He doesn't care if he's a pedal. This guy doesn't even this guy
9:28
doesn't care about Pedalia, by the way, he doesn't give a shit.
9:30
Like this guy, this is like Wilson is obviously the kind of
9:32
guy who thinks that like women who are like, you know,
9:35
basically in puberty are age of consent to him.
9:37
Like obviously he would never, he would like you think if
9:40
somebody asks like, Hey, what do you think age of consent should
9:42
be? He would be like, I think 18,
9:43
maybe even a little higher. He'd be like, biblically, I
9:46
could horn you to 15 year olds. Like that's probably what he
9:48
would say. So I.
9:51
Just thought TPUSA did way more good than it did harm to the
9:54
conservative movement. But I will never forget the
9:58
series of TikTok invasions. I did post Charlie's death only
10:01
to watch the lunatic left laughing and mocking and having
10:04
the time of their lives. Watching the spiral of chaos
10:06
that came after it was enraging. Oh yeah, I thought it was great
10:10
like after after and it was it was bad that Charlie died.
10:13
But I like the fact that Candace Owens went ballistic and started
10:15
pushing conspiracy theories because like it, it helped ruin
10:19
the conservative movement, which is a bunch of insane psychopath
10:22
fucking pedophile rapists. Like, like massacres of the
10:25
world. So yeah, true.
10:27
I mean, this guy literally just justified kids getting bombed in
10:29
Iran for no reason. We didn't have to go there.
10:32
They weren't building nuclear arms and Trump pulled out of the
10:34
nuclear deal with them. But he's got to justify.
10:37
He's got to go to town for, for, for daddy Trump for him because
10:40
he's a cock. Oh yeah, right.
10:42
To say the least, I know I'm not a very nice man, I get that.
10:47
But I am a very kind man. All right, this is like a nice,
10:50
kind thing where he's like, he's not nice, but he's kind because
10:54
he does the right thing. Like talk about how women should
10:56
be thankful that they don't get raped.
10:57
He's a kind man. I lamented many times to my wife
11:00
how God awful the family and friends of Charlie must feel
11:03
about what happened to him after he died.
11:05
That's great. Trying to find some new normal
11:07
under intense media scrutiny. Balancing duty and obligation,
11:09
Duty, remorse, regret and overwhelming.
11:11
Isn't this guy, this guy's a, this guy's a fake fan, like a
11:14
fake fault. He's like a fallen valor guy or
11:15
whatever. He's like a fake.
11:16
What is that called? Stolen valor.
11:18
He's a stolen valor guy. What does he mean?
11:19
He's a kind person lying about being in the military.
11:21
Sadness. My stated objective for my
11:24
platform, the Crucible, has been unwavering and I've never
11:26
strayed from its goal. Destroy the left.
11:30
Take them on everywhere, on their own turf, outside their
11:32
turf, at their events and their safe spaces.
11:34
Challenge them everywhere and destroy their ideas.
11:36
Be unrelenting. Never.
11:37
Dude, you're a you're a low cow. How's that working out for you
11:40
bud? Stop and not one step back.
11:44
This woman, Candace, has been terrorizing both the widow of
11:46
Charlie Kirk and the organization he left behind.
11:49
It's obvious her stated goal is to destroy the largest
11:51
conservative college and high school outreach program
11:53
currently in existence. Oh, did he call me the Afsler
11:56
when our conversation ended? That's all right.
11:58
It's 'cause he's he's, it's 'cause he's upset.
12:00
The problem is, is Rachel Wilson thinks I'm attractive, you see,
12:03
because I have big traps. I'm fucking handsome as hell,
12:05
dude. She's sitting there.
12:06
She's like, damn, that's a real guy.
12:08
That's like that's the kind of guy who doesn't need to settle
12:09
for somebody that that that's gone that has three baby
12:11
daddies. But you know what, maybe he
12:14
would just for me, you know what I mean?
12:15
It's like a like a fantasy there.
12:17
That's just what I heard. That's.
12:20
Just what I heard dude. Do I disagree with a lot of
12:23
TPUSA ideas? I do.
12:25
I would rather try to change them, though, than burn down the
12:29
only organization in my lifetime to really get a foothold in
12:32
academia, the thing conservatives have wanted for 60
12:35
years. I think my favorite lie is when
12:36
he says that he was like an engineer when he like worked on
12:39
a factory line. He's like, I'm an engineer.
12:40
He worked on like a factory line.
12:42
Like what is an engineer anymore?
12:43
You know what I mean? Like everybody's an engineer.
12:45
Oh, I'm a trained engineer. Oh, I'm an engineer.
12:47
Oh, you know, people at Starbucks are called fucking
12:49
like they're called like a latte engineers now, you know what I
12:50
mean? Like he was, he worked in a
12:51
factory line, like third shift or something.
12:54
Like he would like do the minor repairs that needed to be done
12:56
very quickly on the line to make sure it was going smooth.
12:58
I'm pretty sure that's what it is.
12:59
He's not like, you know what I mean?
13:02
Like he was, he's not, he's not college educated, which is fine,
13:05
but he always like plays himself up.
13:07
Like he's so willing to lie all the time it's insane.
13:10
You work with mood hard, True. Well, at least mood hard.
13:12
That makes sense. In the following weeks, I will
13:16
be relentlessly attacked from the Candace Owens cult for
13:19
daring to put their leader to the question.
13:21
For a diary. And for daring to question the
13:24
questioners, I accept that as a side effect of challenging what
13:28
has become a powerful industry. He knows he's about to get
13:30
fucking ass blasted by Candace. Of conspiracy peddling true
13:33
crime nonsense, which has. You were just justifying the war
13:38
in Iran. Trump pushed a conspiracy that
13:39
they were building nuclear arms. So I don't understand why you
13:41
think you're better. A sycophantic and cult like
13:44
following. They have been at it for days,
13:48
going through everything they can possibly dig up about me to
13:51
hurt me, as there is multitudes of millions of dollars in the
13:54
line for these creators and they will stop at nothing to protect
13:57
their interests regardless of the lives they destroy along the
14:00
way. Yes, yes, many creators and
14:02
private individuals have reached out to help me with this
14:04
financial burden and they understand the fallout which is
14:06
likely to come for me and my family for doing the right thing
14:10
when it mattered the most. You obviously don't care about
14:12
your family. I don't know what we're talking
14:13
about here. Like shut the fuck up, dude.
14:15
Again, you can't be the kind of guy that says that women does.
14:18
Like I, you know, you might think I'm harping on a point,
14:19
but like, how many things do people have to say before you
14:21
go, oh, this is a bad person saying that women should be
14:24
thankful that men don't rape them.
14:28
You're not a good person. Look at how scared he looks.
14:33
I need my mommy. I need a cigarette.
14:34
It's been it's been 4 minutes. Now, to be clear, I've already
14:39
sent Candace the $300,000 and fulfilled my end of the
14:42
contract. That's cool as hell, dude.
14:43
If you guys want to help me in bearing that cost and help
14:46
cushion the overwhelming attacks from her sycophants, here's
14:49
where you can donate. No thanks.
14:51
Many of us are in this fight together, win or lose.
14:53
Maybe I can do something to change its course?
14:55
Yeah, I'm sorry for making fun of cigarettes.
14:57
The entirety of the Conservative movement.
14:59
Promise made, promise kept. Thank you for your time.
15:03
This is what happens. What like somebody puts on like
15:05
a nice voice. I think that they sound so nice,
15:07
but they're really just like a fucking disingenuous piece of
15:09
shit. So yeah, we're going to watch
15:10
the fucking debate now, baby. Let's watch this debate.
15:13
I think it's important to note too, that like, the only reason
15:15
Andrew Wilson like rose up is because of like it was during
15:18
the, you know, don't criticize conservative part, like from
15:22
conservatives. They were refused to criticize
15:23
other conservatives because they knew that they didn't have a
15:25
culture and they wanted to keep their shit going.
15:27
That's literally it. That's the entire thing.
15:31
That's it. So now he's like he rose up, but
15:33
like he's a low cow and nobody in the conservative movement
15:36
really respects him. So now things are obviously
15:39
going to falter. But anyway, let's watch this
15:40
baby. Let's watch this debate baby.
15:47
Let's watch, let's go. Jeez, like 15 minutes of this
15:49
stuff. Candace CI. 2.
15:53
Here we go, Candace Owen, CI. 2. Are we live?
15:59
Candace OK, so we're officially live.
16:00
Nice. Candace Andrew, you know, good
16:03
to sit down here with you talking to you guys about the
16:06
conversation that I think started with you being on Joe
16:07
Rogan when you said, hey, I'm offering $300,000.
16:10
And for the audience watching this, you have to know when you
16:11
see this final product, there's a lot of stuff that happens
16:13
behind closed doors. There was still communication
16:15
till midnight. Even some of the stuff this
16:17
morning, like it's like you're trying to sell a company.
16:19
It's the last 24 hours that the deal doesn't work out.
16:21
But kudos to the both of you guys that you made it work.
16:23
The topic of discussion today how this got prompt.
16:25
Yes, thank you. Thank you, Large.
16:26
Well, honestly, like you, we got to thank Candace for this, for
16:30
this large well, because she's creating like this big ecosystem
16:33
for all us smaller creators to kind of feast upon for a while.
16:36
Because if you think this is it, like, listen, I listen, I, you
16:38
know what? I don't like Andrew Wilson.
16:40
So you're going to get some commentary that's like anti
16:42
Andrew Wilson. I'm always correct though, of
16:44
course, but I already can see that like nobody like he got
16:48
decimated in this and I've been seeing things where like he just
16:51
resorts to insults when he doesn't really know what he's
16:53
talking about. He yaps over people and he hopes
16:55
that like the fact that he keeps going and somehow makes him like
16:57
look better. That's all it's going to be.
16:59
And this, but this isn't going to be the end.
17:01
People are going to start fucking making fun of him the
17:02
entire time. He's there's going to be like
17:04
Andrew Wilson documentaries. It's going to be hilarious.
17:08
That is Andrew, you said there's over harming evidence that Tyler
17:11
Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk and Candle.
17:15
Your position was he's a Patsy, Tyler Robinson is a Patsy.
17:17
So of course we'll talk a lot of different things, but that's
17:19
kind of how the whole thing got started.
17:20
I don't know, I guess who knows, man?
17:22
For the audience watching, I think this is a truly for three
17:25
different people. Number one, is anybody out there
17:26
that loves Charlie, respects Charlie, his legacy, what he
17:28
did. Definitely not.
17:30
I don't think he should have died, but he was not a good
17:32
person so. We have a lot of love and
17:34
admiration for what he did. He changed the lives of many
17:35
people. In a very negative way.
17:38
Young men, young women. You worked with him for many
17:40
years. You guys were friends.
17:41
You've said a lot of good things about Charlie, respectful
17:42
towards him. You guys may have disagreed on
17:43
something. We got a lot of respect for him.
17:45
The second audience is. You don't have respect for
17:48
somebody just because they're dead.
17:49
Again, he shouldn't have been shot, but he was not somebody
17:51
that anybody should have respected.
17:53
The folks out there, you. You.
17:54
Debated college students and looked good.
17:55
It was all about optics. That's it.
17:57
Watching this and so for you, you've been wanting something
17:59
like this to take take place and kudos for Andrew for coming out
18:02
and saying, hey, I want to have this conversation saying he
18:04
begged for it, for Candace to accept it.
18:07
So you you have the ability to say I agree, I disagree.
18:09
Comment to all the stuff that you're doing online and if you
18:11
want to see more of these things, any of the three
18:13
channels subscribe to the Candace Show, The Crucible.
18:16
I'm sure some of the people from Crucible are watching as well in
18:17
the PVD podcast. The more you subscribe to this,
18:19
the more we're able to deliver these types of conversations to
18:21
you. And a last but not least, it's
18:23
about the two of you. My goal is to speak as little as
18:25
possible. 99% of the time it'll be you guys speaking and the
18:28
audience will be able to see it. If I jump in, just so everybody
18:30
knows, on the back end, both have agreed in the back, there's
18:33
three people representing Andrew and three people representing
18:36
Candace to do fact checking. So at any point, if somebody
18:39
makes a claim, the other can say, can we Fact Check this?
18:41
I can jump in and say Fact Check this.
18:42
I think it's good that fact checking is becoming is becoming
18:44
a normal thing. I think it kind of start with
18:47
Jubilee. Even the folks in the back can
18:48
say fact checked it. So it is a very fair
18:50
conversation that we're having here and it's not.
18:52
So with that being said, kudos to Michael Knowles.
18:55
Your name was mentioned a lot. You missed out right now the
18:57
last 10 minutes we talked about you.
18:58
There's a lot of love and respect to your mutually from
19:00
both parties, all three of them here.
19:01
And then of course, the great Joe Rogan that started this
19:03
conversation and he also volunteered, but it ended up
19:05
being this format that we have here today.
19:07
So with that being said, Andrew, your claim is overwhelming
19:12
evidence, OK, that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk.
19:16
Opening statements. Opening comments.
19:17
Sure. So I just want to like say
19:19
something right now because he spoke before about how this is a
19:21
fair platform and this is really not fair and it's not fair
19:24
specifically for Candace. Of course, what you guys have to
19:29
understand, and this is just my personal philosophy.
19:31
If you are incapable of having a legitimate conversation and you
19:34
can only resort to like this dumb back and forth debate
19:37
debate thing where it's like you get 5 minutes, you get 5
19:40
minutes, you just aren't mature enough to really be having the
19:43
conversation. Andrew likes to do debates like
19:46
this because he knows that in that format he could play a game
19:48
where he just steam rolls and constantly talks about dumb shit
19:51
and gets away from the point instead of actually answering
19:53
things in like a conversational format.
19:55
That's what it comes down to. I've seen Candace have
19:57
conversations with people, I've never seen Andrew have
20:00
conversations with people. He's incapable of looking good
20:03
in a conversation. He has to try to debate because
20:05
he's wrong all of the time. Again, the guy who thinks women
20:09
should be thankful that they that men don't rape them is not
20:12
exactly an intelligent person, but he's good at playing the
20:16
debate game. All optics, no facts.
20:19
So yeah, keep in mind he's not a good debater.
20:22
Excuse me, he's not. He's not.
20:23
This isn't a good platform for a Candace, so if she ends up
20:26
looking good in this then he spectacularly failed.
20:30
And what I mean by overwhelming is I just find it very
20:32
convincing. That's nice.
20:34
I. Think that's what most people
20:35
mean when they say overwhelming evidence.
20:37
So I have a brief opening statement.
20:39
On September 10th, 2025, Charlie Kirk was murdered.
20:42
Yeah, many one. More day and it would have been.
20:43
Crazy. You already know a lot about the
20:45
events which occurred after Kirk's death.
20:46
You remember the ghoulish laughter, celebrations and
20:48
madness we saw from left this all over.
20:50
You mean on Twitter? Yeah, Just to be clear, when
20:53
people say this like it's on Twitter, there's like people on
20:55
Twitter saying it was shitty, but like, nobody and like no
20:57
actual mainstream person was like, ha ha, ha, ha, this is
20:59
good. Nobody was.
21:00
There are some people saying like this was terrible, but
21:02
like, let's not whitewash his history.
21:03
He's not a good person. That's one of the things I was
21:06
saying. But he never should have been
21:07
killed. I think it was terrible.
21:07
I think it was disgusting. I think that the person who did
21:09
it, that's probably Tyler Robinson should definitely be
21:12
held accountable. But people like the left wasn't
21:14
like laughing about it. You had you had people like
21:17
Charlie Kirk laughing after Nancy Pelosi's husband gotten
21:19
broken into the house, his house and beaten with a hammer.
21:22
Kirk laughed about that. He thought that was funny,
21:24
right? But it's like nobody was like
21:26
meaningfully like not a real person wasn't actually laughing.
21:29
There was it was people. It was like anonymous
21:31
individuals on Twitter. That's what it boiled down to,
21:34
OK. And conservatives did not care,
21:36
like, about those who don't really care about political
21:38
violence, right? Like, again, like Melissa Horton
21:40
was killed, like at the round the same time Kirk was a
21:42
conservative, broke into her house, shot her and her husband
21:44
to death and tried to kill her kid.
21:45
We didn't hear about that from Trump.
21:46
Why? Because he wanted to push a
21:47
narrative that they write is under attack.
21:49
This is the reality of the world that we're living in today.
21:51
Just keep in mind please. From TikTok invasions, debates,
21:55
post on social media, destruction of memorials and
21:57
things like this. Within weeks of Kirk's death,
22:00
the cottage industry began to form, peddling various
22:02
alternative theories on how he died, what special interest may
22:06
have killed him, what nations were involved, and was our own
22:09
government one of them because this was the first nationwide.
22:12
I mean, Trump didn't seem to care, right?
22:14
Like once he would decide, he has asked like less than a week
22:16
later how he's feeling about his friend Charlie Kurtine.
22:17
He's like, well, my ballroom's coming around great.
22:19
So I don't think that conservative really cared so.
22:21
Dramatic event in Gen. ZS lifetime.
22:24
The demand for answers was severe and palpable.
22:27
The leading theory from the conspiracy verse is that Israel
22:29
worked with the United States government to murder Charlie
22:32
Kirk. Within a day or two of Kirk's
22:34
death, Ian Carroll claimed that Israel killed Charlie Kirk and
22:37
the conspiracy caught on like wildfire.
22:38
This theory was built on one misleading piece of evidence
22:42
that in his final days, on around September 8th, Charlie
22:44
sent a text message reading. Jewish donors play into all the
22:47
stereotypes like. Whoa.
22:49
He's an edgelord. Cannot and will not be believed
22:52
like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel
22:54
cause. This was sent in the context of
22:56
a platforming dispute regarding Tucker Carlson.
22:59
From this scintilla of misleading information, it was
23:01
speculated that Israel killed Charlie Kirk because he would
23:03
have successfully opposed the Iranian war.
23:06
Now that's a fun theory, and who doesn't like a good fun
23:08
conspiracy theory? Maybe he would have, I don't
23:10
know. I.
23:10
Like him. But there is no evidence that
23:12
Israel actually killed Charlie Kirk, and if Candace has some,
23:14
I'd like her to actually show it to me.
23:16
I'm open to suggestions. She had a dream, dude.
23:18
And last time a black person had a dream, a famous black person,
23:20
we got one of the greatest movements in the entire world,
23:22
civil rights. Charlie didn't like the Civil
23:24
Rights Act, just to be clear. He didn't think that black
23:26
people should have gotten civil rights.
23:28
He thought that it because it went too far now, right?
23:31
So like, obviously normal people would have just said like, hey,
23:33
I think that, you know, some of the new affirmative action has
23:36
gone too far. We should stop here, maybe roll
23:37
back a little bit. Not Charlie.
23:38
He doesn't think we should have done it in the first place.
23:40
You think it went so horribly wrong.
23:41
It's a little factoid for you guys, but to date there hasn't.
23:44
Been any? There is, however, tons of
23:46
evidence that a leftist killed Charlie Kirk.
23:47
This is Charlie Fear they would, I believe.
23:49
That's crazy. Just to be clear, it wasn't it
23:51
was the person was like a leftist, sure, but the person
23:54
was a radicalized and grew up under a religious cult of
23:58
Mormonism in a very MAGA family. And like people who are like
24:02
legitimately MAGA, not just people that are like, Oh yeah, I
24:05
voted for Trump because he was better than the other two.
24:07
Legitimate MAGA people are cult members that are mentally
24:09
susceptible probably from a biological perspective to being
24:12
like basically groomed by people.
24:14
Let's be fucking real. And so this person was basically
24:18
riled up into extremism because he grew up under extremism with
24:21
probably some kind of like. Predisposition.
24:25
To being manipulated by, you know, cult, cult like entities.
24:29
Excuse me, cult like entities. Let's keep that in mind as well.
24:32
Believe Charlie Kirk. And I have the receipts.
24:35
No, I didn't have a dream. You better 'cause they're going
24:37
to check. Them when you leave Costco,
24:38
where he came to me and told. Me that the left killed him no
24:42
he didn't come to me a dream and say Candace Owens betrayed him
24:45
that never happened in fact I don't need dreams of any kind
24:47
because I hold my possession never before seen messages from
24:49
Charlie Kirk to security team on September I have dreams that my.
24:52
Daughter will come out nice and fun and I can raise her in a
24:54
world where people like Andrew Wilson are mocked because he
24:58
thinks that she should be thankful people don't rape her
25:00
because he's a disgusting piece of shit and it's insane that
25:03
conservatives are so OK with rape.
25:05
But I think that's changing, fortunately.
25:07
Number 92025. I'm going to share the message
25:10
with you today, which is the first time this information's
25:12
ever been publicly revealed. On September 9th, Charlie's
25:15
security team wrote to him. Yes, law enforcement has been
25:17
fully supportive and agreed to a security plan and posture.
25:21
Tomorrow's event will be covered by both my team and the campus
25:23
PD. If additional support is
25:25
required, patrol units will be available.
25:26
I have 11 on site. Charlie responded with this.
25:29
OK, great. Remind them.
25:31
Yeah, actually I I saw the. Text message he responded with
25:33
like a 6/7 that they are there for.
25:34
One person's security only because I'm somewhat worried the
25:38
left is trying to kill me. That was a message sent
25:42
September 9th. That's just the.
25:44
Guys that somebody would want to use, you know, you know what I
25:48
mean? Whatever could he have?
25:51
Meant by that? Well, I think he meant exactly
25:53
what he said, that he was, well just 'cause he thought.
25:56
That the left wanted to kill and listen, I think Tyler Robertson
25:59
did it. But just cause Charlie thought
26:00
the left might wanted to kill him doesn't mean that he was
26:02
correct right? I mean just to be.
26:07
Clear worried the left was going.
26:09
To try to kill him now. We'll discuss this more later on
26:11
in the debate, and maybe I have more never before seen evidence
26:14
that exposes just how wrong and in my opinion, idiotic many of
26:17
these conspiracy theories have been.
26:19
But that's what happens when you rely on what's called the
26:22
evidence of the gaps. In other words, they don't have
26:25
evidence. They seem to just make up
26:26
evidence. And what did they make up?
26:28
Well, in my opinion, kind of whatever lined the pockets so.
26:32
One of the. Problems Andrew's going to have
26:33
here is that his entire audience literally like exists within the
26:38
evidence in the gaps, right? This whole concept where if you
26:41
can't actually prove something, they will create a conspiracy
26:44
that'll explain it for them. His entire audience already
26:46
believes this. His entire audience is already
26:48
susceptible to this type of rhetoric, and it's called
26:51
religion. Sorry, but it's the reality.
26:54
God, the religion exists to answer questions that are
26:57
unanswerable, at least at the time.
26:58
That's why religion would explain things like, you know,
27:00
if the earth revolves around the sun and all these other things
27:02
that it was wrong about over and over and over again.
27:04
And that is what religion does, and that is what these people
27:07
were raised on. So this idea that, like, Candace
27:09
is so crazy for coming up with some kind of a conspiracy theory
27:12
based on the way that she feels, it's not really that crazy.
27:15
That's how she grew up. She grew up in a religious
27:17
structure that taught her to do that, that her feelings were an
27:20
expression of God. That like we need to.
27:23
Answer the unanswerable. We can't be content with not
27:25
knowing like that is something that Andrew and his audience are
27:29
susceptible to. That's why his audience probably
27:31
looks at what she says and goes, oh wait, she might be making
27:33
some sense. Some of her arguments feel good.
27:37
You kind? Of have to acknowledge that and
27:41
I think. It's ghoulish to profit off of
27:43
the. Death of a good.
27:44
Man, but he wasn't a good man. But we came here today to
27:47
debate. And so let's get to it.
27:49
The debate topic today is 1, My belief that there's overwhelming
27:51
evidence that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk.
27:53
And two, Candace's belief that there's overwhelming evidence
27:55
that Tyler Robinson was a Patsy and didn't kill Charlie Kirk.
27:58
In some, the audience is going to decide who has more evidence
28:00
supporting their theory. My theory is that the state is
28:02
correct that Tyler Robinson is a killer, at least based on
28:04
evidence so far in Kansas theory that Tyler Robinson is not the
28:07
killer and he's a Patsy set up by the feds.
28:09
To be clear, this is not a question of reasonable doubt.
28:11
If it was reasonable doubt and that's all it was and that's all
28:14
Candace was proffering, I wouldn't even be here having to
28:16
debate with her. Yes he would.
28:18
He's. Desperate to have a debate.
28:19
It's all this is how he stays relevant.
28:22
It's fair to have doubts. As the trial has yet to occur
28:25
and the state hasn't even begun to try to prove their case
28:26
beyond a reasonable doubt, but Candace makes a more forceful
28:30
claim. She.
28:31
Well, yeah, but. Hers.
28:32
Argument relies on the fact that the system is involved in it, so
28:34
it doesn't really change anything.
28:35
Claims that there's more. Evidence that Tyler's not guilty
28:37
of murder and was set up as a Patsy than there is for the
28:40
state's case. And I just think that that's
28:42
absurd and she will not be able to demonstrate that in any way.
28:45
In fact, she has almost no real evidence at all of her theory.
28:47
Whereas my theory is supported by compelling witness testimony,
28:49
physical evidence, multiple confessions, all of which are
28:52
independently compelling, but which are even more convincing
28:55
as each piece of evidence corroborates the others.
28:57
You'll notice the term overwhelming was included in
28:59
both theories. This is because Candace demanded
29:01
I defend my use of that term, which I think is fair in
29:04
describing the evidence against Tyler Robinson.
29:05
She, on the other hand, only wanted to defend her theory as
29:07
merely viable. That is, until I showed her her
29:09
clips in which she said she believed the evidence of her
29:11
theory that Tyler Robinson's a Patsy was supported by
29:14
overwhelming evidence. Only then did she agree to
29:16
defend that position. Regardless, we're both defending
29:18
the claim there's overwhelming evidence on our side, so it's
29:20
worth defining that term. When I say the evidence against
29:23
Robinson is overwhelming, all I'm saying is that I mean that.
29:25
As of right now, I find it very convincing.
29:28
I see almost no. Wow.
29:31
He's going on and on about this overwhelming thing and then he's
29:33
like, yeah, I define overwhelming as like, I think
29:35
it's true. Oh, OK.
29:37
That's not really what overwhelming means.
29:38
Overwhelming evidence would mean like every single piece points
29:41
in this direction. Not.
29:42
I find it highly plausible. Just defining it like that makes
29:45
him look stupid 'cause that's all Candace like is going off of
29:49
is like if she finds it to be possible he's.
29:52
So. Dumb evidence at all only.
29:53
Speculation on verified claims and suggestions of things that
29:56
could merely be hypothetically possible.
29:58
Dreams, vibes, feelings, things like this almost done.
30:00
By the way, I have no problem defending the States case and
30:02
welcome Candace bringing up any challenges you would like.
30:04
But if I'm honest, the reason I was willing to pay the $300,000
30:07
for this for this debate was to finally have a chance for
30:09
someone to demand Candace be held accountable for the
30:11
unbelievable theories and claims she's been making.
30:13
It's just so funny. 'Cause he's coming into this.
30:15
This is like his, this is his thing, this is his one moment to
30:17
step up, this is his rocky moment and he's coming in with
30:20
the weakest definitions for fucking words they possibly can.
30:23
Candace's investigation. Is indistinguishable from a
30:25
leftist operation. She couldn't be doing more
30:27
damage to the right if she were trying.
30:29
That's true. That.
30:30
Is true. Maybe she's just speaking facts,
30:32
I don't know. She uses her considerable.
30:34
Platform to relentlessly attack one of the most influential
30:36
conservative outreach organizations for young people.
30:38
Oh, you mean? Like conservative grooming
30:40
tactics making a mockery of the. Online right wing commentary
30:42
class. She's harming Republicans in the
30:44
election year by dividing them. She's attacking the very
30:46
organization Charlie spent his life building, and she's
30:48
attacking the people he loved, including his wife.
30:50
And they cost me $300,000. I don't think that they really.
30:52
I think that they were in like a lavender marriage.
30:54
I think they were both gay. But you know, I think it's a
30:56
beautiful thing. But she's definitely is giving
30:57
like autistic lesbian. I think it's fantastic.
31:00
By the way, you know dollars, but.
31:02
Today I hope that she find the answers for some of that.
31:05
Thank you, Andrew. Candace, did you get it out of
31:06
your system? I did OK, great.
31:08
Well. I'm not going to waste time with
31:10
the. Preamble because I think I just
31:11
want to get to the substance of the debate and I will just speak
31:13
to the audience. I've obviously had an audience
31:16
since, so this is what this. Is what they're pretty much when
31:18
she's like, I don't really want to do the preamble bullshit.
31:20
What she's saying is like, oh, she doesn't want to have the
31:21
debate. This is like Andrew's idea
31:23
because he refuses to do it outside of that.
31:24
But he's paying 300 grand, so why not?
31:26
Why not? Hey, I'll take it.
31:28
Let's go to Disney baby. We've been covering.
31:30
This case, people know that there was a personal friendship
31:32
between me and Charlie and diminishing the pursuit of
31:36
something that makes sense regarding what happened on
31:38
September 10th by throwing it to this is just people who are
31:41
conspiracy theorists. These are people who are just
31:43
trying to generate clicks. I I don't think that people
31:46
should be satisfied by that. I want people to remember that
31:48
it's important to think we've been lied to by the government a
31:50
great many times over. I mean, just the last couple of
31:53
years, if you just think of the things that we've learned about
31:55
our government and, yeah, that Trump's running.
31:57
It I do want to say this. What's been the most disturbing
32:00
element, I think for everyone is that not only does the narrative
32:02
not make any sense, which I'm going to demonstrate, I need to
32:04
waste time at the preamble going through the points or trying to
32:06
insult you or pretending that I've been running the podcast
32:08
saying it's just dreams and vibes, like I'm Miss Cleo and
32:10
that's the reason why it's taking so many influencers.
32:12
It looks like a billion dollar industry of influencers to
32:15
dispute everything Candace says. It's not because I'm on my
32:17
platform saying I had a dream last night.
32:19
I don't think that that I think that diminishes you as as an
32:21
argument. Obviously we have presented a
32:23
lot of evidence. You just presented a text
32:24
message and said this is evidence.
32:25
Well, that's how this entire thing began.
32:27
You're talking about how Israel got into the conversation.
32:29
It was because immediately after Charlie died, one of the first
32:32
things we saw was this push to make us all think and remember
32:35
how much he loved Israel. It's because the Prime Minister
32:37
of Israel who's fighting like a 27 front war.
32:39
Well, I'm pretty sure he. Did love Israel Like even if he
32:42
even if the argument is that he was going to.
32:47
He was going to like be. Advocate against the war in
32:49
Iran. That doesn't mean that he didn't
32:50
love Israel. I mean the guy loved Israel so
32:53
felt that he needed. To come do a little mini tour
32:54
and to be strangely to to state that I did not kill Charlie
32:58
Kirk. But nobody was having that
33:00
thought that I can remember. Nobody was going.
33:01
I wonder if Bibi Netanyahu killed Charlie Kirk and then we
33:04
had a round of influencers who lied and said Charlie was not
33:09
changing on Israel, that he wasn't having any disagreements
33:12
regarding that topic, that the day he died, he just loved
33:14
Israel so much. And I demonstrated via text
33:16
message, which you just mentioned, and you're now
33:18
contextualizing and retending. It was just about Tucker
33:20
Carlson, which is is not true. It was a part of a broader shift
33:23
that Charlie was having over the last.
33:25
I would say actually on your show, it began since October
33:28
7th, which is when I began asking myself more questions
33:30
about Israel as well. And so, yeah, when all of these
33:34
things happen in the immediate aftermath, and then I drop a
33:35
text message after everyone is denying that, Tucker Carlson
33:38
then comes out and confirms the conversations that he had with
33:39
Charlie. Megyn Kelly then comes out and
33:41
confirms the private conversations that she had with
33:43
Charlie. People then begin to ask a
33:45
reasonable question, which is why are we lying about this?
33:48
Shout out to Megyn Kelly. For talking about how the
33:50
Epstein victims were actually like 15 and that's not really a
33:53
child. So shout out and and Nick Fun
33:55
does it too, but shout out to Megyn Kelly for that one.
33:57
If they were. Forthcoming with that and they
33:59
had said, hey, yeah, Charlie was starting to ask questions.
34:02
I think after October 7th, it's reasonable that people are
34:05
starting to re examine our relationship.
34:06
I don't think about. After October 7th, it's more
34:08
like like a couple of months after October 7th and the the
34:11
response became so disproportionate.
34:12
People started to question like, you know, what was really going
34:15
on with Israel. We wouldn't be here today, but
34:18
it has been lie after lie after lie, debunk after debunk after
34:21
debunk. Yes, I did share that I had a
34:23
dream that Charlie was betrayed. It's not a dream anymore, it's a
34:26
reality. I look at what the organization
34:27
has become, the people that they are partnering with, the lies
34:29
that they are telling, like Andrew Wilson, the.
34:31
Right guy, the extraordinary. People that they're sending out
34:33
to say that I never, I hadn't speak to Charlie since 2018.
34:36
And it begins look like a conspiracy.
34:38
And just as a historical fact, that entire term was created by
34:41
the CIA to gaslight people after the assassination of JFK.
34:43
So it's not exactly one that makes me nervous.
34:46
Like calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is
34:47
essentially saying that they demand for their answers.
34:50
They're not accepting the Fed slop.
34:51
So and the Fed. Slop.
34:54
All right, we got new words. Grateful that you came today.
34:56
I don't need to, like I said, take cheap shots and discuss
34:59
your manner of debate or your strategy.
35:00
And I'm also grateful that you shared that you have a text
35:02
message today because everybody watching knows that I have been
35:05
demanding not a debate, just a open conversation with Turning
35:08
Point USA. They should be here.
35:09
It shouldn't be you in that chair.
35:10
It should be the person that took Charlie's place.
35:11
Maybe Erica Kirk, maybe Andrew Kolbat.
35:12
He's a spokesperson. And rather than doing that, they
35:15
send us another influencer. So damn, she's.
35:18
Really putting that tie there. But again, he did.
35:19
He was working for them. Let's see how it goes.
35:23
Just out of curiosity. Are you between zero to 100?
35:25
What is the likely that you think Tyler Robinson shot
35:27
Charlie Kirk and killed him based on the evidence right now?
35:31
I don't know. I'd say 7585% right there.
35:33
So like. Right there, he's losing he just
35:35
like he's losing the debate. Right now based.
35:39
On the evidence, I If you were so convinced that it was Tyler
35:42
Robinson, why wouldn't you say like 100%?
35:44
Of course, it's ridiculous to say otherwise.
35:47
Why would like? Why?
35:48
Like that 15% is so much more than Candace Owens and hit her
35:53
audience, which definitely overlaps what Andrews needs.
35:56
Why wouldn't you say oh 100% like it definitely was him.
35:58
That there's no no doubt in my fucking mind.
36:01
I'll save you a .01% chance that it's it wasn't him just in case,
36:06
but Nope. 80. 5%, dude, that's, that's an insanely high number
36:13
given the circumstances, in my opinion.
36:15
So, Candace. 0%. 0%, I'm at 0 with what we've seen in terms of
36:20
the evidence. Look at that.
36:21
Like right? Now this is a debate.
36:22
This isn't like a fact conversation.
36:25
Do you see that she has? Conviction in her perspective.
36:28
Andrew Wilson doesn't dude, he's coming in here.
36:30
He has he's overwhelming, but 85% what a weak guy I'm.
36:35
At 0%, so not not. Only you know that maybe
36:38
somebody was behind him as a Patsy influencing him.
36:40
You're not even saying that he didn't even shoot Charlie Kirk
36:42
if you said? Was he involved that day?
36:44
As I have consistently said on my platform, I would say yes, he
36:46
was. I, I don't know what role he
36:47
played, but as the shooter, 0%. Do you have any evidence?
36:51
For what? My percentage that he didn't.
36:54
He didn't shoot and kill Charlie Kirk, yes, which I'm hoping.
36:56
We're going to get to all of the evidence that he feels that he
36:58
has. I mean, I don't, I'm not even
36:59
convinced that Charlie was shot from the rooftop on Losi that
37:03
day. Based on the evidence that has
37:04
been, you think he was shot? I I.
37:07
Do not think that Charlie was shot from a 30.6 from Losi.
37:11
I don't. I don't.
37:12
Know, I think that a projectile hit Charlie and I'm open to I
37:15
guess you shot by. Something other people's
37:17
presentations. But I have not seen any
37:19
compelling evidence that Charlie was shot by a 30 odd 6.
37:21
Can we see maybe if? We're going to have an olive
37:23
branch to each other if maybe we can establish what we consider
37:26
the facts of the case to be for. Yeah, Sure.
37:29
OK, So you don't you're not sure if he was actually shot?
37:33
You're open to alternative theories?
37:34
He was definitely. Hit with a projectile of some
37:36
description. If we're talking about was he
37:37
shot from a gun, a 30 out six, I would say definitively no.
37:42
It defies, it defies common sense to think that he had a
37:44
Superman neck. And even if he did have a
37:46
Superman neck, which has been demonstrated, well, that's a
37:48
Superman. Neck, I think, actually.
37:50
Recently a YouTube actually set up Spellhalla steel cages and
37:54
shot it and it went through. So under no circumstance while I
37:57
so at least not a. 30 ought. 6 definitively not.
37:59
A 30 ought six 150 feet, but you're not necessarily.
38:02
Closing off the avenue. I find it so funny that like.
38:04
You there's these conspiracy theories that like other
38:06
countries did these things, but they left.
38:07
Like why? Why would they leave so many
38:09
loopholes? Like it doesn't really make too
38:13
much sense to me because like, wouldn't they these these areas
38:16
have control over the police or whatever.
38:19
Oh, they have control over the police.
38:20
So they didn't have them in the right spot.
38:21
And this guy was able to go here and then we, you know, I don't
38:24
know, it's whatever. I knew that he could.
38:26
Have been shot at all with maybe a smaller.
38:28
Smaller caliber. OK.
38:29
And then there's some things that I'm going to make in
38:32
sessions on that I do think we need more answers on and I'm
38:34
fine with that and we can get to those things as well.
38:36
The other thing is in the timeline, one of the things that
38:39
we disputed, I think on the timeline is that you think that
38:43
Robinson drove hours away to a steakhouse in the timeline.
38:47
Is that correct? OK.
38:48
And what's the compelling evidence that you think you have
38:50
there? I spoke.
38:51
To the owner of the restaurant and I I've seen the receipt, I
38:56
know the conversation that I had and OK, apparently the.
38:59
Doctor said that the Charlie had the neck of a seal.
39:01
I can't read today. TLDR doctors said that Charlie
39:04
just had a neck of steel cause the bullet lodge.
39:07
I don't know if it's credible but that was what they had
39:09
floating around. OK I have no idea.
39:11
Interesting. I think it's enough that.
39:12
You know it will be presented obviously if this goes to trial.
39:15
But yes I do believe that he was in Penguin which is near his
39:18
grandparents home. Did he give you an unedited?
39:20
Copy of that receipt I have seen an unedited.
39:22
Copy a copy of that receipt was not given to me from the owner,
39:24
but I want to before you we get into like all the timeline
39:26
stuff, I want to address what you think is evidence so we can
39:28
keep this on par with what your claim is since well, I think
39:30
that that's a. Piece of evidence it's in
39:31
dispute and that's why I'm yeah but we're we're we're.
39:34
Trying to get to whether there's overwhelming evidence that Tyler
39:36
Robinson did this or whether then starting with if you want
39:38
to use the first part. Of that for the internal, yeah,
39:40
but we should go. Over the actual evidence that we
39:42
feel the first reason that I. Think, and I think it's
39:44
compelling evidence is that Tyler Robinson's rifle was found
39:48
near the crime scene. So I would consider that to be
39:51
very good evidence. And also the fact of the matter
39:53
is is that I dispute this claim that a 30 odd six could not have
39:56
made this wound. I think that that's absurd 150
39:59
grain. Well, he would.
40:00
I know. That because he was in the
40:01
military for about a year. If you guys remember that, you
40:03
know Remington Corelocks. Absolutely.
40:05
He did have a pretty. Big neck.
40:07
It's true, he could shatter. When it hits the neck of any
40:10
human being, when you say that there's some steel neck and it's
40:12
a smaller caliber, you have to make a counter explanation.
40:14
Why wouldn't a smaller caliber also go through bone?
40:16
It could. I didn't say it can't.
40:17
Right, exactly so if. That's the case then.
40:20
He's already getting loud. He's already getting worked up.
40:22
Ammunition is. Going to be the critical key
40:24
here and if we have frangible ammunition, which we do in this
40:26
case, a flex tip round when I'm sorry, not a flex tip, a soft
40:29
point round, 150 grand Remington core lock.
40:31
That's just a small jacket that goes around the actual lead
40:34
piece. This thing could have split
40:36
apart in air for all we know, but definitely upon impact.
40:39
And we have the medical examiner who confirms this in a summary.
40:41
My team can bring that up, the summarization, which means he
40:43
would have to be a part of some kind of conspiracy as well.
40:46
OK, so. Just to start with your point
40:48
about saying that the gun was found near him, I mean near Lozi
40:52
Center or I guess off in the woods that gun.
40:55
Did you watch the the testimony? Did you?
40:57
I'm did you watch appealing here?
40:58
OK, so forgetting what the summary of the medical report
41:00
was, did you watch the testimony that was given by the Caitlin
41:04
Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha Carner, any of those people who
41:07
went into the science of yes, I, I.
41:09
Don't know why if they're going to do this.
41:11
Conspiracy. Why would they use a different
41:12
caliber of bullet than was inside of him?
41:14
It does not make sense. Paul, you're talking?
41:16
About bullet analysis, yeah. When they went into the DNA.
41:18
OK, so that's. Kind of the most relevant part,
41:20
I'm not denying, I've never denied on my platform or
41:22
anywhere else that a gun owned by Taylor Robinson was found
41:25
near the crime scene, right? That doesn't, that doesn't
41:27
remove if you think somebody set up as a Patsy, I you could take
41:30
a gun out of this room right now and you could walk out and plant
41:32
it in the woods near a crime scene.
41:33
That's not convincing evidence. I concur.
41:35
I concur. With the fact that that's a
41:36
possibility, so you are. You, I think have said in a
41:39
platform that you were gunsmith. OK.
41:41
And for how many years? Many, many years.
41:43
For many years. You many, many years I.
41:45
Just feel like that's not true. So you also.
41:47
Said that you were an Army sniper.
41:49
I wasn't a sniper in the. Army OK and I never said that.
41:51
Sorry your wife tweeted that. You were an Army sniper.
41:52
Yeah, I don't know. Like 15 years ago she said
41:55
something. Why?
41:55
What would she lie? About why would she lie like
41:57
that? She was 15 years later.
41:59
She said that it was colloquial. So army sniper is a colloquial.
42:02
Term. Yeah, I'm not an I.
42:03
Was never an army. What the fuck does it?
42:05
Mean. It's a colloquial term
42:06
neighborhood. What did?
42:07
You do in the army. Did you teach this?
42:08
She then I corrected it and said you taught rifles in the army,
42:10
not No I didn't. Teach rifle?
42:12
No, I taught rifles. It's just an everyday.
42:14
Term to call him a sniper. That's bullshit, private
42:17
citizen. What?
42:18
And I was an NRA. Instructor for many many, many
42:21
years alongside my my gunshot with your.
42:23
Expertise. So basically.
42:25
We. Just found out that Andrew and
42:26
his wife are lying about him being in the military.
42:28
OK cool. When?
42:29
She. That's what's.
42:31
Going to be a little. More damaging here is that like
42:34
Candace is subtle in her insults and she just cast out and she
42:37
doesn't have to like affirm it. Like she's not going to push him
42:39
hard on that point. She's going to bring it up.
42:41
She's going to get him to talk. She's going to be like
42:43
interesting and then move on. But now people already are like,
42:45
what the fuck? This guy's an idiot.
42:46
She doesn't like for Andrew, his audience is like very they
42:50
needed to be beaten into their head this idea, but like no,
42:54
everybody else is like, oh, that's weird.
42:56
That's a weird thing. Waves to this.
42:58
Oh no, it's just like a everyday use term.
43:00
Be calling somebody a sniper as an everyday use term.
43:02
What the fuck are we talking about?
43:03
Testimony on. The stand Samantha Carner that
43:06
there was dust and there was debris that was found in the gun
43:11
barrel. And then when we had the person
43:14
who and this was I believe Caitlin Oliver, who explained
43:18
painfully about the DNA the Prince.
43:20
Well, let's start with a I'm not done.
43:21
You you said something, so I'm going to finish my thought
43:23
right. You don't do a point in time.
43:24
No. Well, sure, if you want to
43:25
respond. He's just trying.
43:26
So what's? Happening right now is like he's
43:28
doing a thing. He's trying to get her to like
43:30
get like forget where she was in in place.
43:32
He just he does this all the time.
43:33
He knows that he's like really weak on this and then he looks
43:35
like fuck it, like a moron. So now he's just like, oh, he
43:39
wants to he wants to move on from the point.
43:40
I want to respond to two points. I.
43:41
Want I want you to start with two points, dust and debris in
43:44
the gun barrel. Secondly, the fact that there
43:46
were five sets of prints, 5 plus actually in the testimony, 5
43:50
sets of prints for which we already had the woman who worked
43:53
for the FBI. Forensics testify that above 2
43:55
prints, if you're taking a sample it it's no longer a
43:58
science, right. She testified that when they
44:00
took the sample of what was on the trigger, they saw five plus
44:03
prints and among those five plus prints, Tyler Robinson's.
44:06
Buy some paw prints because. I imagine Tyler Robinson was
44:08
like a furry was the most. Degraded.
44:11
So I would like you to explain how Tyler Robinson's prints
44:14
could be the most degraded when she said actually you could have
44:17
DNA on something that you've touched.
44:19
You could have DNA on something that you've never touched.
44:20
And to get DNA degradation, we've they've looked at pieces
44:24
of items 2040 years on that don't have degradation.
44:27
Yeah, Tyler Robinson's Prince amongst 5 plus other Prince and
44:31
maybe he just. Tried to scrub them off
44:33
honestly. Like maybe that's what he did
44:35
the most degraded on that. Weapon.
44:36
Yeah, so let's get into. All three of the claims first
44:38
with debris when it comes to debris firing rifle doesn't
44:40
always blow the debris out of the barrel.
44:42
OK, that. I, I, you think there could be
44:44
debris? I'm sorry.
44:46
Debris and dust. He just fired the weapon, not
44:49
that he left it in forest. Now I don't know if if you agree
44:52
with me but maybe a bear pissed on.
44:54
It if you leave a rifle. In a wooded area it's also
44:57
possible that debris could get in that way, but I'm not even
44:59
sure that that's what the case is.
45:00
I think it's far more likely that you fired the shot, it just
45:03
didn't blow the debris out and it often doesn't.
45:05
You'll find this if you if you take Grand Pappy's.
45:07
I looked it up and. Apparently he's just wrong.
45:09
Apparently firing a shot does blow debris out of a weapon.
45:11
I don't know what he's talking about.
45:13
You know, dirty. Rifle.
45:15
And it's all dusty inside the board.
45:16
You go fire it. You often look down the board
45:18
and there's still dust. OK, Happens all the time.
45:19
OK, And the Prince? I don't know if that's true.
45:21
But OK, yeah, so the Prince. We don't know all of the details
45:24
on just yet. We do.
45:25
It was. It was.
45:26
Excruciatingly long. We testimony on the Prince.
45:28
We don't because they haven't. Gone to trial so we don't know
45:31
on the print front, but Tyler Robinson's DNA was on there.
45:33
You made a claim that Lance Twig's DNA was on there and it
45:35
was not well when she. Gave the testimony no first,
45:37
let's go to your first point. That's wrong we can get a Fact
45:39
Check on that what do you mean we don't know until it goes to
45:41
trial about the degraded Prince. She testified and she was the
45:43
person who took the prints. Yes, but the.
45:44
Problem is, is that inside of this particular testimony, you
45:47
agree with me that there's going to be much more of the DNA
45:49
analysis on trial, right? But you.
45:50
Also would agree that her fact is not going to change that
45:53
among the Prince, his was the most degradedest.
45:54
I'm asking you to address that. How could that be possible?
45:56
Let's give it. Let's just grant this for a
45:58
second as a he's going to grant it.
46:00
Because he can't fight against it.
46:01
So we're like, we'll pretend it's true.
46:03
The possibility that his. Fingerprints were degraded.
46:05
It's not a possibility. It's a fact.
46:06
The person who took who took it. I'm just granting it for the
46:08
sake of. Argument.
46:08
You should grant it because. It's a fact that she.
46:10
Presented he's pushing she's. Pushing correctly because he
46:13
doesn't really know what to do with this information.
46:15
He, I, he, I doubt he even watched what she's talking about
46:18
to even counter it or contest it.
46:20
And so he said, well, let's just grant it's true this way.
46:22
Now moving forward, people will have a casting doubt in it and
46:24
she's like, no, it is true and she's like reinforcing it.
46:26
It's smart. Granted, So what?
46:29
What does that prove? It proves.
46:31
That if his Prince were the most degraded amongst 5 of them.
46:35
You're going to have to explain how that's possible if he's the
46:37
one that recently fired the weapon.
46:39
Yeah, so. Wait a second, you're saying
46:41
that it's an impossibility? That if his fingerprints are the
46:43
most degraded? I'm telling you to explain it.
46:45
You're the you're the gunsmith. Wait a second.
46:46
How would? He won't.
46:47
He's just going to. Keep restating what she said
46:48
because he doesn't know what to say.
46:49
He's stalling for time and trying to figure out a way to
46:51
counter it. The gunsmith give an.
46:52
Analysis on fingerprints or DNA. Do you think that I work in the
46:55
DNA laboratory? So your answer is I.
46:57
Don't know. You can just say you don't know.
46:58
You don't have to, but I did. But I did.
47:00
No, you said So what So say I don't know.
47:01
I actually don't have an explanation for that, Candace.
47:04
Well, I think that what it would prove is that it is a more
47:07
viable theory that people who had stronger on the gun may have
47:11
used it more recently. Did they tell?
47:12
Did they say who? Else had fingerprint they named.
47:14
Matt Robinson explicitly and then and this was a part of the
47:18
testimony where she was speaking about.
47:19
See, he didn't. He didn't.
47:20
Watch it how they got. Samples of elimination samples
47:23
from the home of Amber Robinson, Matt Robinson and Lance Twigs.
47:27
Those are the three names they named.
47:28
So are you saying that Twigs? Would you like me to finish my?
47:30
Statement I'm trying to finish the answer but it can't be
47:33
clarified until the answer comes out of my mouth.
47:34
OK, so this was a portion of her testimony where she was
47:37
explaining how they got elimination sample from the home
47:40
and she named Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson and Lance Twigs
47:43
as the elimination samples that she was using.
47:45
And so she explicitly said, she said some of them some.
47:47
So we can assume two out of the three were their prints were
47:51
found on the gun. She's explicitly named Matt
47:53
Robinson as someone who had prints on the gun and then said
47:56
there were five people that they had taken that sample from.
47:59
And again, what's also relevant here is the earlier testimony
48:03
which came from the FBI for maybe, maybe his.
48:07
Prints were degraded from it because he had like he was
48:09
jacking off and so like a little bit of combo on his hand.
48:11
So not all of like the you know what I mean?
48:13
Does that make sense? It it doesn't, but I have no
48:15
idea. Forensics analyst, I believe.
48:16
It was on day 2 where she said that when you're using those
48:19
mixtures and those samples and you get up to five plus, it's
48:22
really hard to make any sort of a determination.
48:23
So both of those things are relevant.
48:25
If you can't explain why his prints are the most degraded and
48:28
you're saying he is the shooter, it's not really a So what?
48:30
It's an open-ended question that people have.
48:32
I suppose so. A right to pursue.
48:33
It's not a. Conspiracy.
48:34
It's actually proof of my claim that there's evidence that he
48:37
was set up as a Patsy. That wouldn't prove.
48:39
Anything about him being a Patsy, they said it's evidence.
48:42
To support the claim that he could have been set up as a
48:45
Patsy. So This is why.
48:46
I said earlier, So what? Because even if it's the case,
48:48
this doesn't have an explanation for it yet.
48:50
That doesn't actually give you any evidence in your corner for
48:52
Tyler Robinson being a Patsy, OK?
48:54
I kind of. Does I mean, I don't know if
48:56
what she's saying is true if the and I don't know if this is
48:58
true, but if if the evidence is that degraded.
49:04
Like. Why?
49:05
Why like that? If it wouldn't his be the least
49:08
degraded? I don't know.
49:09
Maybe oil from other people's hands fucked something up.
49:12
I don't know. Hang on.
49:13
Hang on, I. Didn't cut you off right?
49:15
You would need to actually explain how this would
49:17
demonstrate Tyler Robinson. This just tied into to Robinson
49:20
being a patchy. Are you claiming that these
49:22
fingerprints were Lance twigs or that he had any DNA there?
49:24
I I'm saying. That it could be Matt Robinson,
49:26
it could be Amber Robinson. That sort of information is
49:28
going to come out during the trial.
49:29
How could that tie into? The idea that he's a patchy
49:31
though, because if his is the most.
49:31
Degraded Prince and the information that I shared on my
49:33
platform is true that this gun was given to Tyler Robinson as
49:36
an heirloom. I had conversation with members
49:38
of the Robinson family, Twigs family, both of them.
49:41
You know, like I said, we're not just dreaming.
49:43
Wouldn't that make sense, that. They would give her like
49:45
misleading information potentially to try to like get
49:47
him off or something like. The.
49:50
But OK. And if we're having.
49:51
Those conversations and they told me that that gun was only
49:54
given to Tyler Robinson because it was a family heirloom.
49:56
OK, So it was his grandfather's gun or great grandfather's gun.
49:58
I don't remember the difference. I don't remember which one it
50:00
was. And so he got it because he's
50:01
the first born. So.
50:02
But he's not much of A shooter, is what I was told.
50:04
OK. I mean, I guess.
50:05
One of the answers, Maybe he was wearing gloves, wouldn't that
50:08
degrade the DN? Like maybe maybe they all
50:10
touched the gun, but Tyler Robertson put a glove on this
50:12
time so his original fingerprints were more degraded.
50:14
But these or the DNA, not fingerprints, I don't know,
50:17
maybe that's the answer. And.
50:21
So he has this because he inherited it essentially.
50:23
So if I get something for my grandpa and I put it up on the
50:25
shelf and I own this, you could see that could be how do we get
50:27
to the Patsy? Part if you don't let me.
50:29
Ever get to the end of the sentence?
50:30
So how can we get to the Patsy part if I can't?
50:32
Get to the end of the sentence. Doesn't that?
50:33
Make sense though? Like like let's say four people
50:35
touched a gun, like I'm the first one to touch it and then
50:38
like you touch it then blah, blah, blah, blah, blah like over
50:39
the period of weeks and then like I use gloves this time to
50:41
touch it. Wouldn't that reduce you?
50:44
Like that might not degrade fingerprints, but that would not
50:46
set new fingerprints, right? So that could be a reasonable.
50:48
Explanation as to why there was dust in the barrel, because he
50:51
doesn't often shoot this weapon and he is indeed a Fisher.
50:53
And it could also be a reasonable explanation for why
50:55
we have Matt Robinson's prints on this.
50:57
Obviously Lance Twigs, even if he has prints on things, they
50:59
live together, that doesn't really mean anything, but that
51:01
could demonstrate that somebody took his weapon and put it
51:04
somewhere. His prints are the most
51:05
degraded. Somebody else's Prince there.
51:07
There's more presence of somebody else's Prince and that
51:09
could demonstrate that somebody is taking items from his house
51:11
and putting it into very, but also to demonstrate.
51:13
Nothing. So the problem the problem that
51:14
you have here is that this is the the problem that.
51:16
Andrew has here is that Andrew can't provide a counter argument
51:20
other than, well, doesn't mean that you're right, right.
51:22
Like if you were if you were asked this question, like again,
51:24
you might answer like, well, maybe he was wearing gloves this
51:26
time and the original degradation was from his like
51:29
his DNA from five years ago or something, whatever.
51:31
And that's why he's like, right. Like a counter argument.
51:33
What's the what is the potential counter argument?
51:35
I mean, this is the guy that pretends that he was a sniper in
51:37
the fucking military when he wasn't, but he didn't teach at
51:40
the NRAI guess for a day. I don't know what what the fuck
51:42
that means. So, like, why wouldn't you be
51:46
like, yeah, you know what? Maybe it was this that would
51:48
make the most sense. All right, pure conjecture.
51:51
This is hang on, this is not my wife gave me a donut.
51:54
Evidence. That Tyler Robinson is a patchy.
51:57
It's only evidence that you have conjectured up that.
52:00
Well if it's the case that these are the more degraded prints
52:03
then therefore that means must be Patsy cause parents finger
52:08
dad's fingerprints on gun. Describe how this actually links
52:11
in to Robinson being a Patsy. So.
52:14
Again what? What you'd want to do is you'd
52:16
want to propose like a counter. You'd want to propose a counter
52:20
argument like, oh, maybe it was this.
52:21
He just can't do it because he's fucking dumb as shit.
52:23
Just describe that for. You so I'm not I can explain.
52:25
Andrew doesn't have on the fly. Arguments.
52:26
Everything that Andrew comes up with, he comes up with like
52:29
fucking five years before he said he's a dialogue tree.
52:32
He does dialogue tree, so he can't come up with something on
52:34
the fly that seems like plausible.
52:36
Everything that he says is always pre planned.
52:39
That's it. That's all it is, but I.
52:41
Can't understand it for you, so I'm going to move on from that.
52:43
But to just go back to your point about this is not
52:45
evidence. You can't make that claim
52:47
because you're the entire basis for why you think that there is
52:49
evidence for Tyler Robinson being the person that took the
52:51
shot is based off of a hearing under Utah eleven O 2 rules,
52:54
meaning that they are doing the exact same thing that I am
52:56
doing. This is the state.
52:57
You said you're here to represent the state.
52:58
Well, did you watch the preliminary hearing say I was
53:00
here to represent? The state, The state's position,
53:01
you think? Is strong and convincing.
53:02
What I'm here to do is represent.
53:04
My own opinion, which is your opening statement based this is.
53:07
Another debate, the tactic from Andrew Wilson, when you pin him
53:10
down on his point, which is totally reasonable.
53:12
Yeah. You're debating the the state's
53:13
perspective, which is true. No, actually.
53:15
Well, actually, well, he will never like, he will never let
53:17
you pin him down on anything at all.
53:20
He plays the game because he knows he has weak perspectives.
53:23
Like when he talks about morality, he's like, what's your
53:25
moral code? And then he'll be like, well,
53:26
what's yours? I'm going to have to tell you
53:27
until I can get you pinned down on yours.
53:29
He believe. He believes in God, which is
53:30
fine. But like, you believe in
53:31
something that's unprovable. You believe in a magical Jewish
53:34
wizard that does party jerks. That's totally cool.
53:37
You know, we're thinking about hiring somebody like that for,
53:39
for my mother in You can't pin him down because he's just going
53:47
to like, quote a book, which is basically the rough Raft of Lord
53:49
of the Rings. This is fucking.
53:53
I'm being silly. But like, this is the game that
53:55
he plays. What's up on the?
53:58
Evidence presented so far by the State.
54:00
The State has presented evidence.
54:02
Under Utah's eleven O 2 rule, this doesn't demonstrate any.
54:04
Patch No, that's very important. Because that rule is hearsay.
54:07
So you can't say at the same time you're not allowed to.
54:09
And, and what that means under the Utah rule, which I'm sure
54:11
you know because I'm sure you watch the preliminary hearing
54:13
and yourself understand what that means is that the entire
54:15
hearing was hearsay. It means none of that
54:17
information that was presented is going to be allowed.
54:19
The majority of it, the overwhelming majority of it is
54:21
is not going to be allowed at the trial.
54:22
They're allowed to present when it's just a probative hearing.
54:24
I don't think all the evidence that.
54:25
Was that was put in? Was hearsay, but not.
54:28
Only that. No, no.
54:29
No, that's this is a huge. Point I want to.
54:31
This is crazy. Let me call for a.
54:32
Fact Check. Yeah, we need more than a back
54:33
check this. Was of course.
54:34
Of course it's not. Of course, he didn't watch any.
54:37
Of this he. Thinks this is a slam.
54:40
Dunk, he's dumb as shit because. Every single day.
54:42
Utah Rule 1102. They didn't go there, so they.
54:44
Said they had. There's a medical examiner's
54:46
explanation of the shooting. It doesn't.
54:48
Matter whether Candace is right or wrong, she is so educated on
54:52
her like theory which I would say is a conspiracy theory.
54:55
You can't just walk into this. It would have been better to
54:58
just like, let her burn herself out.
55:00
But this is for but Andrew. Andrew was doing two things.
55:04
One thing Andrew is doing is he wants clout #2 is like,
55:07
definitely like Erica Kirk told him to do this as like a way to
55:12
be to defend the situation because they think he's such a
55:15
good debater. That's why they hired him as a.
55:20
Debate coach for their fucking idiots at TBUSA.
55:22
But I guarantee that Charlie wouldn't have been dumb enough
55:24
to fucking hire this moron. He's a low cow.
55:27
The only reason Andrew looked good was because like again,
55:31
everybody on the right was like galvanized and they weren't
55:33
criticizing each other even if they hated each other.
55:35
That's changed now. The right has the narrative.
55:38
So. That's in the back.
55:40
Rob, if you want to pull it up and then Candace, if anybody
55:43
from your team wants to pull something up, no problem as
55:44
well, but they're requesting it. If you guys got it, pull it up
55:47
so we can show it and and the interim can't.
55:49
Is that it? So I'll read.
55:51
This just what are we looking at just so we know.
55:53
Yeah, so the. This says the bullet, or at
55:55
least part of it, sequentially perforated the interior left of
55:58
Mr. Kirk's neck strap muscles of the left side of the neck.
56:00
This is a summary by the way. Left common cartoid on the left
56:04
internal external jugular veins. The bullet also obliterated the
56:08
left side. C27 vertebrae transacted the
56:10
cervical spinal cord. Medical examiner observed a
56:13
significant portion of Kirk's cervical spinal cord was
56:15
traumatically absent. Mr. Kirk suffered from other
56:17
severe injuries including bilateral apical and posterior
56:20
intercausal hemorrhages, pulmonary apical hemorrhages,
56:24
multiple disruptions to the thyroid, etcetera, etcetera.
56:26
So there the summary of Yeah. You know, thyroid.
56:30
Problems. It's a very feminine thing to
56:32
have right the examinations. That he was shot, OK, That was
56:34
what they were pulling that up, OK, And I don't.
56:36
I'm not disputing that he could have been hit with a projectile.
56:39
I we're not disputing that, so I don't know why this is brought
56:40
up as a Fact Check. It's true.
56:43
That's. What she established.
56:44
Could you bring up 11 O? 2 Utah rule 'cause this is an
56:46
unbelievable point that you're making by saying that I am not
56:48
allowed to infer off of evidence you can infer I'm.
56:51
Trying to follow the inference but your your.
56:52
Entire reason like you, you asserted that you believe
56:54
there's overwhelming evidence on the basis of what we saw in the
56:57
preliminary hearing. The entire preliminary hearing
56:59
was hearsay. Yeah, I'm fine with your.
57:01
Inferences, but no, you just literally.
57:03
Said I couldn't do that. Yes, I can.
57:04
No I didn't. I'm just.
57:05
Saying from your inference, how do we get to Patsy?
57:07
This is. How you got to shooter, the
57:08
Tyler Robinson did it the same way you got to Tyler Shooter
57:11
from that, Yes, you did. You, you, you.
57:12
I mean that is. True.
57:14
You got to Tyler Robinson's is the shooter based on this
57:16
information. So I mean, he's not wrong, dude,
57:19
She's doing a great job. I you know, I think she's wrong,
57:22
but you know what, dude, she's got a point.
57:26
This is something important. So we should pull up a Fact
57:28
Check about what the eleven O 2 Utah under their constitution,
57:31
because all we really saw is. The video of him getting hit by
57:33
something. That's the only like.
57:36
Thing that we've all seen like we'll say first hand, I mean
57:39
it's through a video, but you understand my point.
57:41
So everything else is like hey, what are they saying about it?
57:43
OK, well they said this about it, so I think this right.
57:46
For the sake of a. Preliminary hearing, they do not
57:49
have to have hard evidence, they don't have to put people on the
57:51
trials where they have to. But no, no, that's why the
57:53
entire hearing was basically hearsay officer back, but not
57:55
all of it like I. Said the overwhelming.
57:58
Majority. I mean out.
58:01
Side of the. One that you don't, that you
58:02
don't want to give. These are coming off.
58:04
Outside of no. That is what's in dispute.
58:05
It means that your entire brand of saying you don't have
58:08
evidence, you don't have evidence falls apart when the
58:10
entire preliminary hearing is based off of hearsay.
58:12
In fact, Lance's testimony before they had about an hour
58:15
debate, actually maybe it was more than an hour debate before
58:17
he sat and they said this is not going to be allowed.
58:18
You wouldn't even be allowed to do this.
58:20
We'd be able to cross examine him.
58:21
The questions that they're asking Lance are all leading.
58:23
And what did he say? Well, I'm the magistrate under
58:25
Utah Constitution, you know, 11 O2.
58:27
It is my job to allow all of this so we can see if the state
58:29
has enough here that that we can then move to a trial which will
58:32
then they would not allow this stuff.
58:33
They would say we get to cross examine Lance Lance's Willy
58:35
nilly. Say you know.
58:37
But the entire substance of your argument is that people can't
58:40
infer off of evidence. That's what you're saying to me.
58:42
You. Yeah, when you say Candace, you
58:43
can't talk about the. Great difference which they fact
58:46
and then infer. Off of that, that Tyler could
58:47
have been a Patsy. I, I am telling you, making
58:49
stuff up so. Here's what he can't.
58:51
He can't. Stop.
58:51
He know. He knows he's cooked.
58:53
When Andrew keeps interrupting, that's when you know that he's
58:56
absolutely fucking cooked because he has nothing.
59:00
He's got nothing. He doesn't know what else to
59:02
say. He's cooked as a motherfucker.
59:04
The position. Is I'm.
59:07
Asking this. By the way, Patrick, this.
59:09
Is when you would tell Andrew to shut the fuck up and let the
59:11
Candace finish. But I'm doing.
59:12
I am doing. Exactly what the state he's
59:14
shaking. His feet are going off.
59:16
I'm looking at. A piece of evidence and I am
59:18
saying you're not showing me how you get there.
59:19
Describe to the audience. Would be so this just so
59:21
everybody. He wants to make sure.
59:22
That she can't clarify and like, pin her position down
59:26
productively, so he's going to keep talking over her to make it
59:29
seem like she has no point. But he's just trying to
59:31
interrupt her and people know that that's what he's trying to
59:33
do. Who's watching us at home?
59:34
Understands what I'm saying, even if he doesn't.
59:36
What Andrew is arguing is that I don't have the right to
59:39
extrapolate from a fact like he's purely making it.
59:43
Up he what? He can't finish.
59:44
He can't let her finish. He's a he's terrified of her
59:47
perspective. I'm asking based.
59:48
On Andrew, can I show my evidence you just showed?
59:50
Yours reliable hearsay, you'll get a chance Reliable hearsay in
59:53
criminal prelim preliminary examinations.
59:55
The entire preliminary hearing that you just saw was on the
59:59
basis of reliable hearsay. And what that means is that's
1:00:01
true. Honestly, like this is cigarette
1:00:03
time for Andrew. I'm not kidding.
1:00:04
Like this guy, this guy is like legitimately addicted to
1:00:07
cigarettes. Like he, he like there's no
1:00:09
debate that he does where he doesn't smoke like 10
1:00:11
cigarettes. It's actually very strange.
1:00:14
It's the most obese behavior I've ever seen.
1:00:17
Like it would be like if somebody couldn't get through
1:00:18
like a live stream without having like a fucking, you know,
1:00:20
strawberry doughnut from Dunkin' Donuts.
1:00:22
Like this guy is, is so fucking like addicted to cigarettes.
1:00:25
Like he has no impulse control whatsoever.
1:00:28
He's already shaking. Like you see his feet like
1:00:30
shaking back and forth. He's shaking so much because
1:00:34
he's so addicted to cigarettes that he can't like he just, he's
1:00:37
so jittery. Like that's what he's like.
1:00:39
He, he's, he's a slob. Like, you know, he's being
1:00:42
cigarette addicted. The way that Andrew is, is the
1:00:44
same as being like addicted to food.
1:00:46
He's a fucking slob. That's what it comes down to.
1:00:49
Like I was just saying actually. Is the people who are making a
1:00:53
statement can just say, Patrick told me.
1:00:55
And you guys know I hate speaking.
1:00:56
Negatively as cigarettes. You know what I'm saying?
1:00:57
That he did. This on Monday, Patrick's not
1:01:00
here. And that is they they can allow
1:01:02
that into the hearing. That's just because it's just
1:01:04
meant to be probative. And so it's the state saying
1:01:06
here's what we have inferred. So you are allowed to take a
1:01:09
piece of evidence and then you are allowed to infer off of that
1:01:12
evidence. OK, case in point, that's a
1:01:14
demonstration of to give you. That's a demonstration of what I
1:01:16
just did. I said the Prince were the most
1:01:18
degraded off of Tyler Robinson. And from that, what I am
1:01:20
inferring is that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson was set up
1:01:23
that doesn't that's. The point in contention?
1:01:24
That's not a point in. Contention.
1:01:26
That's the point in contention. It's.
1:01:27
Not a point in contention if you're.
1:01:28
Saying it's the point in contention.
1:01:29
It's not the point in contention.
1:01:30
I'm telling you that is what the entire hearing allowed for.
1:01:31
So the evidence that he is describing.
1:01:33
That he is using to. Argue his case is all based on
1:01:37
inference, not fact. Inference, not facts.
1:01:39
What they are inferring off of the facts so.
1:01:42
Again, we're going to take this and I'm just going to even grant
1:01:45
it because it's irrelevant. I'm asking how you get to the
1:01:47
inference again like he's granting.
1:01:49
It because he doesn't really know what to to make as the
1:01:51
argument here and he's doing it to cast out in her argument so
1:01:55
he's like I will grant it to you because I'm so nice.
1:01:58
It's not because he's nice, it's because he has nothing else that
1:02:00
he can. He could possibly say in this
1:02:01
instance whatsoever that even if you.
1:02:04
Dispute that piece of evidence. That means Patsy, I'm looking
1:02:07
for the logical chain for how you get to that inference what I
1:02:11
am telling you. Is, I don't know she's.
1:02:13
Supplying A logical chain of how she gets there.
1:02:15
I feel like I don't know man. You know, the exact same way.
1:02:19
That, but also I wasn't. Hired by TPUSA to debate debate
1:02:22
this topic. So when you tweeted.
1:02:23
I think that this evidence is overwhelming.
1:02:25
When they say that looks like Tyler Robinson's car, he drives
1:02:28
a similar car, OK, they are inferring that that's Tyler
1:02:31
Robinson. Walk me through the.
1:02:32
Inference so that I understand it's.
1:02:34
It's not a fact. It's not a fact when you show a
1:02:36
blurry image which you kept citing that we have to find out
1:02:38
your inference. That the fingerprints, even if
1:02:40
they're degraded, equals look, he's he's backtracking.
1:02:44
We're on kind of like a new point where we're talking about
1:02:46
the case, but like now we're backtracking.
1:02:48
We're onto, we're kind of like, oh, wait, well, let's go back to
1:02:50
this. Well, it's a, it's a jump around
1:02:51
tactic. He doesn't want to be pinned
1:02:53
down to a certain point because he has no point that he can pin
1:02:55
himself down onto. That's the whole point of this
1:02:57
situation. I I didn't say it equals.
1:02:59
Patchy. I think it is enough evidence
1:03:00
that it should be explored. Which is exactly what this
1:03:02
preliminary was in the inverse. Not in dispute.
1:03:04
What's in dispute is when you said I'm using this as evidence
1:03:07
that he could have been a patchy, I'm asking how do you
1:03:09
get the inference to patchy from that because what I am saying.
1:03:12
Is that it shows that somebody else had more DNA presence on
1:03:15
that gun than Tyler Robinson did.
1:03:17
So it is plausible, which is all they're doing.
1:03:18
They're presenting plausibility based off of the facts, OK, It
1:03:21
is plausible that somebody just took his gun and put it there.
1:03:23
That's it. These are equally.
1:03:25
That's how it works and these. Are equally 100.
1:03:26
Other plausible explanations I think that.
1:03:28
Yeah, like maybe he put it. There, but like what's the point
1:03:32
that she's making? And it's really not a bad point
1:03:34
is we are all operating off of the information that are inside
1:03:37
of like the courts and like whatever the police are saying,
1:03:40
that's it. You're operating off it.
1:03:42
I'm operating off of it. We all saw the clip online of it
1:03:45
happening. We have no other connections.
1:03:47
So she's saying, hey, based on all the information that's out
1:03:49
here, this is what I'm going to present.
1:03:51
That's what I think happened based on all this.
1:03:53
Maybe she's right. Do I think she is?
1:03:55
Probably not, but she's rather convincing.
1:03:57
But like Andrew's trying to like, the problem is, is
1:03:59
Andrew's arguing from a perspective we're like, oh, he's
1:04:01
right because she just has a crazy conspiracy theory.
1:04:04
Maybe that's true. But we don't really.
1:04:08
Know. You know, that's why.
1:04:10
He's here to debate it, is it not?
1:04:12
That's the reason. Why most people are exploring
1:04:14
when things don't make sense. So yes, at the beginning of
1:04:16
that, this is how this is how the court process works, just so
1:04:18
we're clear. If there's a hundred other
1:04:19
possible explanations in Candace, why is it that we
1:04:22
should go with this idea that it was a Patsy I I'm not.
1:04:24
Saying that we should go with the idea that it was a Patsy.
1:04:27
I am saying that there is. Oh, I thought that was the.
1:04:29
Whole defense though, your whole claim?
1:04:30
No, my whole claim was. That there is more evidence that
1:04:32
he is set up, this would be one part.
1:04:34
Of a greater structure. As a Patsy, how does that equal
1:04:37
evidence of Patsy? I don't know how many.
1:04:39
Times I can say this like I I'm saying that I am using the exact
1:04:41
same mechanism that you are accepting for some reason in the
1:04:43
Utah courtroom, right to say I'm going to look at the evidence
1:04:45
and I'm going to infer an alternative theory.
1:04:47
So you just saw the States and you're accepting it and they
1:04:49
are. They have not presented any
1:04:50
concrete facts. You listed on your own Twitter
1:04:52
that what you found to be convincing was something that
1:04:55
looked like his car pulled into the driveway, a blurry image.
1:04:57
No, I didn't. The standard white guy coming up
1:04:58
the steps that could literally be anyone.
1:05:00
This never happened. Whoa, racist.
1:05:02
Can we get back on that? Can we pull up his tweet where
1:05:04
he goes over the floor, That's what.
1:05:05
Convinced me when you you actually.
1:05:07
Didn't say, he said. That's not.
1:05:08
Not true and then she's like pulled up Fact Check it.
1:05:10
Why didn't see that's what's convinced me he dude, he's he's
1:05:13
terrible. He's feeling fucking the dog
1:05:15
walk dude. It's what convinced.
1:05:16
Me but you said this is the evidence that you found to be
1:05:18
overwhelming and you you named I believe actually 5 things I
1:05:21
think you said it was his car. You said it was.
1:05:23
Well, there's multitudes of things that.
1:05:24
I find you just said you didn't say we're going to get a Fact
1:05:26
Check on that you. Did you said the blurry images
1:05:27
coming up the steps? Quite.
1:05:29
He's getting fucking decimated. Literally when officer.
1:05:31
Bagley testified. They talk about what I'm talking
1:05:32
about, making inference. This is the most I thought was
1:05:34
the most absurd testimony I've ever heard.
1:05:35
And part of me, it was actually Hull, David Hull.
1:05:38
They asked him a question, How did you know the guy in the
1:05:40
maroon shirt was the same as the guy that came up the stairs
1:05:43
later that was wearing the American flag black shirt?
1:05:45
And he said, they're wearing the same shoes.
1:05:48
Mine is that absurd. That's how you decided these. 2
1:05:51
are the same people. Oh wow, they're probably New
1:05:52
Balance you. Know white people love New
1:05:53
Balance. I love New Balance shoes.
1:05:56
Oh, what? A scientific.
1:05:57
They're both wearing Converses. OK, that that's an absurd thing
1:06:00
to say. That is true.
1:06:01
Maybe they were just working. Out at the gym he was a
1:06:03
Converse. Those are good flat shoes for
1:06:04
deadlifting, not evidence that these are.
1:06:06
The same people, if we're both wearing Converses, that was what
1:06:08
he said. That's what flew on the stand.
1:06:09
But I I still don't understand. How that would be absurd if
1:06:11
somebody's absurd thing for instance.
1:06:13
If somebody were to. Change their clothes.
1:06:14
They'd keep the same shoes on. Wouldn't you utilize the shoes
1:06:16
to try to track that person? The idea that on a.
1:06:18
College campus, two people wearing this totally different
1:06:21
outfits but both wearing Converses can't happen.
1:06:23
It's such an absurdity that I don't even need to, like, argue
1:06:25
that I'm just going to let people.
1:06:26
Why is it just gonna see that? She's got a good boy, dude.
1:06:29
What? The fuck point?
1:06:30
Obviously it's absurd. I don't.
1:06:31
Say I'm not. I know these are the same people
1:06:33
because they're. Both wearing.
1:06:34
This is what happens when you do a.
1:06:35
Debate dude first, Yeah, I'm not sure.
1:06:36
If in context that's what happened, but even if it is, get
1:06:38
a Fact Check. On it, even if it is, well,
1:06:40
I'll. Grant you this.
1:06:40
One, he's pretty much granted every point that she's made just
1:06:43
because he has no fucking argument against this again.
1:06:45
And it was called utilizing. Inferences.
1:06:47
Whenever we're dealing with logic and we're dealing with
1:06:49
making a logical inference, logical I'm.
1:06:51
Being logical right now, we're going to take the entire.
1:06:54
Collaboration of evidence, and then we're going to make
1:06:56
inferences from that. You would do that with any type
1:06:58
of logical proposition. Otherwise you could never have a
1:07:00
true or false claim. So when?
1:07:02
We're I. Never.
1:07:03
That never happened. You're just making.
1:07:04
So anyway, when we're talking about logical inferences, what
1:07:07
I'm looking for is the logical inferences that you have that
1:07:09
Tyler Robinson's Apache based on a totality of evidence that you
1:07:12
have. We can keep going, but.
1:07:13
Like. That's an impossible thing for
1:07:15
her to prove right now because they only talked about 1 aspect
1:07:18
of the situation so far. So and again, so that's an
1:07:20
unreasonable argument to make. She talked about 1 aspect of it.
1:07:24
Cool. Trying to move on to the next
1:07:26
one. Maybe.
1:07:26
We talked about two. We talked about the residue on
1:07:28
the gun, the DNA, the degraded, the residue on the gun, the
1:07:32
degraded DNA and the shoes. And he's like, well, this one
1:07:36
individual point doesn't matter. What about all the point?
1:07:39
Well, that's what the whole debate is about.
1:07:41
Like what? Basically what he's saying here
1:07:44
when she gives him an argument, he's like OK, but like.
1:07:47
What about the rest of the stuff?
1:07:48
And it's like, well, we're talking about this right now.
1:07:51
Like that's what it is. That's like if you're sitting
1:07:53
down to dinner and you got chicken, peas, mashed potatoes
1:07:56
and you know, your kids autistic so they like to eat them more at
1:07:58
a time and they start eating the chicken.
1:08:01
You know what I mean? You're like, why haven't?
1:08:02
Why haven't you eaten your mashed potatoes?
1:08:03
Like, well, we're not, I'm not there yet, bro.
1:08:05
I haven't gotten to the fucking mashed potatoes yet.
1:08:06
Dude, chill out. It's a sensory thing.
1:08:09
And if the mashed potatoes are touching the peas, I can't eat
1:08:11
them right? That's.
1:08:12
Basically what's happening here going through the evidence.
1:08:14
We should find this tweet where he please, where he lists the
1:08:17
reasons that he was convinced. Start with the 36.
1:08:19
I think that that's fine. 36 remember.
1:08:21
How long ago that was? What do you actually call?
1:08:22
A 30 odd 6. I feel like he's saying it like
1:08:24
that 'cause he wants to sound cool because he was used to be a
1:08:27
sniper in the military. The.
1:08:28
Tweets of the five, did you delete it or no?
1:08:31
Did you delete the tweets? OK, cool.
1:08:33
I just look for, he said. the IT was his car, it was his, it was
1:08:38
the car and it was definitely the staircase photos and it was
1:08:40
when the trial was going on. If you got.
1:08:43
Andrew's not an. Only fans model?
1:08:46
Excuse me? Candace isn't an only fans model
1:08:48
so Andrew can't fucking debate her.
1:08:50
That's what it is if you want to pull it.
1:08:52
Up so we can see it. Somebody said so give me the
1:08:55
clear evidence right here. I want you to provide it right
1:08:57
here. All I heard from the
1:08:57
investigator was we believe this to be Tyler Robinson.
1:09:00
Is belief something you go as a fact.
1:09:01
You wrote the car pulling in. That's a totally blurry image.
1:09:04
Robinson getting out of it. You have no idea if that's Tyler
1:09:06
Robinson. The fact that he has seen four
1:09:09
other times on camera. The fact being just a a standard
1:09:11
white boy with brown hair was seen getting walking up
1:09:13
staircase. The DNA on the roof.
1:09:15
We should discuss that and on the screwdriver that he left
1:09:17
behind. It's overwhelming, man.
1:09:19
Yeah, but that's not an exhaustive.
1:09:21
List just so we're clear, you did.
1:09:23
So but but. Her framing of him before was
1:09:25
correct and now she caught him on it and he said well that's
1:09:28
not an exhaustive list. Notice how anything Candace says
1:09:31
is not enough information for him.
1:09:33
But like everything that he says is just like oh OK like you know
1:09:36
what I mean? Like it's it's all I guess it's
1:09:38
also not enough. Like he he the the standard for
1:09:40
each one of them is insanely different based on who who's
1:09:44
talking. Like Andrew constantly wants you
1:09:46
to concede when he does some or says some dumb ass shit, you
1:09:49
have to concede to him and then he moved.
1:09:51
No, no, no, actually. Well, no, actually.
1:09:53
OK, OK, do over. This is what he's doing.
1:09:55
Well do over. Do over duo do.
1:09:57
I was a do over. Oh, wait, no, no, no, no, no,
1:09:59
no, no, no. I know you won that one.
1:10:00
This is a do over. That's all he's doing.
1:10:01
He's asking for do Overs did tweet.
1:10:03
It but it's not exhausting. Well, five times ago.
1:10:05
You said I only. Said this one thing and said
1:10:07
that that was overwhelming actually.
1:10:08
Oh my God, shut. Up it is.
1:10:10
You can even. I don't.
1:10:10
I don't think that's what. She said your own clip.
1:10:13
Can you can. You Fact Check if that was said
1:10:14
or not. I did not hear her, so The thing
1:10:15
is funny. Here is like, I don't think she
1:10:17
said that either. Getting to any of.
1:10:19
These inferences so these. Oh well, you know, it's funny.
1:10:22
Here how can we move on? That's what he just said.
1:10:23
Are you pivoted but just. Say you're wrong.
1:10:25
I just wanted to say I was wrong.
1:10:26
I'm not wrong so. Back to the tweet, the tweet
1:10:28
aspect here. It was really funny.
1:10:30
That's not an exhaustive list of why I find it.
1:10:31
I didn't say it was exhaustive. I just said you said it and on
1:10:33
top of it. Well, no, you didn't.
1:10:35
You said that. I'm pretty sure that's what she.
1:10:36
Said there, this is what the hell is going on here?
1:10:38
She said this one thing. And then said based on that it's
1:10:41
over. Well, I didn't, you didn't
1:10:41
mention that. I mentioned the screwdriver DNA,
1:10:44
all these other things. You never mentioned any of that.
1:10:46
So no, you're actually incorrect there.
1:10:48
But on top of that, moving over to the actual evidence, are you
1:10:50
are? You.
1:10:51
Yes, I'm OK. Anyway, back to the evidence.
1:10:53
You're OK. Actually, I'm glad you're
1:10:54
asserting that you're OK. I wasn't worried about your
1:10:56
health. I'm just saying that I just said
1:10:57
you tweeted this, You said no, I didn't.
1:10:58
We got a Fact Check and now you're like just going to
1:10:59
gaslight me and pretend that I said no gaslight.
1:11:01
It wasn't exhaustive. Well, he was wrong so.
1:11:03
Yeah, there's a gaslight. I never said that.
1:11:04
I just. Said you did say this 0
1:11:05
gaslight. I didn't say you.
1:11:06
Couldn't have said more, but I would like to address what you
1:11:08
said in your time if this is how you want to.
1:11:09
Spend interrogating my position. You can do it that way, I'm just
1:11:12
addressing. What you asserted on your
1:11:14
Twitter was like the hard evidence that convinced you was
1:11:15
overwhelming. That's not what you said.
1:11:18
Is it it What? That's not actually in.
1:11:20
Fact. What happened in that exchange?
1:11:23
I was here for it. So what's your?
1:11:25
Position here, yeah. So my position.
1:11:26
Is that based on all of the evidence which has been
1:11:28
demonstrated? At least all the evidence?
1:11:30
To my knowledge that I am actually not.
1:11:32
I've never seen somebody. In a debate, like use the terms
1:11:35
like you're gaslighting me and be successful with it.
1:11:37
Like Candace Owens is actually a real she's actually a real
1:11:40
female queen here, guys. No jokes.
1:11:42
Seeing. Anything that's compelling is an
1:11:45
alternative theory. I'm not seeing anything which is
1:11:47
convincing me of something otherwise.
1:11:49
That's what the state is presenting as evidence.
1:11:50
That's that's my position, if that's what you're asking me.
1:11:53
So just. Going back to what you did
1:11:54
actually tweet, is it fair to like to for me to ask questions
1:11:57
about that? Is that the evidence Any tweet
1:11:58
you're going to? Ask me about well, we're we're
1:11:59
addressing your. Clean up the evidence is
1:12:01
overwhelming and this is a tweet where you listed what you felt
1:12:02
was overwhelming. I think that's fair.
1:12:03
I feel like that's fair, but not.
1:12:04
Exhaustive, just so you know. And I never said it was.
1:12:06
Exhaustive. I know you said I did, but yeah,
1:12:09
so going back to that, all of that, as you say to me, well,
1:12:11
Candace, why are you addressing and making inferences off of the
1:12:14
testimony? No, I never asked you why.
1:12:17
You're making inferences. I asked you how, with the
1:12:18
inference you made, you got to the conclusion.
1:12:20
OK, so I. Would like to know how you got
1:12:22
to the conclusion and I'm just going to throw it right back at
1:12:24
you because for some reason you permit yourself to do it.
1:12:26
And that's what I'm demonstrating is that you permit
1:12:27
yourself to do it. And then you say when I do it,
1:12:29
it's a conspiracy, right? How are you able to infer?
1:12:31
Yes, that is exactly. And it's totally possible that
1:12:34
he's just too dumb to understand argument.
1:12:35
I've already laid it out twice. They're both working off the
1:12:37
same information we have. Like we all have the same
1:12:40
information. They're both working off the
1:12:41
same amount of information, like he's just accepting the
1:12:45
information that comes from the state as a fact.
1:12:46
It probably is, but it doesn't matter.
1:12:48
And so she's like OK, so now let it turn it around.
1:12:50
How do you get there off of blurry?
1:12:51
Staircase images that that is Tyler Robinson.
1:12:54
Yeah, so in. That particular case, what you
1:12:56
do is you take that evidence, you combine it with other
1:12:58
evidence. That's what she's doing.
1:12:59
So it's not just. That Tyler Robinson what other
1:13:01
evidence is. Seen in the He's, he's.
1:13:03
Yapping. He's yapping.
1:13:04
He knows he's weak. Why are you calling him Tyler
1:13:05
Robinson? In the staircase, that's what I
1:13:06
want to get to, yeah. Because I mean.
1:13:07
We'll just use this. If you don't agree that that
1:13:09
Tyler Robinson, then you would just have to humor me.
1:13:11
I think it is so I'm using the name, but why do you think it?
1:13:14
Is yeah, because you make. Anybody.
1:13:15
That's literally what I'm. Trying to explain to you.
1:13:18
What dude he's getting? What is he talking about?
1:13:21
So if you're asking for my. Inference why I think it's Tyler
1:13:23
Robinson is because a Tyler Robinson said in his text
1:13:25
messages you'll be able to see me on security footage at the
1:13:27
campus said it in his own messages on top of that twigs
1:13:30
yes you can pull them up if you want to Fact Check that he did
1:13:32
say yeah what I'm sorry I actually think I really.
1:13:34
Did miss that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I
1:13:35
just I don't remember him saying you're going to see me in I'm.
1:13:38
Paraphrasing if you may have a. He's.
1:13:39
Paraphrasing. What did he actually say, by the
1:13:42
way? Twigs himself said that he he
1:13:44
had some, he that he had some. Maybe a tiny bit of doubt, but
1:13:48
it sure looked like Tyler Robinson inside of this various
1:13:51
surveillance footage that he saw.
1:13:55
What? OK, there's hang on, So.
1:13:58
There's. There's multiple reasons why it
1:13:59
is. Those are the 2.
1:14:01
Weakest reasons I've ever seen in my life that I believe that.
1:14:04
That's Tyler Robinson, not just because of blurry footage.
1:14:06
Did you have a dream? Just kidding.
1:14:08
No, it's. Because I combined.
1:14:09
Multitudes of evidences. Multitudes.
1:14:11
He just gave us 2 weakest points.
1:14:13
One of them he conceded that was like incredibly weak.
1:14:15
So let's. Address those multitude of
1:14:17
evidences. The first one we're working on a
1:14:18
Fact Check on because I I do not ever remember him tweeting
1:14:20
that's me in the I mean texting, texting that that's me in the
1:14:23
staircase. You see how fast he.
1:14:25
Responded to that because he's like, he's like a rabid dog
1:14:27
looking for, for fucking food. Like he doesn't know what I'll
1:14:30
say. He's like so desperate for a
1:14:31
win. I I, I didn't say I didn't say
1:14:33
that. I said he, he, she corrected
1:14:35
herself. Immediately and now he's like
1:14:37
he's like because he's trying to make it seem like he's right,
1:14:39
but like she misspoke and immediately corrected it.
1:14:41
I literally. Didn't what I said is that he
1:14:44
texted over you'll be able to see me in footage at the at UVU
1:14:47
and I'm paraphrasing, but that's what he said, Yeah.
1:14:48
Could we get a fact? Check on that.
1:14:50
The second thing you said was Lance's testimony where and
1:14:52
actually what Lance says is I'm not 100%, I agree.
1:14:55
But in terms of what he wears, again, pointing out the
1:14:57
absurdity, he wears Converses, he wears sneakers.
1:15:01
If his boyfriend is not 100%, I'd like to understand why
1:15:03
Andrew Wilson is overwhelmed by it.
1:15:05
That's what I'm trying to get to.
1:15:06
And lastly, I would like to remind is that a trans person?
1:15:08
Is that what they're saying? They're being transphobic dude.
1:15:10
Dude, that Lance's statement. Would not be permitted.
1:15:12
This was a huge part of the preliminary hearing that they
1:15:14
were leading. All the questions that were
1:15:15
asked asked of him were leading. So they would be struck down at
1:15:18
the actual trial. And also I would like to remind
1:15:20
you that he got use immunity for that.
1:15:22
Use immunity. I understand which means like
1:15:23
that happens by the way all the. Time and I'm wondering why
1:15:25
particularly. Happened for Lance and this
1:15:26
testimony and I would also like to point out that something
1:15:28
remarkable about this again leaning to my perspective that
1:15:31
Lance has a lot more which I have said many times Lance has a
1:15:33
lot more involved than the feds are are letting us know.
1:15:36
I think more is going to come out because they interviewed him
1:15:40
on September 11th and then for whatever reason just ahead of
1:15:42
what was supposed to be slated as the preliminary hearing which
1:15:44
was initially supposed to be in May, they bring him back to do
1:15:47
this interview. Which it who the fuck is Lance
1:15:50
my? Opinion should have never been.
1:15:51
Allowed and I I actually agree with the defence that it's a
1:15:53
violation of his constitutional rights not to allow them to have
1:15:55
cross examined him. But I understand Utah 11O2 do
1:15:57
what you do, it's all hearsay but to allow it in that way for
1:16:01
him to just be able to also have a youth immunity knowing that
1:16:03
he's not going to be he's not getting in trouble.
1:16:05
He could literally get up there and lie about anything and he's
1:16:07
not going to get in trouble because the youth immunity was
1:16:08
given to to him in April. I believe April 28th is when
1:16:11
they gave that testimony to the defense.
1:16:13
I think they shot it in like April 20th of 2026.
1:16:15
That is not compelling to me for somebody who has youth immunity
1:16:17
to give a testimony and to say I'm not really sure, but
1:16:21
definitely like he wears jeans and stuff.
1:16:22
That's not what he said. Oh, Lance Swigg is a.
1:16:24
Trans partner. OK, got it.
1:16:27
He did, actually. Get.
1:16:28
A Fact Check on that? Yeah, that's not what I think,
1:16:30
he said. So, so a couple things we have.
1:16:32
We have Rule 8, O1 Tyler's messages that says it's not
1:16:35
hearsay. But first, go to what Candace is
1:16:37
asking about. Skyler, I think you have it.
1:16:39
You just texted me if you want to pull it up.
1:16:40
You said you have the text. If we can put that up on the
1:16:43
screen. Thank you.
1:16:44
It was me. Look at the.
1:16:45
Pictures from the surveillance footage.
1:16:46
It was me. OK?
1:16:46
I literally said to you, it's not.
1:16:47
Oof. I said I didn't remember this
1:16:48
and I'm. I'm happy to have a Fact Check
1:16:49
on that. OK, let's see.
1:16:51
It was me. Look at the pictures from the
1:16:53
surveillance footage. It was me.
1:16:54
I'm serious. OK, Got it.
1:16:57
I guess. Hey, Andrew.
1:16:57
Got that one that I I didn't call for the Fact Check.
1:16:59
Saying you're wrong. I literally said I don't
1:17:00
remember that. I'm just saying to you like.
1:17:02
I'm trying to be well, it was in the Candace that.
1:17:03
He was wrong but OK, and then also.
1:17:05
Bring the eight O 1 that you just said.
1:17:06
What was the other one? Yep, the eight O 1.
1:17:08
Tyler messages. I feel like like Andrew was
1:17:10
sweating. Because he didn't actually know
1:17:11
if it was true or not. He's just saying things, saying
1:17:13
it's not hearsay. If you have that as well, there
1:17:19
you go. What are we saying is not
1:17:23
hearsay? A statement that meets the
1:17:25
following conditions is not hearsay.
1:17:26
It was hearsay. They said in the trial, hang on,
1:17:28
hang on, OK. OK is consistent with the
1:17:32
declarant's testimony and the declarant denies having made the
1:17:35
statement or has forgotten or is consistent with the declarant's
1:17:38
testimony and is offered to rebut express implied charge
1:17:40
that the declarant recently fabricated or acted in a recent
1:17:43
improper influence or motive and testifying.
1:17:45
So then wouldn't that mean that a bunch of this wasn't hearsay?
1:17:47
So the. Issue with his want to make sure
1:17:49
but that makes you would. That mean that a bunch of this
1:17:50
wasn't hearsay opposing party. Which down the line, like I
1:17:53
said, they talked about this around an hour and a half and
1:17:55
they discussed how if Lance was in court and he was giving his
1:17:58
first party, you know, giving his testimony as the opposing
1:18:00
party, whatever, all this would be fine.
1:18:02
They had an issue with how the questions were being asked and
1:18:04
that they were not allowed to cross examine him.
1:18:05
So that is why his video testimony would not be accepted
1:18:08
in the main trial. And what I said to you is this
1:18:10
entire preliminary hearing is under Utah's eleven O 2.
1:18:14
So they are allowed to just use hearsay.
1:18:16
No, you just said most of. It was hearsay, actually.
1:18:19
Yeah, the overwhelming majority. Well, I mean, I mean, that's
1:18:21
I'm. I'm leaning now into my opinion
1:18:22
that some scientific aspects which they kept asserting like
1:18:23
the Federal Rule four O 3 or 4 O2, some of those parts were
1:18:26
quite sound like you're backtracking quite a bit.
1:18:28
No, I'm not backtracking at all, but you feel.
1:18:29
Like let me help you it. Does it does actually sound like
1:18:31
she's backtracking? Yeah.
1:18:32
Where? Do you feel like I'm
1:18:33
backtracking it Was it? Literally was done under Utah's
1:18:35
eleven O 2. Yeah, nobody disputed that what
1:18:36
the dispute was. Is whether or not most of it was
1:18:38
overwhelmingly hearsay. Yes, it was.
1:18:39
Yes, that's a fact I'm not backtracking on.
1:18:40
That at all how many times did you I mean she watched the video
1:18:43
here. It's like they constantly I'm
1:18:44
eleven O 211 O 211-0211 O 211-0211 O2.
1:18:47
And the reason for that is because it's O2.
1:18:49
I'm not saying it's illegal, it's allowed at this stage, but
1:18:50
I'm just reminding you that when you're going to sit across from
1:18:53
someone and your claim is going to be, where is your hard
1:18:54
evidence? This is what I heard and I agree
1:18:56
with what I'm watching. You are watching the state put
1:18:58
on a hearsay preliminary hearing and that and all of those things
1:19:02
are not going to be allowed, right?
1:19:03
Even when they got into witness statements and things of that
1:19:05
nature. There's a reason why they swear
1:19:06
you in and they say you swear yourself the truth, the whole
1:19:08
truth. Did you, you know, write this
1:19:10
statement? So it's.
1:19:11
The overwhelming majority of what you saw was hearsay because
1:19:14
other people were representing other people's statements.
1:19:16
They were saying they had conversations.
1:19:17
We don't know where it came from.
1:19:18
All allowed at the stage, OK, but it's hearsay.
1:19:20
But even a lot of that stuff. May not fall under hearsay under
1:19:23
what we just read right, but the evidence that.
1:19:25
You're speaking about like when you're just when you say that
1:19:28
we're going off vibes. You don't know Tyler Robinson,
1:19:30
OK, his boyfriend is not 100%. It was him.
1:19:32
So I'm going back to your points that you made that this was
1:19:34
overwhelming evidence for you. That doesn't make sense to me.
1:19:38
Well, overwhelming. Just.
1:19:38
Means you can't consider another.
1:19:39
Option that there could have been, yeah, he defined.
1:19:41
Overwhelming, as he really thinks it's true.
1:19:44
Like the first thing he did. In this debate was decide that
1:19:47
like the word overwhelming didn't mean what it actually
1:19:49
meant. I'm defining overwhelming as
1:19:51
meaning. I think it's true.
1:19:52
There's overwhelming evidence that Plato tastes good.
1:19:54
It's like that. OK, why?
1:19:56
I think I think so. I think it tastes really good.
1:19:58
Another white guy. Wearing Converses on campus,
1:20:00
Yeah. Do you agree with me that I.
1:20:01
Said what overwhelming means to me is that it's just very
1:20:05
convincing to me, yeah. And.
1:20:06
That's not what. Overwhelming means he's just
1:20:08
redefining the word because he's fucking dumb as shit.
1:20:09
I find it to be completely. Unconvinced.
1:20:11
Fair. Because.
1:20:12
I looked at those, blurry. Photos that they presented and
1:20:14
said you're, you're. It's so funny that he had to.
1:20:16
Redefine what overwhelming was just for this fucking
1:20:18
conversation. This is actually so fucking
1:20:20
funny. Statement on right.
1:20:22
Now is that he's wearing Converses and he also.
1:20:24
That's just. But these aren't the evidences.
1:20:25
That I find the most convincing. Well, you said.
1:20:27
That in your Twitter? That's not the only.
1:20:29
Thing I've ever said on my Twitter about this case, right?
1:20:31
But the question that was. Asked if he was pretty direct,
1:20:33
right? What?
1:20:33
What did you find? It's not an exhaustive list.
1:20:35
Of all the things that you said in the tweet.
1:20:37
You can tweet longer too. It's not like we're limited now
1:20:38
to 240 characters. So wait.
1:20:40
So anything that I tweet and all other tweets that I've ever made
1:20:43
are now excluded because I use the word overwhelming in this
1:20:45
one, even though all of this information I've said so
1:20:48
publicly over and over and over again is what informs my
1:20:51
position for why I'm convinced on the case.
1:20:53
That's bizarre to me. I feel like this is Angie.
1:20:54
Versus Andrew, somebody asked you a question, what are the
1:20:56
points that you find to be the, you know, the most overwhelming
1:20:58
and you answered you mean from that day from.
1:21:00
That particular day of the hearing that I was responding
1:21:02
to, I don't. Understand what we're getting.
1:21:04
Locked down on here, he said. There was overwhelming evidence.
1:21:07
She's just counting some of the things that he said and now he's
1:21:08
like, instead of just continuously explaining himself
1:21:11
or just onto like a new, he's just crying.
1:21:14
Like that's like literally what's going on right now.
1:21:15
He's just like fucking crying about it.
1:21:17
I don't really understand like the crap baby bullshit here.
1:21:22
OK. There's something you have you
1:21:22
find to be more overwhelming when you have to that question.
1:21:24
OK, what do you, OK, go ahead, go on.
1:21:25
What do you find to be more overwhelmed?
1:21:26
Yeah, Yeah. Can we do this?
1:21:27
Do we? Want to get into it or do we
1:21:28
know? Do we want to do a quick ad
1:21:29
break? I'm are you?
1:21:31
Guys. Good to oh shit the ad.
1:21:32
Breaks. Oh fuck, keep going or.
1:21:34
I'm I'm fine to keep going but. We we can also like to take a
1:21:36
quick break. Doesn't matter to me either if
1:21:37
we're. Going into a damn.
1:21:38
They're going to do an. Advertisement break for Candace
1:21:41
Owens to make more money. Wow, you did a good job on this
1:21:44
one Andrew. With a different topic that
1:21:48
maybe. Another 30 minutes, 40 minutes.
1:21:49
I don't want to stop you guys in the middle of the movie.
1:21:50
What do you find to be more overwhelming?
1:21:52
Yeah, yeah, at least. Patrick's there to make.
1:21:53
Sure that they productively do the ad breaks, which is that's
1:21:57
it actually is important. Oh, if we're at the.
1:21:59
For me it's the confessions, the text messages.
1:22:02
All of that is what I consider to be from my opinion.
1:22:05
That's the most convincing for me.
1:22:07
OK, we should discuss the. Text message confessions when we
1:22:09
get back if you'd like to. OK, that's a good idea.
1:22:11
Folks, we're going to take a quick ad break.
1:22:13
We will be back in 3 1/2 minutes.
1:22:14
Thank you. Right, you guys nearly 2.
1:22:16
You guys know the? Deal.
1:22:18
How? We watch the ads or I don't
1:22:21
react. I watch the ads.
1:22:22
I don't condone them, but I don't.
1:22:24
Well, maybe I can tell them. But you watch the ads.
1:22:26
OK, guess what? I'm going to pee while you watch
1:22:28
the ads. Thousand years, Christians.
1:22:29
Have lived continuously in a small village just outside of
1:22:31
Jerusalem called Taipei. It remained through the Roman
1:22:33
Empire, the Crusades, the Ottoman Empire and countless
1:22:35
changes of power. Today, that Christian presence
1:22:37
is in serious danger. One father in the West Bank put
1:22:39
it simply, he said, quote, I don't want to leave.
1:22:41
My family is buried here. My church is here in Thai Bay.
1:22:44
The church is more than a place of worship.
1:22:45
It's a school medical clinic, a food distribution center, and a
1:22:48
safe gathering place for families.
1:22:49
When the church can no longer serve the community, families
1:22:51
begin to leave, and a living Christian presence in the Holy
1:22:54
Land begins to disappear. You can help.
1:22:56
Just $35 provides a full day of protection and support for
1:22:58
vulnerable Christian families, and $83 a month can help sustain
1:23:01
that protection throughout the month.
1:23:03
I support the Vulnerable People Project because 93% of every
1:23:06
donated dollar goes directly toward protecting vulnerable
1:23:08
families and communities on the ground.
1:23:10
If preserving a living Christian presence in the Holy Land
1:23:11
matters to you, visit vulnerablepeopleprojects.com.
1:23:14
Again, that's vulnerable people projects.com.
1:23:16
All right, you guys, do you feel like you're working harder than
1:23:18
ever but still falling behind every month?
1:23:20
Between grocery prices, bills, and credit card debt growing,
1:23:22
you can feel impossible to get ahead.
1:23:23
Minimum payments aren't designed to get you out of debt.
1:23:25
They're designed to actually keep you stuck.
1:23:26
But PDS debt can help. They can reduce up to half of
1:23:29
what you owe on credit cards, personal loans, and medical
1:23:31
bills. And it starts with a free 32nd
1:23:32
assessment at pdsdebt.com/candace.
1:23:35
Stop juggling multiple payments and get 1 lower monthly payment.
1:23:38
The savings begin the day that you complete the quick
1:23:40
assessment. If you're carrying any balance
1:23:41
on your credit cards, it's costing you money every single
1:23:43
day. There's no minimum credit score
1:23:44
that's required. PDS Debt is the top rated
1:23:46
company in the industry with thousands of five star reviews
1:23:48
and A+ rating on the BBB. So get your free 32nd
1:23:51
personalized assessment today at pdsdebt.com/candace.
1:23:54
Again, that's pdsdebt.com/candace.
1:23:57
I just want to tell you guys about the Wellness Company
1:23:59
because by now you've probably heard that there is an explosive
1:24:00
outbreak in the US this summer. More than 18,000 confirmed and
1:24:03
suspected cases of cyclosporiasis have now been
1:24:06
nationwide, and Michigan health officials have confirmed the 1st
1:24:09
2 United States deaths associated with that outbreak.
1:24:11
The CDC says the illness is caused by Cyclospora, A
1:24:14
microscopic parasite commonly spread through contaminated
1:24:16
fresh produce and cause severe stomach cramps, nausea, fatigue,
1:24:19
and other debilitating symptoms. If you get sick, the CDC
1:24:21
recommends Bactrim. That's why the Wellness company
1:24:23
created the medical emergency kit with generic Bactrim plus
1:24:25
seven additional prescription medications to help treat more
1:24:27
than 25 common illnesses and medical emergencies, all
1:24:30
prescribed before you need them. Getting your kit is simple.
1:24:33
You complete a secure online medical questionnaire.
1:24:35
If it's approved by a licensed physician, your kit ships
1:24:37
directly to your door. So don't wait until you're sick
1:24:39
to wish that you were prepared. Visit TWC dot health slash
1:24:42
Candace and use code Candace at checkout to save up to $45.00
1:24:45
off plus free shipping. That's TWC dot health slash
1:24:48
Candace. Kids are available for United
1:24:50
States residents only. OK, we're back.
1:24:52
Fantastic. Hey, that was a good.
1:24:54
Piss. How good was I guys?
1:24:57
That was a perfect pee time. I think we're back by.
1:25:01
The way just NFY for those of you that are watching, what is
1:25:03
NFY? For your information, NFI OK The
1:25:06
Crucible. There's 30,000 concurrent
1:25:08
they're watching support Andrew Wilson that's your your fans of
1:25:11
his click that subscribe button and helps him grow his business.
1:25:14
OK, so we got. To to to to stream that as well.
1:25:16
OK, good for him. At least he's making back some
1:25:18
of that money he got fucking that he gave her to get dog
1:25:20
walked. If you're watching Candace, I
1:25:21
think there's. 225 to 250,000 concurrent right now we got to
1:25:25
make sure you flex. Those numbers like to see that
1:25:27
300. 400,000 number on there. Click that button as well to
1:25:29
subscribe, describe and share it with your friends and family.
1:25:31
And if you're watching it on PBD podcast, share it with your.
1:25:33
Friends and family. Yes, do the same there as well.
1:25:35
This allows us to have more conversations like this.
1:25:37
The mainstream media hates the fact that we're having these
1:25:40
conversations right now. Just so you know, they want to
1:25:42
control it. This is freefall.
1:25:43
This is what's best for the audience.
1:25:44
I don't think they give a shit. I don't think the mainstream
1:25:46
media gives a fuck. I don't I.
1:25:49
Mean, I know he. Has to push like the weird
1:25:50
little conspiracy theory. I'm assuming Andrew's smoking 45
1:25:54
cigarettes right now. He's got to catch up for the
1:25:57
cigarettes that he missed in the first hour.
1:25:58
He's got to smoke a cigarette a minute.
1:26:00
So that's why we like freedom. Of speech having said that let's
1:26:02
go back into the text conversation you were having
1:26:04
right OK let's stay and then we'll go into the cross
1:26:06
examination stuff in about 30 minutes do you think he just ate
1:26:08
the. Cigarettes because he had no
1:26:09
time to, like, actually smoke them.
1:26:10
Like, what do you think happened there?
1:26:11
OK, that sounds fair. OK, so yeah, my I, I used
1:26:15
basically 3 pillars for the totality of the evidence.
1:26:17
OK, so if you want to know exactly what those 3 pillars
1:26:20
are, this is going to be the testimony with the text messages
1:26:24
and the confessions. This is going to be the physical
1:26:27
evidence and this is going to be the totality of the summary of
1:26:30
the case. OK, So right now we're we're
1:26:32
focusing on one of these pillars in my defense, which is fine.
1:26:35
I understand that I have to defend my claims as well.
1:26:37
So when we're talking about the messages themselves, they seem
1:26:41
totally valid. I have no idea why they wouldn't
1:26:43
be valid, and I have not heard any good explanation for why it
1:26:47
is that these messages should even be questioned.
1:26:49
The defense hasn't questioned them as far as I'm aware.
1:26:52
Nobody has actually questioned that these messages came from
1:26:54
Robinson to date. Except.
1:26:56
But isn't he just like he's? Just like appealing to the the
1:26:58
public narrative again, that's what she's saying is that like
1:27:00
they're all looking at that information and making a strong
1:27:01
conclusion. So perhaps you and his?
1:27:04
Argument just seems to be. They they said so and other.
1:27:07
Other people who are kind of in that camp, but why should I
1:27:09
question these exactly? I'm not sure.
1:27:11
OK, so first let's. Just go over legally what the
1:27:13
point is of a probative hearing the defense is not putting on.
1:27:16
They're not there to say or to argue or to defend themselves at
1:27:19
all. They have to address what is
1:27:21
being presented by the state. OK, so they're not here to then
1:27:23
say. Let me give you an explanation
1:27:24
for these text messages. The relevant portion of what the
1:27:27
defense did do was actually before we got to the preliminary
1:27:30
hearing I, I had mentioned that was initially supposed to be
1:27:32
scheduled for some time in May. They asked for an extension that
1:27:35
that reading through the those filings of why they were
1:27:37
requesting an extension and why I actually believe their
1:27:39
extension should have been granted because they did not
1:27:42
receive discovery on their text messages.
1:27:44
That was one of the reasons. There were many reasons why they
1:27:45
wanted to have an extension, but this was crucial, right?
1:27:47
So forget just the general sense that these messages feel off and
1:27:51
and yes, you are allowed to have an intuition.
1:27:53
You are allowed to have a sense and just go.
1:27:54
This is very weird. We're being told this kid had
1:27:56
like above a four point O Tyler Robinson.
1:27:58
He wanted to get away. I think the tech tech messages
1:28:00
almost run head to head with themselves.
1:28:03
Like he wanted to get away with it.
1:28:04
So he thought the best thing to do would be to text a full
1:28:07
confession of what he did down to.
1:28:08
But I didn't even remember saying, yeah.
1:28:10
And that's also me and Mr. Valence.
1:28:11
But it it felt a little too on the nose.
1:28:14
I just people have common sense. He just don't text message.
1:28:16
But then we're also supposed to believe that he put a note.
1:28:19
Under it. Because and burn this and get
1:28:20
rid of the evidence, but don't worry about that 'cause I'm
1:28:22
about to text you a full confession that it felt off.
1:28:23
It felt weird off the bat, the manner in which they were
1:28:25
texting. We're told he's like a gamer
1:28:27
who's using a Dremel to carve expressions, catch fascists, but
1:28:31
then suddenly he's writing like a oh, like you're gay.
1:28:35
On the bullets, that makes perfect sense that he would do
1:28:37
that. What are you talking about?
1:28:39
He did. He did actually get the 500K
1:28:41
code correct. Yeah, I, I'm.
1:28:42
Not a gamer, so we'll say that If we start being that you'll be
1:28:44
way over my head, but yes but. My point being is just.
1:28:46
That just first, it's a general sense of why people had a
1:28:48
reaction to these messages that seems like they were written by
1:28:51
Jane Austen rather than like a kid who games and writes.
1:28:54
But do you see how that's? Intuition.
1:28:55
That is, I am I just. Said that, I said just put
1:28:57
parking aside the intuition of just something feels wrong here,
1:28:59
which you should follow your intuition.
1:29:01
You should actually do that if you say, I think maybe.
1:29:03
Maybe sometimes you shouldn't. I mean Andrew Wilson's.
1:29:06
To intuition says that you should say that women should be
1:29:08
thankful that they don't get raped by men.
1:29:10
They should thank those men for it.
1:29:12
So I'm not sure we should be advocating for dealing with
1:29:16
their intuition. But hey, what do I know?
1:29:19
Feels like it's coming out too fast.
1:29:20
And there's too many celebrities.
1:29:21
I'm just not a guy who. Thinks that rape is OK?
1:29:23
Do it. I'd like to.
1:29:24
Take a pause. That's good.
1:29:25
That is, you are allowed to do that.
1:29:26
I believe in intuition. Sorry guys.
1:29:28
But hang on, hang. On Let me respond a little bit
1:29:30
here because you've been going for a minute.
1:29:31
Let me at least respond to a little bit of this.
1:29:32
So count when you count the time.
1:29:33
Waiting to speak, but the first thing is, is.
1:29:35
Like when people bring up the COVID vaccine, not trusting the
1:29:37
COVID vaccine in mass was the science.
1:29:39
That wasn't just intuition, that was the science.
1:29:42
There was tons of competing science.
1:29:43
Now they tried to suppress it. That's true.
1:29:45
There wasn't really that much. Competing science, like the
1:29:47
information wasn't perfect, but it wasn't OK.
1:29:50
I got it. There was tons of I was, I was,
1:29:52
I was skeptical as well. We ended up getting it and all
1:29:55
the science points to it was the right decision to make overall,
1:29:58
but OK. Meaning science.
1:29:59
For why you shouldn't take a risky mRNA vaccine and and mass
1:30:04
and things like this. Now when you're talking about
1:30:05
intuition, though, when you say trust your intuition, I'm
1:30:07
actually giving a different message.
1:30:09
You actually should be very wary about trusting.
1:30:11
Although I will say again. Like this is the problem.
1:30:12
Remember I was speaking before about the conspiracies and how
1:30:14
like I Enter's audience and her audience are primed to believe
1:30:16
in conspiracy theories like that.
1:30:18
Like that's the thing. Like it was a it was a
1:30:21
conspiracy to to be completely against the COVID vaccine.
1:30:25
It wasn't a conspiracy to be healthfully skeptical.
1:30:28
And overall everything worked out right.
1:30:30
Like this COVID, the vaccine came out, it was safer than not
1:30:33
getting it. That's just the fact.
1:30:35
But like, he wants to say the science agreed with him because
1:30:38
he's trying to pretend he's not a conspiracy theorist.
1:30:40
He is. He also advocates and and
1:30:42
engages engages with conspiracies.
1:30:44
He just tries to pretend that they were actually not
1:30:46
conspiracies afterwards, because he tries to pretend that he's
1:30:48
like, not somebody who harps on conspiracies.
1:30:51
So just your intuition. It is true that intuition can be
1:30:54
useful, but it has to be tempered with logic, reason,
1:30:56
explanatory power, and evidence, not just intuition.
1:30:59
That's why we're parking it aside.
1:31:00
Intuition is the first step. Something feels off, right?
1:31:02
That was my first step with COVID.
1:31:03
I don't like the way it's being pushed.
1:31:05
It shouldn't require a celebrity campaign.
1:31:06
By the way. Another element of that is why
1:31:07
people don't feel good about the Charlie thing.
1:31:09
Why do we have so many influencers saying things it's
1:31:10
over? Why you guys are all using the
1:31:12
same adjective? Can you switch it up?
1:31:13
I'm overwhelmed. I'm overwhelmed.
1:31:14
What does that mean? Like chill like.
1:31:17
You could say I found some parts compelling.
1:31:19
I think they should go. I found I found some parts
1:31:21
compelling. Maybe we should you know, see at
1:31:23
the trial that would be kind of you think fed slops the.
1:31:26
Buzzword for the other, for the counter industry, everyone on
1:31:28
the same. Day of watching this trial,
1:31:30
which was I would say not overwhelming at all.
1:31:32
Nobody came in medium right. No one came in like there were
1:31:35
some interesting aspects. This was a little suspect I I,
1:31:37
but I do think it's enough to go to trial.
1:31:38
They all came in like they were passing away and we're going to
1:31:40
die from being overwhelmed, trusting their intuition.
1:31:42
OK, well. Actually, in that scenario,
1:31:43
they're looking at the preliminary.
1:31:44
Here you have a reaction to it wasn't their intuition, but like
1:31:46
I said, parking aside, just getting the substance, parking
1:31:48
right aside, parking. Aside, just a general.
1:31:51
Intuition. Then we look at the filings
1:31:53
which came from the defense and they were requesting an
1:31:55
extension saying we have gone to the prosecution and we have
1:31:59
requested all of this stuff in discovery.
1:32:01
Yes, you are saying that you took Lance's phone, OK, And that
1:32:04
you collected his phone on September 11th and that you sent
1:32:07
it off or whatever. You took a picture of the text
1:32:10
messages and we are being given these text messages to review.
1:32:12
Crucially, Kathy Nester said I have not even been given access
1:32:16
to my client's phone during this hearing.
1:32:18
She's not having to be my client's phone.
1:32:20
She can't tell you as a part of the discovery quest is it's not
1:32:22
enough to say to me, Candace, I just got a text message from
1:32:25
Candace and I say I didn't send that text message.
1:32:26
If that's what a client's saying, we don't know because
1:32:28
not the trial, right? Maybe he didn't send his
1:32:29
messages. Could there be someone who
1:32:31
logged into his discord? Could there be someone who
1:32:33
logged in to his Apple George could be maybe he's sending text
1:32:36
messages right now. We are married.
1:32:37
He has every login that I have and remember he's up for death
1:32:39
sentence. So if I'm able to sow reasonable
1:32:42
doubt with common sense, he may come during the trial and when
1:32:44
they actually have to address these points say I did not write
1:32:47
those messages. I was here, Lance, my boyfriend
1:32:50
was. I want you guys think that.
1:32:51
Do you think that his lawyer is watching Candace Owens and be
1:32:56
like, oh, these are good points, let me use them logged into my
1:32:58
phone. Logged into my Apple ID and my
1:32:59
iCloud sending messages. I know that we have capability
1:33:01
because my husband does it. He has capability to send
1:33:03
messages from my phone. It is not convincing to the
1:33:05
public when for whatever reason, the FBI, you never know.
1:33:09
I would. Not.
1:33:10
FBI combined with the FBI, it was not the prosecution's fault
1:33:12
they made that clear during that hearing would not allow them
1:33:15
that discovery request to be able to see where did that
1:33:17
message come from because you're saying my client was here,
1:33:20
right? I want to know if that message
1:33:22
actually was generated from his iPhone when he was waiting to
1:33:25
retrieve his, you know, rifle. Hoping that the pooch doesn't
1:33:28
have a bad sniffer. Like just what the.
1:33:31
Weird messages. I want to make sure that yes, it
1:33:33
was actually him. It he was.
1:33:34
Sounds like a memer. Holding his phone.
1:33:36
And his boyfriend didn't just log in to his computer when he
1:33:39
was home. Lance was his boyfriend.
1:33:40
That is a that is a crucial fact here.
1:33:42
That discovery was not met by the time I got to preliminary
1:33:44
hearing. So I remain unconvinced by these
1:33:46
text messages. Just you feel convinced by them.
1:33:49
I feel unconvinced by okay so. Then the idea here is the reason
1:33:53
that you don't think that these are valid text message and you
1:33:55
don't right it. Has not been proven that message
1:33:57
about and they don't sound valid to me.
1:33:59
I don't think anyone, even if someone was selling like a, I
1:34:03
don't know, pot on the corner would be smarter than to write a
1:34:05
full-fledged confession. Confession.
1:34:07
He even writes, I thought I would get away with it and I was
1:34:10
hoping never to tell you until old age.
1:34:12
And then we're being told that he wanted to commit suicide and
1:34:14
OK, but he. Just said he wanted to get away.
1:34:17
With it. But he's not smart enough to, I
1:34:19
don't know, maybe not text a like, yeah.
1:34:21
It it's such a confession like. We've never seen, I think this
1:34:23
would be like the first time ever somebody has start to
1:34:25
finish written an entire he started feeling guilty.
1:34:28
It was in shock, panic. I'm in the surveillance.
1:34:30
Footage And I'm here and I'm wearing my Converse.
1:34:32
You know, I'm being a little facetious here, but it was a
1:34:34
little ridiculous. It didn't, it didn't pass a
1:34:35
sniff test for me. You have kids.
1:34:37
And you love them more than anything I do.
1:34:38
If it was the case that you thought that the your kid was
1:34:41
innocent, wouldn't you be out telling everybody and their
1:34:43
brother that you thought that they were innocent?
1:34:44
And also, wouldn't you say what is this?
1:34:47
Argument is he what? Wouldn't you maybe recant?
1:34:49
And say, hey, I didn't actually, he didn't actually confess to
1:34:52
me. He didn't actually.
1:34:53
None of this happened the way that the state is presenting it.
1:34:56
What were they allowed to do that?
1:34:58
Prevented the parents. From testifying well, two things
1:35:00
I can answer. That and if you if you watch my
1:35:01
show, I keep telling you it's not vibes.
1:35:03
So right after the shooting happened, Lance twigs, you know,
1:35:06
the FBI put him into a house, safe house they paid for.
1:35:09
They went to the parents as well.
1:35:10
So Matt Robinson, Amber basically said your life's at
1:35:12
risk. There could be somebody who
1:35:13
jumps up and wants to avenge Charlie Kirk.
1:35:15
Would they be allowed? To do that or would they be on
1:35:17
like some kind of like close watch where they can't say
1:35:19
things like that and you know we're.
1:35:20
Going to watch you and they went into a federal safe house what
1:35:24
happens next is that they started thinking that the feds
1:35:27
were maybe going to especially since like.
1:35:29
Trump would be very aggressive at wanting this, like this
1:35:32
trial, to look as bad as possible for the left.
1:35:35
Like why would they want? To give Tyler any credibility or
1:35:37
charity, wouldn't they like cut this their a communicate their
1:35:39
ability to communicate off like maybe not as.
1:35:41
Honest, as they thought. And how do you know all any of
1:35:44
that? You gotta you gotta watch the.
1:35:45
Show right yeah, no. How do you know that I?
1:35:47
I I had a. Source.
1:35:48
Within the Robinson fan, you have a source.
1:35:49
An anonymous source, of course, so there's no way for us to
1:35:52
verify that. What you're saying right now is
1:35:53
that I find this to be interesting.
1:35:54
Somebody's in the chat right now.
1:35:55
This is an Andrew Wilson. I think it might be Andrew
1:35:57
Wilson, but Andrew has destroyed her.
1:36:00
She's he's getting dog walked, but that's OK.
1:36:02
Now watch the Candace cope train come a running didn't he?
1:36:05
Didn't that what he labeled it before?
1:36:07
Most who ride though that loser locomotive are one of three
1:36:11
things. 1A covert feminist. Well that's Andrew Wilson.
1:36:15
He's dating a woman who's got run through by three guys and
1:36:17
has five kids. 2A soy boy simp. Well, Andrew Wilson simping for
1:36:21
a woman that got run through with three different baby
1:36:23
daddies with five kids. 3A member of the fatigue
1:36:26
demographic. All this guy does is talk about
1:36:28
how he thinks rape is OK. He thinks that women should be
1:36:30
thankful that they're not getting raped.
1:36:32
Who's the fucking soy boy? Simple.
1:36:33
Like a feminist over here. Andrew Wilson is the.
1:36:37
Soy boy feminist. What are you talking about?
1:36:40
He's a soy boy cock feminist. What are you?
1:36:41
What are you saying right now? What?
1:36:43
I don't. I don't understand what.
1:36:45
You're talking about bro? What?
1:36:47
What the fuck? What are you?
1:36:48
What are you talking about? It's actually even true.
1:36:50
I can't. I can't.
1:36:51
Believe you guys are OK with people doing stolen valor.
1:36:53
That's what I can't believe. I respect our soldiers and our
1:36:56
snipers especially. Be reliable.
1:36:58
Hearsay. No, I don't find.
1:36:59
It to be reliable at all? It's just a source.
1:37:01
I'm just doing what the process you're doing.
1:37:02
Is a cool. Story it's not.
1:37:03
Well, you must. Have paid a question you're
1:37:05
giving us you're. Giving us a cool, but you're
1:37:07
saying that according to your sources that the reason that the
1:37:10
parents haven't recanted any of this recanted what they have?
1:37:12
No. Statement from the parents.
1:37:13
Wait, I just want to make sure. That I if it was the case, it
1:37:16
was being reported in mainstream media that your father came to
1:37:18
you and said, hey, is this you? Is what's going on here and then
1:37:22
he and one of his buddies took you in where you turned yourself
1:37:25
in you wouldn't go out and be like no, that's not what
1:37:27
happened that isn't what happened, though you're.
1:37:28
Just wrong on this. OK, maybe I'm paraphrasing.
1:37:30
So what is your sorry just. So I'm it sounds like they don't
1:37:32
have a. Statement out there at all?
1:37:33
What? Where?
1:37:34
Is your evidence that the parents turned him in?
1:37:37
Well, no, no, I didn't say. That you said the mainstream
1:37:39
media, I said with a sheriff friend, yes, but the father did
1:37:43
confront him. The father confronted.
1:37:44
What? Tyler Robinson.
1:37:46
And where did you? Learn this that the Tyler that's
1:37:48
part of the official. Documents, our fact checkers can
1:37:49
pull that up. But yes, but I'm saying but when
1:37:51
you say. Pull it up.
1:37:51
Official documents. Do you mean you saw this on CNN
1:37:53
or you saw this play out in the hearing?
1:37:54
No, this was one of the things. That I went through in Fact
1:37:56
Check pre debate. Are you talking about like the?
1:37:57
Charging documents. I think it was in the IT could.
1:37:59
Have been in the charging documents but I did but I do.
1:38:01
We can't pull them up. No and and yes.
1:38:03
Are you disputing this? We have that in the back to
1:38:05
pull. It up I can already tell you.
1:38:07
What you're talking about the charging documents, because this
1:38:08
is where we had to figure out where this story came from
1:38:10
because everyone was operating on the assumption that Matt
1:38:12
Robinson turned him in until we got to the preliminary hearing.
1:38:15
And we understood, like I said, even for that when you are
1:38:17
charging someone, you can use hearsay.
1:38:19
It's all probative, right? Nothing.
1:38:20
So they didn't have statements. It's not like Matt Robinson,
1:38:23
even though he was interviewed that night, Amber Robinson was
1:38:25
interviewed that night by a fed separate rooms.
1:38:27
Tyler Robinson was interviewed by a fed.
1:38:28
They did not produce statements saying my I am an I am.
1:38:31
A Navy vet other than his wife Show proof or your claim he did
1:38:35
stolen valor. I'm not a fan of him.
1:38:36
Were you? Well, I think that you're I
1:38:39
don't know. Well, I've.
1:38:41
I appreciate your service and I'm so sorry that you got a TBI
1:38:44
band. If my wife made an outrageous
1:38:46
claim that I was a sniper, where do you think that she would get
1:38:48
it from? I don't know.
1:38:50
Probably probably me, right. My son did this.
1:38:53
My. Son, I believe my son did this.
1:38:55
But what happened was they did interviews, but also the crucial
1:38:58
person here who you just brought up is Mike Mitchell.
1:38:59
Mike Mitchell is the biggest unknown in this entire case.
1:39:02
Everyone keeps saying they heard from Mike Mitchell this, they
1:39:04
heard from Mike Mitchell that. So when the person wrote up the
1:39:07
report that night and it was Brian Davis who wrote up the
1:39:09
what became the charging document, he after they
1:39:11
transported Tyler Robinson from the Washington Sheriff's County
1:39:15
Office up to I think it's Salt Lake City.
1:39:17
I think it was 4:00 AM in the morning.
1:39:19
I got up there. He then writes, 4:00 AM in the
1:39:20
morning, come. On redundant the.
1:39:23
Charging what becomes a charging document.
1:39:24
So he's basically saying we all spoke to a bunch of people and
1:39:27
here's the information that we got, right.
1:39:29
We've not seen that. So it could have come from Mike
1:39:31
Mitchell. Mike Mitchell could be saying I
1:39:32
don't know how this negates the. Point though, Why wouldn't
1:39:34
negate the point? Because you don't have.
1:39:35
A statement from the parents you are you are going.
1:39:37
Why wouldn't they just correct? The It's not the misinformation
1:39:39
negate. The point, the point is, is that
1:39:41
we now got the preliminary hearing.
1:39:43
If the parents were the ones who said I'm turning my son in
1:39:45
because he's guilty. I think you're talking about the
1:39:48
overview said It's been the narrative.
1:39:49
Everybody's known this. The narrative initially, which I
1:39:51
think you agree with, was that, you know, Matt Robinson knew his
1:39:53
kid was guilty and turned him into the police station.
1:39:55
What actually happened in terms of Sheriff Brooksby, who was
1:39:57
present there and gave a press conference, What happened was
1:39:59
this Mike Mitchell character essentially peer pressure him
1:40:01
and we can't get a Fact Check on this.
1:40:02
We can find Sheriff Brooksby's press conference and he said,
1:40:06
you know, they they know it's you and you're going to come in
1:40:10
peaceably or people are going to be banging down your door.
1:40:12
He was a undercover cop, which I don't like that.
1:40:15
I don't know what he did undercover.
1:40:16
It's very hard to find anything about Mike Mitchell, but he
1:40:17
worked with them for 20 plus years.
1:40:19
The police officers. The reason why Tyler Robinson
1:40:21
knew him was because he lives nearby and he.
1:40:23
Oh, for what I'm. Reading it sounds like the dad
1:40:27
recognizing him from an FBI release of photos.
1:40:30
So that's doesn't mean that like, Tyler Robertson's dad
1:40:32
thinks he did it based on any information other than he was in
1:40:36
like an FBI. What, like the FBI was looking
1:40:39
for him, right? I'm like, crazy.
1:40:41
He was also his boy. Scout.
1:40:42
How does this negate that the? Parents could write this second
1:40:44
and by the way, if you if you had the evidence at that point,
1:40:46
I'm just saying that your. Your first point, which is that
1:40:47
the parents did this. The parents.
1:40:49
With help from a family friend described in reports as retired
1:40:52
deputy youth pastor or minister, Aloha persuaded him to surrender
1:40:54
peacefully. Yeah, they just persuade him to
1:40:56
surrender peacefully. Not that they actually think he
1:41:00
did it. They would think he did it based
1:41:01
on the fact that he was, like, being like, they wanted to
1:41:03
arrest him. What we don't know.
1:41:05
That the parents I never, I didn't.
1:41:06
Say that they did ever, but you're you're.
1:41:07
Quoting the parents as having said you said that Matt Robinson
1:41:09
said that his kid was, you say, involved.
1:41:11
I don't want to misquote you confronted him about confronted
1:41:13
him, Yes. And I'm telling you that we have
1:41:14
well, that's not what he originally said.
1:41:15
I. Don't think because he's just
1:41:16
backtracking, not seeing any evidence that that is true.
1:41:18
We can Fact Check that because we.
1:41:19
Do have evidence and I'm saying it's the charging dock.
1:41:21
Which could have been derived from a statement, Mike Mitchell
1:41:23
said. Two things I have.
1:41:24
Already in the back, one is the charging dock and the other one
1:41:26
is a video of Kathy Nestor saying she hasn't seen Tyler's
1:41:28
phone. OK, we can run, Kathy.
1:41:29
Go back and then. Just go back to yeah, Kathy
1:41:31
first. In court saying she didn't get
1:41:32
her client's phone. Yeah.
1:41:33
And then I think will go to the thing not in dispute.
1:41:37
These are all things that I'm not even disputed.
1:41:39
We don't show it. We never get to the thing that I
1:41:41
am disputing. Well, you were.
1:41:42
I was just. Providing an answer, we were
1:41:43
coming back in from a break because you were talking about
1:41:45
the text messages, something that you felt was concrete.
1:41:46
So it was just my rebuttal to you that it's not concrete
1:41:48
because they haven't had a chance to actually answer that.
1:41:50
And she didn't even get to see your client's phone.
1:41:52
So that's effectively again the state saying these messages are
1:41:54
real. You don't get the discovery on
1:41:56
these messages just yet. She will during trial.
1:41:58
They will actually that would make their.
1:41:59
Case fall apart. If it was the case that they
1:42:01
weren't able to actually pull the data off the text messages,
1:42:03
do you think the prosecution would go to court with
1:42:05
fabricated text messages? It's called.
1:42:06
It's. Called winners and losers, they
1:42:08
may not be fabricated, by the way, as, as, as what they are
1:42:10
saying. Like I said, if there was
1:42:11
somebody logged into his phone, they may not be fabricated.
1:42:13
That's the point. So let's get to the They just
1:42:15
could be. Somebody else?
1:42:15
The parents Fact Check. Yeah.
1:42:17
So I was saying I I believe what?
1:42:18
You're talking about was derived from the charging dock, which
1:42:19
was signed off by Brian Davis. It's.
1:42:21
Let's see if that's correct. What are we looking at,
1:42:27
Robinson? 'S mother explained.
1:42:29
That over the last year or so. I'm sorry, can you zoom into
1:42:32
this? The charging dock.
1:42:34
Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the
1:42:36
surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news,
1:42:38
he agreed that it looked like their son.
1:42:40
He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the
1:42:42
shooter used matched the rifle that was given to his son as a
1:42:44
gift. As a result, Robinson's father
1:42:46
contacted his son and asked him to send a photo of the rifle,
1:42:48
which makes sense with the text messages.
1:42:50
Robinson did not respond. However, Robinson's father spoke
1:42:52
on the phone with Robinson. Robinson implied he planned to
1:42:55
take his own life. Robinson's parents were able to
1:42:56
convince him to meet at their home.
1:42:58
Yes. So this is proving.
1:42:59
My point is this, this is from the charging document, correct?
1:43:01
Yeah. So what I'm saying to you is
1:43:02
that three people got interviewed on that night.
1:43:04
Mike Mitchell got interviewed, Amber Robinson got interviewed,
1:43:06
and Matt Robinson got interviewed.
1:43:08
Of the three of them, only one of them actually wrote a
1:43:11
statement which was referred to in this preliminary trial.
1:43:13
He came in, I believe, in March, Mike Mitchell and he wrote a
1:43:16
statement which I find to be very shady, that they decided to
1:43:18
bring. Why aren't the parents?
1:43:18
Disputing that, Well, First off. That's the question.
1:43:21
First off, the parents are not going to ever play in court,
1:43:24
play to the cameras in court when they have a legal team that
1:43:26
is going to be advising them not to speak to the court because
1:43:28
you could, your son could go to prison, but they're playing to
1:43:30
somebody. Else, yeah, I mean that makes.
1:43:31
Sense who's your source? I I'm, I'm.
1:43:33
Not going to address that. They're saying if someone else
1:43:35
is your. Source but won't go publicly
1:43:36
tell the media this is not true. Well, what I I.
1:43:38
Did not say to you that, I just said I have a source so I want
1:43:41
to be very. That would make more sense.
1:43:42
Actually to go through Candace Owens and say to themselves
1:43:44
because they can like feed her information for her to leak out
1:43:47
without like them having to assign their name to it to make
1:43:50
it seem like they're trying to disrupt the case clear and.
1:43:53
Take it from somebody who was involved and and permanently
1:43:55
sued when I have to take my lawyer's advice and there's so
1:43:58
many things I want to respond to when people are speaking about.
1:44:00
Yeah, but it's bizarre that they would.
1:44:01
Utilize a source which would get the information to you, but
1:44:03
wouldn't just go to the media. And you'd be like, actually,
1:44:04
that's all wrong. It's not.
1:44:05
It's not bizarre. At all.
1:44:06
He's a fucking moron for saying this.
1:44:07
It makes perfect sense. Their kid is on trial.
1:44:10
They wouldn't say anything publicly.
1:44:11
They don't want to potentially have like a problem with the
1:44:13
case and they want to be able to like have possible deniability
1:44:16
that the information is from them.
1:44:18
Why would they? Why would they come forward and
1:44:20
say something and be they make it seem like they were just
1:44:22
trying to change the you? Know.
1:44:26
Information on the case of the public narrative doesn't make
1:44:29
any sense. What?
1:44:33
I am telling you. That you would nary find a
1:44:35
lawyer who would advise you to go to the media.
1:44:37
Oh, these this? This especially when your son
1:44:39
if. I thought that my kid.
1:44:40
Was up for death it's. It's just it's a legal.
1:44:42
Strategy. He's dumb as shit if I thought
1:44:44
that my kid. Was in any way, shape or form
1:44:46
going to be up? You couldn't shut me up or my
1:44:48
wife. She would be like, that's not
1:44:49
true, that's ridiculous because you're stupid.
1:44:51
You're a dumb idiot fuck. Like you don't understand legal
1:44:54
strategy. You're a moron.
1:44:55
You spent $300,000 to get to sit to sit in a cock chair and get
1:44:58
fucking decimated by Candace Owens.
1:44:59
Of course you'd say that. You're stupid, the argument
1:45:02
makes sense. Why would they?
1:45:03
They're not going to risk their legal strategy.
1:45:05
Makes no sense, especially since they can potentially leak
1:45:07
information to her with plausible deniability.
1:45:09
He's dumb as fuck for this. No possible that never.
1:45:11
Happened. These people are lying through
1:45:12
their teeth. They'd be public whether you
1:45:14
like it or not. Yeah, I.
1:45:16
That's for you and your wife. But when a judge issues a gag
1:45:18
order in a case and your son is up for death and your lawyers
1:45:21
could be advising you, but if you say anything, you could blow
1:45:23
the case, you would have a more responsible consideration.
1:45:26
I see. And and we're.
1:45:26
And we're. Oh yeah, you see.
1:45:28
Wow, instant backtrack on that one.
1:45:29
We're speaking opinion here. You're like why wouldn't care
1:45:31
and I violate the judge's orders and see what happened.
1:45:33
Do you have a source? It seems.
1:45:34
Like they're violating it with them.
1:45:36
I didn't. I I'm not speaking to a source,
1:45:38
but I'm saying to you is speaking just relevant to what
1:45:40
this is. We have not seen any proof that
1:45:43
that statement that is included in this charging document.
1:45:45
I think it is highly likely on the basis of the preliminary
1:45:47
hearing that that all came from Mike Mitchell and Mike Mitchell
1:45:50
would be a part, he said. All the statements.
1:45:52
Of, well, it's. Him saying.
1:45:54
The parents told me this. The parents could dispute that.
1:45:56
That's going to come down the line.
1:45:57
Yeah. They also have a.
1:45:58
They have a. They have a pretrial gag order.
1:46:00
He's so dumb. Like what?
1:46:01
He's a fucking idiot, right? They're going to be able to.
1:46:03
Seat the parents. I I will say this putting
1:46:05
together context clues, if the state had it on, you know, 100%
1:46:09
certainty that Matt Robinson and Amber Robinson said it, a five
1:46:13
day preliminary hearing would be a good time to say we have
1:46:15
enough evidence and I can tell you why Matt Robinson made this
1:46:17
statement and here is the statement that he signed.
1:46:18
That would be a good time to present that evidence.
1:46:20
That would also be a good time for the.
1:46:21
Defense to say that's just totally fabricated the wrong
1:46:23
time. Why couldn't?
1:46:24
They that is completely the wrong time because what they're
1:46:26
doing is that they already said they didn't receive discovery.
1:46:28
They literally can't. They literally can't because
1:46:29
they can't. They did not.
1:46:30
You're saying that they didn't? Receive that information.
1:46:31
No, no, they just. Received the text messages, but
1:46:33
in order to, that's not the text messages.
1:46:36
The probative. Information.
1:46:37
Yeah, we're talking about the. Information that we just
1:46:38
reviewed, that's not the text message they never presented.
1:46:40
The state never, never put it on.
1:46:41
Yeah, they didn't the. Defense could easily still whoa.
1:46:45
Still have presented. This yeah, no, they could have
1:46:47
said they're no, you're no, they're not allowed to no in a
1:46:49
preliminary. Hearing the The defense is
1:46:51
engaging with whatever evidence the state decides to put on.
1:46:54
They did not put this on as evidence.
1:46:56
Brian Davis was up there, so they're not allowed to present
1:46:58
anything. They're responding.
1:47:00
To the Are they allowed to present?
1:47:01
Anything they are allowed to say.
1:47:02
There was a conspiracy. That they could prove right.
1:47:04
How? He asked a question.
1:47:05
And like she's trying to answer and he won't let her answer it
1:47:07
then in there, would they? Present that in one of these
1:47:08
hearings. No, it wouldn't be the right.
1:47:09
Time. I disagree, I think.
1:47:11
They, I think they not only could do it, but they would.
1:47:13
Is this something you even? Disagree on or just a fact could
1:47:15
do it in fact when I. Talked in depth with my
1:47:17
attorney, they said that's exactly if you had actual
1:47:19
evidence that there was fabrications.
1:47:21
He's he's lying by the. Way he this is, he's just making
1:47:23
this up. There's absolutely no way he
1:47:24
talked about an attorney. This is a guy who lied about
1:47:26
being a sniper in the military. Let's just be fucking real by
1:47:27
the feds. That's exactly when you would
1:47:29
introduce that so when in the document.
1:47:31
That they filed yesterday or a couple of days ago.
1:47:34
The appropriate like what you're doing at this stage of the
1:47:36
hearing is the state is saying we have enough evidence that we
1:47:39
think this needs to go forward for the trial.
1:47:41
Hence the reason why there's this extraordinary, we allow
1:47:43
hearsay because it doesn't really need to be perfect.
1:47:44
It can be enough that we feel like we can move forward, right.
1:47:47
And OK, I disagree that general, when somebody in prison, but
1:47:49
whatever the next phase is for them to meet in court and for
1:47:54
the defense to essentially present an argument to the state
1:47:57
that says we find this filing to be defective in and of itself.
1:48:00
We don't even have to offend ourselves because you, the
1:48:02
states have enough. You know what the laws are on
1:48:04
the books and this filing is effective and you should get rid
1:48:07
of these charges because they don't make sense based on what
1:48:09
you can decide based on the law on the books.
1:48:11
So that's why they then file the dismissal, right.
1:48:13
So in the dismissal, what they're doing is they are
1:48:14
engaging. And this is what was widely
1:48:16
misinterpreted. Yeah, they're engaging.
1:48:17
As though as it's a hypothetical.
1:48:19
If this is hypothetically true, then so they're saying all of
1:48:21
these. Charges I'm not disputing.
1:48:22
Any of that. So that's what we're asking,
1:48:24
you're saying? Could they just what I'm asking
1:48:25
specifically? Is like who could shut up, shut
1:48:26
parents up who are like no a a gag order.
1:48:29
The law this he's a he's being dumb as shit here, like he's
1:48:32
living and dying on the stupidest fucking point.
1:48:35
Who's going to listen to a gag order in one in the most like
1:48:38
publicized fucking, you know, or you know, situation in a like a
1:48:42
long time in America. You would listen to this.
1:48:45
Gag order like you're dumb what you would obviously, because
1:48:49
they could also threaten your kids life if you don't listen to
1:48:51
the fucking gag order like he's just so dumb.
1:48:53
This is this is like a total. This one is like the this is his
1:48:56
worst argument way. There's no.
1:48:57
Possible this never happened. This is ridiculous.
1:49:00
They would be shouting it on CNN.
1:49:01
They would be shouting it from the rooftops.
1:49:03
They would be why he's. Just he's like, this is like the
1:49:05
biggest conspiracy of this entire situation, ironically
1:49:07
losing their minds and you're like.
1:49:08
Nope. The gag order would be enough to
1:49:09
to keep them quiet. Yeah, yes.
1:49:11
The legal gag order would be enough to keep them quiet, Yes,
1:49:14
and their lawyer saying that it makes more sense optically to
1:49:16
just follow the gag order. What is he talking about?
1:49:18
Not enough of them talk. To your source, but enough to
1:49:19
keep them quiet. I think that that's quite
1:49:20
ridiculous, but I'll even concede this whole point to you.
1:49:23
Let's just look at that again. He's so dumb and so wrong, but
1:49:26
he's going to concede this point to her even though he's sweating
1:49:29
right now because he hasn't had a cigarette, but he looks like
1:49:31
really beat up. Do you see this?
1:49:33
Look at this. This is Andrew Wilson at the
1:49:35
beginning. This is him now.
1:49:36
He's fucking sweating, dude. He's sweating because he can't
1:49:39
smoke cigarettes. He's like, his eye, like his
1:49:42
eyes look just like fucking fundamentally different.
1:49:44
Holy shit, say. Maybe this was misconstrued,
1:49:47
right? If there's a, there's a little
1:49:49
bit of reason to doubt it because we're still waiting for
1:49:51
the evidence for trial. If that's the case, then why not
1:49:53
take the same standard for the evidence that you present?
1:49:55
You're just waiting for trial. Well, you didn't do that.
1:49:57
Wait a second, wait a second. I just, I just want to make sure
1:49:59
that I got this right. That's your argument to me,
1:50:01
right? My argument to you is.
1:50:03
What my argument? Your argument.
1:50:04
To me is that. Hey, wait a second, Andrew,
1:50:07
there's not enough here. That convinces me, right?
1:50:09
Well, that's actually my. Rebuttal to you is that you are
1:50:11
saying why are people engaging in what you term to be
1:50:14
conspiracy theories. I, I I term it to be.
1:50:18
Thinking they're. Just thinking because they're
1:50:19
recognizing there are a lot of holes in these stories and that
1:50:21
this is not strong evidence, right?
1:50:23
This is the reason they're doing it.
1:50:24
I'm I'm explaining to you, this is the reason that they're doing
1:50:26
it. I'm, I'm addressing what you
1:50:27
view to be overwhelming evidence.
1:50:29
And and by the way, I want to be clear what you're what?
1:50:32
Yeah. Well, but thus far, every every
1:50:34
point that you've brought up, every point that you've brought
1:50:36
up. Would you did you feel like this
1:50:38
is beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, you're, you realize,
1:50:40
remember what I said my going. To be it's not beyond a
1:50:42
reasonable doubt, it's just what I find convincing is no, it was
1:50:45
what he. Finds like it wasn't like,
1:50:47
overwhelmingly convincing. Sorry, what are we talking about
1:50:50
here? What I find overwhelming.
1:50:52
So why are you so? What he finds.
1:50:53
Overwhelming just means he really believes it a lot, which
1:50:56
is not what the word overwhelming means that when
1:50:58
people say they don't. Find it if that was the
1:50:59
limitation. Of the claims that you made, if
1:51:01
it was just wait a second, there's a little bit of
1:51:04
problems. There's some problems in this
1:51:05
case that I have questions for that I want answers to.
1:51:07
Nobody have a problem. Actually, at least of all me, I
1:51:10
would be the least likely person to have an issue with you, any
1:51:12
of your fans, anybody saying. In fact, I've had tons of
1:51:14
discord calls about this. Wow.
1:51:16
Oh, Discord. Nice.
1:51:17
My position's always. Been clear, Of course
1:51:19
conspiracies exist. Some of them have way better
1:51:21
evidence than others, but I've seen him myself.
1:51:23
I know conspiracy. In fact, the federal government
1:51:25
has he used to? He used to, actually.
1:51:26
Be a sniper for the conspiracy theorist.
1:51:28
You know if you guys saw that hundreds of thousands of.
1:51:29
Laws about conspiracies, they see them everywhere.
1:51:32
We both know this, right? That's never the what the
1:51:35
problem is. The problem is when you make
1:51:36
claims outside of, well, wait a second, I'm just questioning
1:51:40
evidence here. I'm just questioning what the
1:51:42
state's case is here. I'm just asking questions.
1:51:44
It's when you make claims outside of that where you claim
1:51:46
that there's good evidence or good standards, you should
1:51:49
believe because and then it turns out that it's all nonsense
1:51:52
or it's wackadoo stuff or it makes no sense.
1:51:54
And when we have a chance to cross examine your evidence that
1:51:56
you presented, I'm going to show a lot of that, a lot of this
1:51:59
conjecture that's based on literally nothing that leads
1:52:02
from no inferences whatsoever. Like you couldn't even infer it
1:52:05
logically. That's the problem.
1:52:07
The problem has never been whether or not you just said,
1:52:09
you know, there's not enough in this case so far, until we get
1:52:11
to the trial, I remain unconvinced.
1:52:14
I'm sure there's tons of people who remain unconvinced.
1:52:15
Yet until we get to the trial, I think that's fine.
1:52:17
I think it's fine. There's people who are convinced
1:52:19
too. That's never been my problem.
1:52:21
My problem is the claims which are external to.
1:52:23
The problem is that he wants to make.
1:52:24
Money off of this too, of course.
1:52:25
OK. I'm not sure.
1:52:28
I really care if you have a problem with what I think in my
1:52:31
own spare time. I don't understand this like
1:52:32
lecture that you just gave, but he's he's the.
1:52:37
He's just trying to he's. Trying to sound smart.
1:52:38
He won't shut the fuck up. He just, he's talking to talk.
1:52:41
He likes to hear himself talk. He's just speaking to speak.
1:52:43
That's like literally what it is.
1:52:45
And he wants to. He's hoping that that argument
1:52:46
resonates with people to be like, oh, that makes sense.
1:52:50
Oh, he sounds so reasonable. He's on this clarification, No,
1:52:52
But beyond that? What I'm saying is that the
1:52:54
state is allowed to use. This is what my this is what my
1:52:56
problem is. You guys are.
1:52:56
Yeah, he did. He's just so used.
1:52:57
To it because he works for TPUSA lecturing people on how to
1:52:59
debate and he also used to be a sniper in the military and he
1:53:02
used to train people in the military to be sniper and then
1:53:05
you also used to teach guns in the NRA right so these are all
1:53:08
the different things that he we used to do for not like yeah
1:53:10
you. Guys think while it's illegal,
1:53:12
you actually you can, you are allowed to do that.
1:53:13
So but anyway, going back, going back to you saying I wouldn't
1:53:16
have a problem, I think I just demonstrated pretty thoroughly
1:53:19
that what you claim that you have a problem with is exactly
1:53:22
what the state is engaged in at this stage.
1:53:23
So it doesn't make, it just doesn't make sense.
1:53:24
That's not the case. In fact, so if people look and
1:53:27
they say. I'm looking at the gun and I see
1:53:29
and I'm inferring this and someone else says I'm looking at
1:53:31
the gun evidence and I'm inferring that they're both
1:53:33
doing the exact same thing. You're not.
1:53:34
You're just saying I want to, aren't they?
1:53:36
Well. Do it for the state that's.
1:53:37
Propositionally false. No, it's not propositionally
1:53:39
claiming exactly how it is the case that every proposition is
1:53:42
going to have a true or false conclusion, Period.
1:53:45
That's just logic, right? He's he's debate fucking.
1:53:47
He's doing the the he's doing the debate molestation shit
1:53:50
again. It's a lot of excluded.
1:53:52
Middle all propositions are going to be true or they're
1:53:54
going to be false. When we get into when we're
1:53:56
making inferences, we're making inferences based on on
1:53:58
propositions we can make. We can actually come to true
1:54:01
conclusions with false premises inside of a proposition.
1:54:04
In fact, what we're talking about here is 0.
1:54:06
God, he's so. Fucking boring dude.
1:54:08
You feel that you're. Convinced by this evidence, But
1:54:11
you felt like you were right. Sure.
1:54:12
But here's the thing. When you asked me my reason,
1:54:14
Andrew, why are you convinced by this?
1:54:15
I can give you my reasons why I'm convinced by it, why it
1:54:17
seems reasonable. Well, let's hear it to me.
1:54:19
To be convinced. You can even say, oh, he's not
1:54:21
going to give it, but. Andrew, I'm just not.
1:54:23
Convinced by it. If that was the limitation of
1:54:25
your claims, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
1:54:27
That's why I wanted to have the conversation, in fact, was so
1:54:30
that we could. He wanted the money.
1:54:31
Dude move he wanted. He's trying to elevate himself
1:54:34
more into your. Actual claims that you've made
1:54:37
which transcend the idea of. I'm just asking questions before
1:54:40
we get into that. Your team has one thing they
1:54:41
want to show before you go into that.
1:54:42
So if you want to pull that up, this is the prosecution filing
1:54:45
showing defense had full discovery by April first.
1:54:49
They did not. That's.
1:54:49
Not true. Wait a second.
1:54:50
Yeah. To date, the state's prosecutors
1:54:53
have disclosed all evidence that is presently and reasonably
1:54:55
available to them as required under Rule 16.
1:54:58
Utah are criminal to be more precise as of April first, yeah,
1:55:01
that was that was. Not that was not 100%.
1:55:03
That's why they're caging that by saying what's reasonable.
1:55:05
There was, I mean, there was an entire and we can pull this up
1:55:06
like we should now play the Kathy Nester clip because that
1:55:08
that's from there. So and they were basically
1:55:10
saying you don't need it at this stage, meaning it's it's not
1:55:13
reasonable that you're asking for this when we're going into a
1:55:15
hearing that's just going to be based on and stuff things of
1:55:17
that nature. But of course, by the time a
1:55:18
trial comes, you're going to get all the show costs, yes.
1:55:21
So that's what. They're saying I understand.
1:55:22
OK, so that's not even and I'm even fine.
1:55:23
Yeah, we all. We all know and then by the way,
1:55:25
just now that the hearing is over, and you can also Fact
1:55:27
Check this, they now at the at the end of the preliminary
1:55:30
hearing dropped like an insane amount of the discovery stuff
1:55:32
they gave to them. Like the week after.
1:55:34
You guys can give me the exact amount.
1:55:35
I don't want to say because I don't know my I don't remember
1:55:37
how much it was. It was an absurd amount of stuff
1:55:39
that they gave to them right after the preliminary hearing
1:55:41
that they had been asking for. Because that was one of the
1:55:43
things that I kept saying on my show is as we were watching that
1:55:46
preliminary of the preliminary, why not just give them the stuff
1:55:47
now so they can engage in these arguments as I feel like you,
1:55:50
it's like, I want to hear what they have to say about the tech
1:55:52
messages. I want why can't you just give
1:55:54
them what they're asking for so that they can actually engage
1:55:55
you? And it didn't happen.
1:55:56
So, but the judge ruled that it wasn't necessary at this stage
1:55:58
and that it was the whole point of that because it wasn't
1:56:00
necessary at the preliminary. Yeah, sure, sure, sure.
1:56:03
Yeah. Would you like to play the Kathy
1:56:04
video? Well, he's saying he's
1:56:05
disagreeing. So I don't think we need to.
1:56:07
Yeah, there's no. Disagreement that that she said
1:56:08
there so the yeah. So I guess the disagreements now
1:56:12
would move into the evidences that you have stated on the
1:56:15
record, which transcend elements of reason.
1:56:18
Why are we having? A A transcendental conversation
1:56:21
now because I mean because because your your.
1:56:23
Entire. Thing was about looking at the
1:56:26
evidence, which never made sense to me again because all of the
1:56:28
evidence that you felt to be overwhelming was hearsay.
1:56:29
That was bizarre to me. You told me that I could take
1:56:31
as. Much time as I wanted to
1:56:32
question you. No, but I'm just asking.
1:56:33
You to just to lay the groundwork of what you're saying
1:56:35
and probably decide. That it trips into something
1:56:37
else. And I do still want to hold you
1:56:39
for going through because we discussed the gun, we discussed
1:56:41
your. You can hold me to those things,
1:56:42
but I. Would like to get into the
1:56:43
things we should do that the screwdrivers so.
1:56:44
And I'll explain exactly. What the groundwork is when you
1:56:46
make claims which passed the idea of I'm just asking
1:56:49
questions because the state's evidence is not convincing.
1:56:51
I think you have to answer for those claims because they are in
1:56:53
regards to this case. You're saying I have a claim it
1:56:55
is in regards to the assassination of Charlie Kirk,
1:56:57
which is what we're talking about.
1:56:58
Not just the case of Charlie Kirk is assassination.
1:57:01
You should have to answer for the claims that you've made in
1:57:03
regards to the assassination itself.
1:57:05
You should, yeah, agreed. So if that's the case, then I
1:57:08
would, I would like to finally dive into some of that evidence
1:57:11
and dive into it. Well, just to be clear.
1:57:13
And I'm happy to to have you talk about, like I said
1:57:15
publicly, you want to engage in some conspiracies.
1:57:17
But I said I want to make sure that we get to the substance of
1:57:18
our debate. The substance of our debate is
1:57:20
this is the. Major demonstrating that.
1:57:21
All of the quote UN quote evidence that you feel that you
1:57:24
have, which demonstrates that Tyler Robinson, I mean the Tyler
1:57:27
Robinson shot Charlie Kirk you don't find convincing again.
1:57:29
It's, well, it's been. Invalidated by the by the
1:57:31
testimony that we saw and in your answer for when I explained
1:57:33
somebody had the most degraded prints was I don't know.
1:57:35
OK, well there then there lies my ability to process that.
1:57:39
It's just fine. For you to not be convinced up
1:57:42
to this point. All of your viewers dude.
1:57:44
He looks horrible. Dude how the fuck, how the fuck
1:57:47
is he degrading so quickly? This is him in the beginning
1:57:50
again, like he's degrading rapidly.
1:57:52
I'm I is, is Candace? Like I don't think Candace is
1:57:54
like degrading this quickly. Everybody watching, nobody's
1:57:59
getting. You're conceding nobody.
1:58:00
'S getting a dispute. That if all your claims ever
1:58:02
were were just up to now the evidence that the state's given.
1:58:05
I'm just kind of not convinced that is not what's been
1:58:07
happening. What's actually been happening
1:58:09
is that you've made tons of claims in regards to this case
1:58:13
and in regards to the Kirk assassination, which are far
1:58:15
above and beyond. I just doubt the state's theory.
1:58:18
OK, Yeah, I. Mean sure I do doubt I.
1:58:21
Do doubt the state's theory. I also.
1:58:22
Am welcome to say what I think you know, if you want to move
1:58:25
into opinions, if you want to talk about Erica Kirk, if you
1:58:27
want to talk about turning Point USA like to talk about all and
1:58:29
get into it. I'm totally happy to do that.
1:58:31
But I just want to say that like I do not feel because I've said
1:58:33
what's important to me is that we exhaust this topic first of
1:58:36
our actual debate claims. I do not feel that you
1:58:38
sufficiently have argued that the evidence is overwhelming.
1:58:41
Sorry, question for you. But I am sorry.
1:58:43
You feel that way, Candace? One question.
1:58:45
Whoa. Passive.
1:58:46
Aggressive like a woman in America's what what evidence do
1:58:49
you need to. See, for you to say Tyler
1:58:50
Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, that's a great question.
1:58:53
So I actually actually expected in this preliminary hearing,
1:58:55
actually the almost the in inverse of what he was saying is
1:58:58
true, right. So the this is now all the time
1:59:00
the state is putting on their evidence.
1:59:01
That's the purpose of this hearing, right?
1:59:03
The state is losing here, say, but they're also putting on
1:59:04
their evidence. So I was just expecting some
1:59:06
sort of a slam dunk. Like we got him on camera taking
1:59:07
the shot. We at least we have him clear on
1:59:09
camera. You're telling me this guy drove
1:59:10
13 hours all around? Like we can definitely show you
1:59:13
a picture that it's going to be beyond a reasonable doubt before
1:59:15
we even get to the trial. People are going to see and go,
1:59:16
oh, crap. Like it was really Tyler
1:59:17
Robinson. I was expecting to at least see
1:59:20
evidence that because I had reported early on that the
1:59:24
source was saying that Tyler did not step foot on campus that
1:59:27
day. It is my perspective that he had
1:59:28
something to do with something. I I do believe he was putting
1:59:30
like that's very vague, but. OK, disposing.
1:59:32
Clothes. At at this stage, at this phase,
1:59:34
I do believe he was disposing clothes, he was involved
1:59:35
somehow. I, I find Lance to be more
1:59:38
suspicious if I'm being honest with you.
1:59:40
And also, like I said, the does she think that the.
1:59:42
Trans person did it. Is that what her argument is?
1:59:44
Use immunity. That was given to Lance by the
1:59:46
feds. The fact that the feds didn't
1:59:47
ask him any questions, the fact that I spoke with Lance to his
1:59:49
family and they were like, it's very weird that the feds are not
1:59:52
asking him more questions. He's exactly the person that I
1:59:55
would imagine to be involved in some stuff allegedly, I'll say
1:59:57
allegedly. But when we got to the
2:00:00
preliminary hearing, there was no there was not a single piece
2:00:02
of evidence that I felt was slam dunk.
2:00:04
I was waiting for that a photo. I mean, anything.
2:00:05
Would it maybe go all right, I think this this could be the guy
2:00:08
if they had handed over the discovery on the text message
2:00:10
since that was their big tada, we've got the text messages.
2:00:13
That would be the first thing that I would hand over.
2:00:14
But actually who was holding them up?
2:00:15
Like I said, it wasn't the prosecution.
2:00:16
They're right to say we. We were handing things over and
2:00:19
we heard the defense argue on behalf of the prosecution saying
2:00:22
it's not them and it's not the FBI, it's the FBI that's holding
2:00:25
on to things. The FBI took everything.
2:00:26
The FBI took the gun. The FBI took initially the
2:00:29
screwdriver. And then when I heard testimony
2:00:30
about the things that they didn't, that they found that
2:00:32
were suspicious, example being the backpack, that's something
2:00:35
that really bothers me that they say they traced the shooter,
2:00:38
They traced the route that he went on, and then there wasn't a
2:00:40
ban. We know it looks like he's
2:00:41
wearing some sort of a backpack. We know that there was an
2:00:43
abandoned backpack found at the bus stop in front of a library
2:00:46
and they felt that this should be taken into evidence that they
2:00:49
took it. The FBI.
2:00:50
This was a testimony of Amanda Baker.
2:00:53
I believe her last name is, but you might want to fetch that
2:00:54
because I think I'm blending last names.
2:00:56
She's so she was the forensics for the FBI.
2:00:58
And then she says she gets a call on the 13th and they stop
2:01:02
testing on this backpack because they find that the backpack
2:01:05
actually belongs to somebody on Charlie's team.
2:01:08
But if you know the map of the layout of the campus you're
2:01:09
going, what the hell are they doing all the way up?
2:01:11
This is nowhere near anywhere. And by the way, that's not an
2:01:13
acceptable answer for why you just gave it back.
2:01:16
That's not like why would you actually, no one ever been
2:01:18
killed by somebody on their team before, right?
2:01:19
So I found that to be very strange that it was on the exact
2:01:22
route that the that the alleged gunman ran.
2:01:24
And that their excuse was we just gave it back because we
2:01:26
heard that this was this belonged to somebody on
2:01:28
Charlie's team. So that to me is This is why the
2:01:31
the investigation itself feels underwhelming when you learn,
2:01:35
and this is completely crazy to me, that the some of the
2:01:38
artifacts that Charlie was wearing were immediately
2:01:40
returned to Erica. That's absurd, that is.
2:01:43
Why would that be absurd? Everything should be in.
2:01:45
Evidence when you learn that the okay, maybe.
2:01:48
She's right car that they. Carried Charlie in to go to the
2:01:51
hospital they had immediately towed, cleaned and back up for
2:01:54
resale. That's absurd.
2:01:56
That should be in evidence and any police officer that you
2:01:57
speak to will say is that true or a.
2:02:00
Person that's involved. In a crime will say I didn't get
2:02:02
my well why would they? Investigate the car they
2:02:03
transported them in. Actually that doesn't make any
2:02:05
sense. Why would that be part of why
2:02:06
would that's not part of the crime scene?
2:02:07
That's like a transportation vehicle.
2:02:09
Why would they also have to look at that?
2:02:10
I slept back for years. That nothing do they?
2:02:12
That doesn't really make sense to.
2:02:13
Me if it happened in the if it happened inside of the fucking
2:02:16
car and sure, but he didn't get shot in a car.
2:02:19
I don't think they would actually need the car.
2:02:20
It was just around. And I and they kept it into
2:02:22
evidence until the trial was over and it has to be approved.
2:02:25
I think somebody said by the attorney general has to sign off
2:02:27
on giving you those objects back.
2:02:28
And we were told this is all fine.
2:02:30
And we see this is just one example.
2:02:32
Erica holding the crucifix. That's that should be an
2:02:36
evidence irrespective if you feel bad for her, I think she
2:02:39
should have, you know, have it and it's sweet.
2:02:41
That should be an evidence immediately paving over the
2:02:43
crime scene. This is like the craziest thing
2:02:45
ever. You immediately.
2:02:48
And when you heard the guy who did it actually go up on a
2:02:50
podcast and explain I got the call.
2:02:52
They said it was a paver emergency.
2:02:54
I don't, I've never in my entire career heard of a paver
2:02:56
emergency. They had already had someone
2:02:58
come up and dig up the dirt. So by the time he got there on
2:03:00
Sunday, the dirt had already been dug up for him to lay down
2:03:03
pavers. That is what people are looking
2:03:05
at and going, yeah, they don't, they don't impound.
2:03:06
Ambulances. I don't think that they would.
2:03:09
I mean, maybe some of his other possessions, maybe some of the
2:03:11
clothes or whatever the fuck they're referring to I suppose.
2:03:13
But like, they wouldn't impound like fucking.
2:03:16
They wouldn't impound the vehicle.
2:03:17
The vehicle is is a transportation metric there.
2:03:20
Needs to be answers for why this was done.
2:03:21
And he tells us the call came from the feds in the governor's
2:03:23
office. UV U's washed their hands of it.
2:03:26
And what he's saying sounds true because we heard during the
2:03:28
testimony, one person described the regions of who was in
2:03:31
control of everything. The feds were in control of the
2:03:33
courtyard. So in order for anybody to have
2:03:34
paid anything that was federal territory, so to speak, maybe
2:03:37
not using the best cop term, but the feds were in control of the
2:03:39
courtyard. So these are things that I think
2:03:43
should be answered for why? Why are we doing things
2:03:44
differently than you would in any other criminal scenario of
2:03:48
keeping the evidence until we know more, until we're
2:03:50
confident, You know, the various decoys, I did it, I did it.
2:03:53
It just doesn't look right. OK, so go back to the question.
2:03:57
So what would you need to see for you to say something if they
2:03:59
had I? Was expecting here we have him
2:04:00
he took a shot here it is and then I'd be like great a clear
2:04:02
image of him on the staircase from like that's definitively
2:04:04
Tyler Robinson and he was on campus we got nothing we got
2:04:06
literally nothing well it does sound like she's.
2:04:08
Setting it, she's setting it up that there will never be
2:04:10
anything that will convince her because they don't have like
2:04:12
enough like what you would consider objective proof for it.
2:04:14
So I think what hearsay. Of people saying but you
2:04:17
basically get no case. You know, basically no case off
2:04:19
planet Earth. You get that?
2:04:20
Sure. Oh, we got a picture.
2:04:21
Here's him with the murder weapon.
2:04:22
Here's him taking the shot. Most most of this doesn't take.
2:04:24
Place on a college campus that has surveillance everywhere.
2:04:26
Yeah, 1 clear image. Of his but I.
2:04:27
Don't understand when when you're.
2:04:28
In car plates, if you're asked the.
2:04:29
Question. What would it take to convince?
2:04:31
It'd be the same question be asked to me, Andrew.
2:04:33
What would take to convince you that the oppositional is true,
2:04:37
right? That he's a patchy or something
2:04:38
like that. Just good clear, concise
2:04:40
evidence that's been presented right and is being presented
2:04:43
that I could go through and link all together to see if there's
2:04:45
actually some clear picture of there being a Patsy.
2:04:48
That's what it would take for me.
2:04:50
Just a good I don't disagree, just well, sure, but that's a.
2:04:51
Little bit vague so but sure I heard the defense.
2:04:54
Just a good. Evidentiary standard.
2:04:56
And then of course I would change my mind so so just to.
2:04:59
Qualify this. So there is a possibility in the
2:05:01
next few months that you may come out and say, guys, it's
2:05:02
done, title killed. So you're saying yesterday.
2:05:04
I think it's very important for the audience.
2:05:06
You have a question for you. Is there anything that you could
2:05:08
see for you to say, Yeah, this guy was a Patsy, of course.
2:05:10
And I'm going to always follow evidence.
2:05:12
So my, my whole thing is just this.
2:05:13
It's it's really important to me.
2:05:15
I don't mind people being truth seekers and justice searchers
2:05:19
and the Internet has helped solve tons of crimes.
2:05:21
There's no if ands or buts about that, right?
2:05:23
However, there's also people who, you know, they, they not
2:05:26
only don't solve crimes, but they just come up with
2:05:28
conjecture. I'm like almost.
2:05:29
Completely convinced that they wouldn't hold on to the car
2:05:31
because it's not part of the crime scene.
2:05:33
It's a transportation vehicle. There's no, they're not going
2:05:35
to, they're not going to impound your fucking car if you use it
2:05:37
to transport somebody who's been shot as like part of the it's
2:05:40
not part of the crime scene, it's not part of the crime
2:05:42
scene, they're not going to do it.
2:05:43
Sure. And they what's?
2:05:44
Called flooding the zone you flood nobody said the an.
2:05:46
Ambulance, what we're saying is like they're not going to
2:05:47
impound an ambulance if that's just a transportation vehicle.
2:05:50
They're not going to impound your car if you just use it to
2:05:52
transport somebody that was shot.
2:05:53
That's not like how that would work.
2:05:55
I'm very confident of that unless you were shot in the car
2:05:58
or it was involved in your shooting of the zone with.
2:06:01
Tons and tons of conspiracy based ideas and they go nowhere,
2:06:03
right? And yeah, the judge.
2:06:05
Didn't say take it so that's why they're not take they didn't
2:06:07
take it so and in fact they. Actually take away from a
2:06:11
legitimate investigation. Now, I'm not even saying anybody
2:06:14
here is purposely flooding the zone.
2:06:15
That's not even the claim. All I'm saying is that the
2:06:18
claims made apps. Absent.
2:06:21
Oh, this is just me not being convinced by the state's
2:06:23
evidence. Those become claims, and claims
2:06:25
have to be defended just like mine have to be defended.
2:06:28
Yours have to be defended. And that's what we're going to
2:06:30
get to now. You know you want to get into
2:06:31
it. Would you guys like to take a ad
2:06:33
break and then we'll talk Erica, Kirk and TPUSC and.
2:06:37
Conspiracies that have been conjectured.
2:06:38
By Candace Owens In regards to this case and the Charlie, we'll
2:06:41
take a 3 1/2. Minute break and we'll be back
2:06:43
soon. Wow, excellent.
2:06:44
Stuff, man, they're going to take a 3 1/2 minute break, and
2:06:47
that's where we're going to close Part 1 of this wonderful
2:06:49
debate.