Candace Owens presents new footage in the Charlie Kirk assassination investigation
Candace Owens shares exclusive footage of Terrell Farnsworth handling an SD card and laptop in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's shooting, while addressing legal misrepresentations by TPUSA spokesman Blake Neff.
Summary
In Episode 378 of the Candace podcast, Candace Owens presents what she describes as her "October surprise" — footage she has held since October showing Terrell Farnsworth, shortly after Charlie Kirk was shot, pocketing an SD card from the camera positioned behind Kirk's head and then opening his laptop and apparently inserting the card into it. Owens contrasts this behavior with the Turning Point USA narrative that Farnsworth was simply securing evidence, arguing that if that were the case, there was no reason to access a laptop rather than hand the card directly to law enforcement. She also addresses TPUSA spokesman Blake Neff's characterization of the Tyler Robinson defense filing, explaining in detail how preliminary hearings work and why the defense's silence on certain theories at that stage carries no evidentiary weight. Additionally, she responds to claims that she is coordinating with left-wing streamer Hasan Piker, and highlights a clip of Donald Trump on Fox & Friends that she argues corroborates her account of Mike Mitchell's central role in identifying Tyler Robinson.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Opening — Late pregnancy and the week's news
Candace Owens: Happy Wednesday, you guys. I have to tell you right at the top here, I am exhausted today. Truly, the child that I am currently growing decided to wake me up at 4:00 in the morning. He was having some description of a dance party in the womb. 4:00 a.m. without a care in the world. He was at a club. Late pregnancy gets so weird. At all times you have to consider another human that is living its own life inside of you, just occupying your space. I was explaining how odd this phenomenon is to my team, and of course Skylar then thought of the most male-coded analogy. He said, "Oh, like this guy from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles." And yeah, babies are cuter, but it is like they control — they decide. There's no going back to sleep when somebody's having a dance party inside of you. It was completely crazy. So I am tired. It's strangely accurate. I've got to give Skylar some credit there. That's what it feels like.
Anyway, I got a strange press request today. Blake Neff is now entering the fray. He's speaking to reporters and wants everyone to know that I'm just jealous of Erika. How is he a real person? That's what I want to know. I want to know how Blake Neff exists. What are the laws here governing society? How are you a real person? This feels made up. It feels cartoonish. It's so teenage. Would you say everybody's jealous of Erika? Anybody that critiques her — Shawn Ryan, Joe Rogan — this is the consensus? Is everyone just jealous? It's like Mean Girls or something.
They are also now pushing the same talking point that I'm somehow working in coordination with or in support of the aims of Hasan, because don't I realize that Charlie died so that we could blame the left — absent any positive evidence — and just unite the party behind the death? It is unimaginably dark that they keep repeating this talking point without realizing what it actually conveys.
Anyway, I have a surprise for you. Got to get you through this hump day with some more footage. So welcome back to Candace.
The Arya Stark analogy
Okay, you know what I realized? For those of you who watched Game of Thrones — where are my Game of Thrones people? I'm so shocked when people say they didn't watch it. It was very good. Maybe not the ending, but a lot of it. I basically relate to the Arya Stark character. I'm going to briefly describe her broadly speaking.
Game of Thrones is about warring kingdoms led by leaders from different realms with all different kinds of personalities — from clinical psychopaths and murderers to honorable households — all competing to be the ruler of the seven kingdoms. Spoiler alert ahead. I mean, you've had decades to watch it, so I don't feel bad. Arya Stark is from the household that conducts matters fairly — the household you root for. There's no tricking and scheming and plotting to try to get to the top. At the beginning of the series, she's just this happy kid who goes through a lot. Her family, while she is on the way there, is attending a wedding in a neighboring kingdom. It's supposed to be a night of celebration that turns into an absolute slaughter. Just as she arrives, her mother and her brother and his pregnant bride — everyone gets locked into this dining hall and murdered. Arya manages to escape. You have to imagine how that messed a young Arya up, watching her brother being paraded around, beheaded, after being betrayed. That's fantasy. This is real life.
Anyway, this reshapes her destiny, her entire purpose. While every other character throughout the series is fixated on becoming the ruler of the seven kingdoms via politics and deceit, Arya has this one-track mind to avenge what happened that night against the liars who lie about everything for power. Arya is basically focused because great acts of evil should not just be forgotten about. That's the theme of her character. You shouldn't just move on when innocent people are murdered. I resonate with that.
Terrell Farnsworth's lies — recap and new context
Anyway, yesterday I demonstrated to you all that Terrell Farnsworth lied to me. That's just a fact. He lied to me about not knowing how to send a clip — crazy that he even said that — and also about a fear that Google was going to hack him. Double lie. And that hurts me because I came into that conversation so genuinely. I thought: once I speak to him, I can clarify matters for people, because I know who that is. He's been on Charlie's team for ten years, and he'll clear this up, and then I'll use my platform to explain to everyone what actually happened.
I should also tell you that after I had that strange conversation with him and didn't feel good about it, I repeatedly expressed that to Andrew Kolvet in the days that followed — because I trusted Andrew Kolvet at that time — and I said to him explicitly: you guys should just release that back footage. I don't understand. Now that I've seen it and there's no gore, what is the issue with just releasing the back footage? Remove suspicion. Why live with the public wrongly believing that you had anything to do with the assassination if you quite literally hold the means to dispel those rumors? I would have released that footage so quickly. Same day. The footage is already going around. This is not gory. Here you go.
Sadly, Andrew told me that they couldn't because of law enforcement. Here is a text chain from September 24th. I said something I can't get off my mind is why was Terrell there hovering around Charlie? I've literally never done any campus event where Terrell was just hovering behind us like that. It's just so odd to me that he's there and constantly hovering. He came back and said, "I have zero concern about Terrell. He's done that at a lot of events. He usually starts the tour seasons to make sure they are well set up." That seems to us to have been new, as we went back and looked at footage. Certainly not in any tour I've been on.
I said back to him: I don't get why not just release the footage then. It's just such nonsense not to release the footage and clear your name. If the whole world suspected that I was implicated in a crime and I had literal video footage that could clear my name, I would immediately release it. I don't get the logic. And he said that's in the purview of law enforcement.
Again, it's difficult for me to imagine accepting a scenario where I would not just release — or at the very least attempt to leak — footage that would clear my name. Could you imagine? It's like: I literally have footage that shows I didn't do this thing, and law enforcement is saying, "Yeah, but don't release that." Why would they say that? Also, what right would the federal government or responding officers in Utah have to your personal property outside of a warrant? Everyone was posting clips from their phones. Everyone was recording that day. That's actually how we all watched Charlie's final moments — people were recording it. A police officer can't just go up to you and say, "Your phone is now in the purview of law enforcement." They can certainly ask you to share the footage willingly, and you can and should comply with that if it's helpful to find a criminal. I know I would. I'd say, "Yeah, here you go. How can I help? I want to help solve this." They can't demand it without a warrant. Am I missing something here?
The October surprise — new footage of Farnsworth and the laptop
Anyway, yesterday we showed you that Terrell pocketed that SD card. We were all wondering what he did with it. He pocketed it before he began texting on his phone — his mannerisms, looking around. It's hard to forget that he is the first one who declared Charlie is dead, and then within four to five minutes he's around the bend, got it in his pocket, texting.
Well, today we can share with you my very own October surprise. I call it an October surprise because I've had it since October. I've been interested in Terrell since October — since September, when I spoke to him and it just felt off. Like I said, there were good guys in government working behind the scenes. And what I learned is that after he pocketed that SD card, he then pretty immediately opened up his laptop. And apparently — in my opinion, that's what I observed with my eyes — he sticks the SD card in. For what reason, I don't know. But I'll let you make up your own mind.
For those of you listening on audio: here is Terrell. He's bending down and opening his laptop and certainly sticking something into his laptop as he turns on his computer. He's reaching for his phone. He's texting with somebody. And yes, some people might be noting that Lane Shamber is on the side washing his hands. That makes sense. He did help carry Charlie into the car, so he's likely just getting blood off his hands as any person would after that. But you see Terrell — again he's texting, he picks up the laptop — and what happens thereafter is he sits facing the other direction and continues on his laptop, doing what, I don't know.
As I said, he's the first to declare that Charlie is dead because he says he was right there and that was likely going to be the conclusion. Okay, I accept that. He then immediately goes to grab an SD card — one SD card — which goes into his pocket, then races to his laptop. This is all happening within ten minutes of Charlie getting hit. Ten minutes of Charlie getting hit, according to my source in government, which I trust. I've trusted this person for a while.
Does any of that feel normal to you? Filming yourself running, securing particularly the SD card from behind Charlie's head, looking both ways, putting it in your pocket, grabbing your laptop, and allegedly — it looks to be — putting that SD card into that laptop. Why? You've secured it. We were told by Andrew that he was doing this because people can be evil. Okay. Why do you need to get on your laptop? It's in your pocket. Why can't you just hand that over to the police? If it's evidence and you're trying to be helpful, just hand the SD card over to the police. They were there.
That is the Turning Point USA narrative — that he was just grabbing SD cards to secure the evidence — but he had already secured it. Why do we now need a laptop? Law enforcement, I would like to stress, they know how to use an SD card. The feds know how to use an SD card. The SBI knows how to use an SD card. The local police, the UVU, everybody knows how to use an SD card. I can guarantee you that.
It's not for me to decide the why. I'm just being transparent. My goal is just transparency. Now, were I Andrew Kolvet, I would be upset that Terrell perhaps misrepresented his aims. I'd also maybe like to know why he appears to be so nervous, who he's texting as he keeps doing this — it's just a lot of texting in between. We can infer. You could say: is somebody telling him what to do? Grab that camera. Do this. Upload it. We can ask questions. Is Andrew Kolvet going to ask questions? I'm going to imagine that Andrew won't be too bothered by it at all. He's going to instead issue another round of attacks on me. That's my guess.
The stepped-over camera — selective evidence collection
But the reality is that we were told there was nothing special about the camera behind Charlie's head. And I would argue that there clearly was — so special, in fact, that I'm now going to demonstrate something I didn't catch earlier. Terrell actually steps over the camera which was designated to capture the crowd — the camera that was being operated behind Charlie, kind of on that little turntable — to get to the camera behind Charlie's head. I hadn't realized this before.
So remember we had shown you this camera diagram just to give you a visual. We have the red camera behind his head and the yellow one. I want to point that one out. That camera — the yellow one — is going to fall. Pay attention to it. It goes down right after Charlie is taken away. It sort of just gets knocked. And according to Terrell's 1102 statement, we know that that camera was filming the audience, in particular the individuals asking questions. So it's going to fall to the ground.
When Terrell appears approximately three minutes later to take the SD card from the camera behind Charlie's head, he steps over the yellow camera and therefore steps over its SD card, and then he disappears behind the tent. It's on the floor. It's right there. You see him take the camera down and just step right over it.
So if Andrew's narrative is that he was concerned about grabbing the SD cards, why did he step over and leave that one and take the one behind Charlie's head, which certainly wasn't facing center? Why not just grab them both right there? Boom. Boom. Worried about people stealing particularly these SD cards? Okay, grab them both back to back. Grab all three right in that moment. He didn't do that. I feel these are fair questions.
And for clarity, because it cannot be overstated enough: all we are seeking are clear answers from the organization that Charlie built. We are not asking for people to be harassed, even though they are seeding the narrative and asking their media friends to put out articles calling me some kind of digital assassin for sharing the truth, which they claim to want. No, we don't want anybody to get hurt. We just want you guys to be honest.
Public accountability and Erika Kirk's uncorrected statement
I also want to say this. Public lies — or let's assume they aren't lies, let's say they are just honest mistakes with no ill intent — they still need to be addressed publicly. They deserve to be treated with the same public attention, the same public accountability, especially from an organization that exists as a charity. They rely upon our goodwill.
As an example: when Erika Kirk publicly stated with confidence on Glenn Beck's show that Charlie was not sending text messages the night before signaling that he was worried he was going to be killed, it then becomes incumbent upon Erika herself to correct the record publicly when we learn that that isn't true. That's how you build goodwill with the public. Take accountability. When we make honest mistakes on this show, we always own them. We always correct them as immediately as we have more information, and as publicly as when we first asserted them.
When it comes to Turning Point USA, it just feels like we're being perpetually gaslit. We're offered a biblical proverb. How dare you even ask us to explain why what we told you before is completely inconsistent with what we're saying now. They're just suggesting that we're evil for noticing these various inconsistencies and illogical points that are being presented by them.
Innocent until proven guilty — Tyler Robinson and the death penalty
Why does it need reminding, but in this country it is innocent until proven guilty. So why does it seem that Turning Point USA and their representatives and their affiliates are so hellbent on sending a 22-year-old young man to his death? He's up for the death sentence. Why are they bringing influencers into the courtroom? Why are they, as Blake Neff has done repeatedly, completely misrepresenting court filings to the public in order to assert that Tyler Robinson is guilty?
This is a tweet from just this morning from Blake Neff. He's already been community noted on it for its intentional misrepresentation. He just lies and misrepresents, and we're the bad guys for noticing that he's doing it.
This is what the tweet read. He wrote: "Utah prosecutors have responded to Tyler Robinson's defense filing ahead of the final preliminary hearing and confirm what observers pointed out about that filing. The defense is very conspicuously not contesting any of the core evidence showing Tyler Robinson committed the murder. They don't contest the camera footage, the DNA, the rifle, the cause of death, or Tyler's phone data. All they have is a complaint about reliable hearsay, which won't apply at the full trial anyway, and then attacks on the aggravating factors. If there was any merit at all to any of the theories that Candace and them have pushed the last 11 months, why didn't the defense bring them up?"
And he was community noted before I could even reply, because it's stunning to me that he thinks he can get away with this. The community note says: preliminary hearings decide only probable cause under the Utah 112 standard. Reliable hearsay is allowed. Defense counsel often skip alternative theories to avoid previewing their strategy before the trial. Silence does not prove that those theories lack merit. That is correct.
Explaining how preliminary hearings work
And I'm going to explain this thoroughly, because maybe you're a person who isn't involved in lawsuits. That's what Blake Neff is banking on when he lies. That's what they're banking on when they take stuff from these filings and present it to the public — they're hoping the public doesn't know anything about how legal filings work.
Preliminary hearings are not about discovering guilt or innocence. They are about arguing whether or not the filing itself is defective. Is there something wrong with this filing that means I don't even have to argue? The prosecution comes in and states: here is what I say he did. In the Tyler Robinson case, here are the seven charges which we think we have enough evidence to move forward with. The defense then takes a look and says: wait a minute, three of these charges are so ludicrous on their face that the courts should just readily dismiss them from this filing without us even wasting time or money having to respond to them. That's what a filing to dismiss means. If you're the defense, you're saying to the judge: your honor, I shouldn't even be forced to waste money responding to this filing in part or in whole because it's defective. And you, your honor, based on the current laws on the books, have it within your capacity to just outright dismiss this.
I can give you an example you'll recall because we were on top of it — the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni legal saga. Initially Blake Lively sued with 13 causes of action against Justin Baldoni. The next step is Justin Baldoni filing for a dismissal. The court came back and decided: yes, Justin, you're correct that 10 of these causes of action are inactionable. They're defective, and I'm therefore going to outright dismiss them before we even go to trial. So in theory, if they had not settled, Blake and Justin would have been left arguing just three of the charges.
Same with me and Brian Harpole. He filed a lawsuit. We went over it. It carried a long series of claims. We don't want to argue every single one of these claims. Some of them are just ridiculous. We filed our dismissal — I went through them with you and said, "This is ridiculous. This is ridiculous. This doesn't make sense." As just one example of one of the things he's accusing me of: we went back and said, "Hey, your honor, some of these claims are wrong. You have it within your capacity to look at current laws on the books — one being that opinion is protected speech." He's suing me for saying I found his interview with Shawn Ryan to be unconvincing. That's my constitutional right to think. I'm not arguing with him about that. That's what I'm saying to the judge. I don't want to argue with this guy about this. Can we just get rid of this? I don't want to spend money having to write a response to that. And so the judge will look at that and say yes or no.
We're not arguing the substance of the case yet. We're dealing with perceived defects in the filing itself that we believe the magistrate can take a look at and get rid of what's essentially junk. Every single case, whether civil or criminal, has this stage. So when people online say, "Oh my gosh, Candace filed a dismissal" — did you read it? Obviously we don't want to argue all of these things that are just fundamentally defective. I'm saying to the court: she's not even supposed to be here. And you have a judge acting as a magistrate to look at that.
So I want you to know that they are intentionally lying and misrepresenting when they say this. We have not heard anything from Tyler Robinson's defense about the text messages at this stage, and we are not supposed to. So we again have to ask the question: why do they do this? Why, if the evidence is truly so overwhelming that influencers were practically passing out outside the courthouse from the overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson is guilty — why do they need to continually misrepresent the filings?
Why does it seem to the public that Andrew Wilson was actually sent here to try to entrap me into a defamation lawsuit? The language, his face, the way he was trying to fill in the blanks on what I could mean when I said "complicit." Why are they intent on punishing the public — and me — for noticing? We all simultaneously got that feeling that this debate wasn't actually about debating the case. It was about tricking me — in many ways, for about an hour and a half — like they needed me to clearly accuse Erika of killing her husband, because they know I've never actually done that. They wanted to get me to say, "When you said complicit, you meant straight to jail." They're seemingly also working with journalists to try to get that narrative out there so they can point to an article in a lawsuit and say, "See, this article — even though we were kind of behind it — shows that most people thought Candace was accusing Erika of killing her husband."
That is factually false, and she knows that's factually false. I've been very clear. I think she is wrong. I think what she has done to the organization has been abysmal. I think it betrays Charlie's legacy. She's partnering with his enemies. I think she is certainly complicit in helping to seed the narrative that Tyler Robinson is guilty before we even got to the probative hearing. The Vice President, I also said, was complicit in that when he was on stage at Turning Point USA talking about Tyler Robinson. You're the Vice President. How does that not sway the jury? How are you allowed to do that? Do you not believe that people should be innocent until proven guilty?
If everybody hates our Constitution all of a sudden, it's pretty clear. The rule is you are innocent until you are proven guilty. And at the moment, I think a lot of people are wondering why an organization which purports to carry on the legacy of conservative politics is suddenly so staunchly averse to that — so staunchly averse to the idea that maybe he could be innocent. Why does that make them angry?
Trump's Fox & Friends statement corroborates Mike Mitchell's role
One of the things I think we have demonstrated on this show is that a lot of people rushed to establish narratives that they just won't let go of, even with overwhelming evidence that they're not true. This early narrative that Tyler Robinson's parents turned him in, that Tyler Robinson's parents thought he was guilty — they have not produced any proof of that. I made a great effort to explain to Andrew Wilson where he got that from, and how at that stage reliable hearsay was being allowed as they wrote up the charging document. But we cannot tell from the charging document — which seems to be the basis for all of those rumors — whether or not they heard that from Mike Mitchell, this character we have told you about, who seems to be the one quarterbacking everything against Tyler Robinson. The family friend who Sheriff Brooksby said called him saying that Tyler Robinson was the guy. And then we have Mike Mitchell being the one who went over to the parents' house.
Well, somebody on X actually surfaced this, and I had not realized it. I had told you guys I had a source within the Robinson family orbit who was very clear that it was not true, that Matt Robinson did not think his son was guilty, that Mike Mitchell was the person who quarterbacked a lot of this, and that things were being intentionally misrepresented in the media.
Well, this person pointed me to something on X: Trump actually told the truth. Trump went on Fox & Friends in the immediate aftermath of Tyler Robinson being arrested and explained to the public exactly what we have been saying — that Mike Mitchell was the one who recognized Tyler Robinson from the stairwell photo, and then, as we said, he is the one who contacted the parents. And who knows what happened thereafter. Maybe he showed the mom and said, "Don't you think it kind of looks like him?" and the mom said yes. And then when he later wrote his statement, he said something like, "I showed this to Amber Robinson and she said it could be him." And that's what they then used in their charging document, which was signed off by Brian Davis. That is all a plausibility. We don't know at this juncture.
But I do want to show you what Trump said. Take a listen.
Donald Trump: "Somebody that's close recognizes even a little tilt of the head, which nobody else would do. And somebody that was very close to him said, 'That's him.'"
"And essentially went to the father, went to a US Marshal — who was fantastic, by the way — and the person was involved with law enforcement but was a person of faith, a minister."
He's describing Mike Mitchell. Mike Mitchell is not just a boy scout leader. He's not just a former undercover police officer — and all the evidence points to the fact that he did work undercover in sex crimes, which is a running theme in this story. He is also a minister at the Mormon church. It was him that recognized Tyler Robinson and got the ball rolling, which I have been saying from the beginning.
And they just keep coming out with a narrative saying, "Oh, that's not true. It's the mom. It's the dad." And I'm going, if mom and dad turned him in, why didn't they just sign a statement? Why wouldn't they present this at the preliminary hearing? If they're putting on their case at the preliminary hearing, they could just go, "And here we have her on camera saying that her son is guilty, or Matt Robinson saying that his son is guilty. He brought him in." They just keep lying about this. It doesn't make any sense to me. Are we to believe that Trump didn't have solid information when he presented that? Clearly he did. He knew all the facts about who Mike Mitchell was and what his contribution was to this story. And I had not even seen that, and I had told you guys this exact same narrative. So I did want to point that out to you, because it's just a fact of this case that they keep continuing to lie about and severely misrepresenting.
Responding to the claim that Owens is helping the left
I also see that they are now pushing this idea that I am united with Hasan. He is a streamer on the left, and apparently — I learn in this clip I'm about to show you — Blake Neff tweeted this as their new line of attack against me.
Here's what Blake Neff wrote: "Hasan is openly celebrating Candace Owens, calling her a queen because she single-handedly undermined the effort to martyrize Charlie to go after the violent radical left. Hasan says that Tyler Robinson probably did it, but my heart says go Candace, go, because she is helping the left so much. The radical pro-violence left knows exactly what a gift Candace and her ilk are to them."
Okay. I would like to have you hear what Hasan actually said, and I would like to respond to this, since they're all pushing it around. We're supposed to accept the fed slop of left versus right. And again, you're going to hear him say that I've had him blocked for years. So it's even more ridiculous that they're trying to allude to some partnership between me and Hasan. Take a listen.
Hasan: "I can't speak out against this queen, because this is a queen that successfully and single-handedly undermined the Republican initiative to martyrize Charlie Kirk and use that example to crack down on political dissent. She dropped a grenade on the discourse. So I'm with her. It's hard. It's hard for me. My brain says, 'No, it's probably Tyler Robinson.' But my heart says, 'Go Candace, go, keep cooking.' Does that make sense? I can't like her tweets because she blocked me many, many years ago — this is before she became our hero. Many, many years ago, Candace Owens blocked me. I've not been a fan of Candace Owens. I am a fan now."
Candace Owens: I'm not exactly sure what I am supposed to have a problem with. And this is kind of the running theme of what we are seeing in Brandy Zadrozny's article — that essentially they are saying Candace ruined an opportunity to pin this on the left, however wrongly, to unite the Republican Party, to create this sort of Republican initiative to just start attacking the left, however wrongly. It doesn't really matter. After Republicans were kind of fractured — because people on the right actually care about pedophilia, the Epstein files mattered, and we weren't accepting this idea of "get focused, midterms are around the corner, ignore the Epstein files" — we said no. We are not going to ignore children being harmed. We're not going to see ourselves as just Trump supporters who should be supporting him no matter what.
Everyone around him constantly said: as soon as we get in there, here's what we're going to do with the Epstein files. Kash Patel's administration was running on something that we cared about. This is what they're essentially saying. They're saying, "You ruined an opportunity to, however wrongly, have us unite around Charlie's death and stomp out the left for something that they didn't actually do."
Now, here's what I'm going to say and offer back to the left. All I did here was pursue truth. I didn't do this for the left. I didn't do this for the right. I did this for my friend Charlie Kirk because I want to know who actually killed him. And I am not convinced this had anything to do with LGBTQ rights. If I was convinced of that, I would certainly be the biggest voice against it. I think you guys probably know that.
But I want you to remember this, because this is not the first time — as what Hasan is describing — we had an event that could potentially, I'll say allegedly, be coordinated by the feds, which was meant to cause a left-right war. Here is your homework, Hasan: look into what actually happened on January 6th. You took the bait. The left took the bait. That was a different world. In 2021, we were all more divided. I count myself among that as well. But none of us were willing to take a look at the facts. We were going, "Oh, I'm team left or I'm team right." And as more and more has come out about what transpired on that day, it was without question an opportunity for us to look up and see who rules over us and who benefits from that. People were wrongly arrested — people who were encouraged to go into the Capitol on that day.
If we're all seeing now for the first time that there is an effort by a minority — a very powerful minority who doesn't actually care about left or right — to seize power from citizens full stop, by allowing something terrible to take place and then saying, "Here's what we must get done, here's what we must pass," à la 9/11, then we both — both sides, so to speak — need to do our job and be realistic about it.
So I'm not anybody's hero or anybody's queen. I am somebody who cares deeply about what happened on September 10th because my friend was killed and I have the sense that we are being lied to about it, particularly by the federal government. I feel the federal government is lying to us, and I refuse to accept that it is my duty to blame it on the left if the left didn't do it. The left does plenty of things that they've been caught doing, and I've used my platform to go after them. I have no issue doing that. I'll do that tomorrow if that is the circumstance. If they're doing something radical and wrong, I'll do that. But I'm not just going to become a cheerleader for the right and know that they are engaged in something very wrong and say, "Well, it's okay because at least they vote Republican at the end of the day." That's nonsense.
All of us need to raise ourselves above that sort of discourse in the future. And I think it's actually happening. There is something that I would say is a positive that has come out of this. I don't think anybody would have thought that Charlie Kirk would be a uniter. Certainly not me. He and I were both staunchly conservative, staunchly Republican. I am still conservative. I have issues with calling myself Republican. I just don't care about politics, because watching Republicans get behind this absolutely sloppy narrative and trying to force-feed it upon us makes me sick. I just think there's so much corruption and there is Satanism on both sides — Democrats and Republicans — a minor few who rule over us and constantly feed us slop and go, "Oh, look, they've never been more violent. Oh, look, they've never been more violent." That's what I want to basically say about that.
The "Where Forbidden" Matrix parody
I do want to show you before we go to break this clip from the Where Forbidden account, which is just making me laugh so much. It's obviously a play on the Matrix. Take a listen.
Where Forbidden video: "This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You can go full — so they can see this. You take the blue pill and you can just keep saying 'so what.' You take the red pill, you learn everything about the Tyler Robinson case. So what? So what? So what? Positive evidence. So what? So what? Appeal to emotion. So what? Burden of proof. So what? So what? So what? Appeal to emotion. Burden of proof. Positive evidence. Positive evidence. Positive evidence. Positive evidence. So what? So what? Appeal to emotion. So what? Stop. That's it. That's all I have to say. Stop."
Candace Owens: Just fantastic work coming from Where Forbidden. Unbelievable talent. I just absolutely love it. I'm laughing so hard at all of these. I just need to share it and give him full credit. Again, that is @whereforbidden on X. He's also definitely on Instagram as well.
Top comments from yesterday's episode
All right, top comments from yesterday's episode.
Dance teacher Leslie writes: "Sounds like Terrell Farnsworth could be guilty of evidence tampering and obstruction of justice."
I will say I don't know that. I cannot assert that. I can just show everyone what happened and weigh it against the comments that were made by Andrew. I could definitely say he's guilty of lying to Candace. I'd be interested to hear Andrew's follow-up to this. Terrell could argue it was his property, he can do whatever he wants with it, and he can decide what he wants to hand over to the feds or to the FBI. I don't really know. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in Utah law. But like I said, I have established that there were just a lot of lies told early on, and I can't fathom why. Why lie and say you're not comfortable because you think Google's going to hack you, when you had already sent a Google link to the FBI? Why pretend that you don't know how to send a big file when you had already sent that Google link over eight days earlier? That doesn't make sense to me.
Andaie writes: "If the camera is pointing down, it would show the men handling Charlie Kirk when he fell to the ground. It would show what they did, and it would show Charlie's shirt and what might be under it. It might even catch audio of what they said to each other."
That is my thinking. I think that is why the footage was really important. I don't think that footage mattered so much otherwise. As Nissi demonstrated in her videos, that is precisely what would have been captured. And I'd be interested to know if that footage ever made its way to the FBI when it was on the flash drive, or if they were only presented with a portion zoomed in. I even noted that all of the cameras stopped running at around the 26-minute mark. If you look at his statement, it tells you how long the videos that he gave were, and all of them are 26 minutes plus some seconds, except for one which is 23 minutes. I'm wondering if it's that camera — that there was a three-minute clip generated out of that portion. I don't know. Just thinking and trying to put things together like the rest of you.
Cameron Buyer writes: "Pray for the truth to be revealed soon. Every day pray for the truth to be revealed." I have kept that prayer since September 10th.
Jelina writes: "Sending much love and positive vibes from Croatia. You and your family should totally visit. I love you and appreciate you so much and I'm wishing you all the best. Go Max."
I've been to Croatia. Actually lived there for a couple of months randomly in Dubrovnik back when I worked in private equity. It's a long story, but I loved Dubrovnik. I've loved Croatia.
Dolof Flexing writes: "I'm officially a fan. I don't remember how I came across you on YouTube, but I'm glad I did when I was working the night shift. I must confess I did miss a few episodes for about a month or two, but I'm officially a fan. I'll be purchasing merch very soon."
Slap writes: "Regarding Andrew Wilson, I used to be a big fan of Andrew and then I saw the debate that he did on Charlie's shooting before Candace, and I had never seen that side of him before. He didn't make sensible arguments like I was used to. I then realized that he was bought, and it's sad to watch."
Yeah, I've heard several people say this. I even did Dave Smith's show yesterday. A lot of people keep saying this — like, he knows how to debate, he's normally a formidable debater. That shocks me, because he was so terrible. And that's what happens if you're non-committal and you are doing it because someone's behind you and giving you money. That's a really fast way to lose. You have to actually think you can win it based on merit, not based on gotchas and out-of-context clips and trying to entrap people into a lawsuit. It's unfortunate if he was actually once a good debater and this is what happened because he sold out.
Joshua Steves writes: "Are we ever going to talk about how Bibi Netanyahu is probably dead?"
I don't think he is. I think when all that stuff was happening, he was probably hiding and being a coward and using AI. That's what it seemed like to me. I haven't explored that theory. I tried to limit my intake on Bibi Netanyahu because he's positively maddening.
Zamit writes: "Calling on all Americans to join Candace Owens in the resistance to the fed slop incorporated and its franchises." Thank you very much. I like that call to action.
Dear Libby writes: "I am just inferring, but was 'legal pickle' an Easter egg? Were you playing Taylor Swift's game when you said you're not going to get yourself in a legal pickle?"
That means you can't open me up to putting myself into a lawsuit, which they have just been so heavily implying they want to do. It's so pathetic. I showed you guys all the Sandy Hook references. Everybody is speaking about what happened with the Charlie Kirk case. They want to make an example out of me so people stop thinking. If Turning Point USA really takes that step, we'll deal with it when it comes. But I don't think that's going to put the conspiracies to bed. The world is much more up to date and speaking about the details of the Charlie Kirk case than they ever were about Sandy Hook. It was not global. People didn't follow that, and people are really following the Charlie Kirk case. So if their means is to publicly hang someone with the full support of the federal government, I'd caution against it. But I'd caution against everything that Turning Point USA has done since Charlie's assassination.
90 Elizabeth writes: "Did Andrew Wilson release the proof text yet? It's been three days. Or did he lose the SIM card in the phone that he had the proof in?"
He is teasing it out for a big Friday show or something because he wants a bunch of people to pay him behind the paywall. Obviously, don't do that. That's obviously a trap. Somebody will just post it on the internet and you'll be able to see it for free. I'm giddy about that. I won't be one of the people watching, but I can't wait until it gets posted by one of his fans as the proof that I was telling the truth and somehow being punished for that publicly. It's vindication, I guess — sweet vindication for me — or something. That's what they're working on. That's what they're cooking up next.